Dhāt of Allah present in heavens and earth
- Thread starter Aqdas
- Start date
abu Hasan
Administrator
it is absurd. jahalat. and explicitly out of ahl al-sunnah. it appears this author does not know basic aqidah of islam. practically, contradicts every tafsir and aqidah text of sunnis.
whoever wrote those lines about is ignorant of arabic, tafsir and kalam.
this is blatantly against the aqidah of ahl al-sunnah; and worse than the salafi tajsim. the salafi says that Allah is in the 'heavens'. this author goes further and says, Allah is also present in the earth - upending every explanation of hadith jariyah!
shocking to the say the least. i read various pages prior to and after this page, and i regret to inform that the author is immensely ignorant of the tafsir of the qur'an. the level of ignorance is stupendous.
this author repeatedly tries to prove that 'Allah ta'ala is present in the earth "bi'dh-dhaat". and presents umpteen 'evidences' which are actually, meant to indicate figurative nearness.
astaghfirullah.
---
i am aware that he is some big name - but we are sunnis, not deobandis. prima facie, that is dangerous aqidah and should be called out without hesitation.
Allah ta'ala is free from space and time. all those verses that translate to nearness, or 'being along with' do not indicate physical proximity or physical presence. rather His being present means that His Knowledge and His Power encompass the heavens and the earth.
wa ma alayna illa'l balagh.
whoever wrote those lines about is ignorant of arabic, tafsir and kalam.
this is blatantly against the aqidah of ahl al-sunnah; and worse than the salafi tajsim. the salafi says that Allah is in the 'heavens'. this author goes further and says, Allah is also present in the earth - upending every explanation of hadith jariyah!
shocking to the say the least. i read various pages prior to and after this page, and i regret to inform that the author is immensely ignorant of the tafsir of the qur'an. the level of ignorance is stupendous.
this author repeatedly tries to prove that 'Allah ta'ala is present in the earth "bi'dh-dhaat". and presents umpteen 'evidences' which are actually, meant to indicate figurative nearness.
astaghfirullah.
---
i am aware that he is some big name - but we are sunnis, not deobandis. prima facie, that is dangerous aqidah and should be called out without hesitation.
Allah ta'ala is free from space and time. all those verses that translate to nearness, or 'being along with' do not indicate physical proximity or physical presence. rather His being present means that His Knowledge and His Power encompass the heavens and the earth.
wa ma alayna illa'l balagh.
Last edited by a moderator:
He rahimahullah definitely used very poor wording but he doesn't mean that, on the pages before, and after the clearly denies this notion. He is refuting wahabi aqidah of Allah Tala's being on Arsh which will entail having body and distance; so, how come he can affirm His Subhanu wa Ta'ala being within skies and on earth, while the Arsh is bigger than the skies and earth. We cannot take it as literal, what is misleading is the usage of "bi'dh-dhaat", but he really doesn't mean physical presence, this is very obvious from his other statements.
Shaykh Abu Hasan says he's read various pages prior to and after it. Very sad to see.
I have noticed outright anthropomorphism in many speeches; naats, qawwalis.
So many people even think that "la makan" just refers to another place.
Or thinking that Allah is a light and Prophet Muhammad is literally a part of Allah's light.
I think he's refuting the wahabis for saying Allah is on the arsh by citing verses to prove Allah is not on the arsh but on the earth!
I actually don't think his issue is Allah being on the arsh per se but that he believes Allah is somewhere but not the arsh. So his refutation isn't of Allah being in a place but of what place!
abu Hasan
Administrator
then why do people consider him a sunni aalim?
making up own views and interpretations in basic aqidah of Allah ta'ala is downright jahalat and iftiraa' ala Allah. i am willing to change my mind, if someone can give me a convincing ta'weel of this nonsense.
---
in other words, the man didn't understand the wahabi belief or sunni objection/refutation of that belief.
the wahabi/salafi says that Allah is on the throne. the sunni belief is that Allah is transcendent from being on the throne or 'in' or 'within' the sky or heavens or earth or anything else. the belief of the author of the book below is that not only Allah is on the throne, He is also present "bidh'Dhat" on the earth and gives dozens of examples for this repugnant belief - just adding a meaningless phrase: 'bila kam o kayf'.
this is like a christian saying: there are three gods but they are all one.
merely playing with words doesn't make a sound argument. when you say 'biz-zaat' what is the point of 'bila kam o kayf'? if he had said, "He is present bila kayf" it would be perfectly alright. but look at the examples he has given repeating ad nauseum the phrase: "biz zaat mawjud hai zameen par" /"exists in this very earth His Own Self". astaghfirullah. clearly he doesn't understand the meaning of the verses and hadith, nor the argument to refute wahabis, NOR the implication of his ridiculous arguments.
abu Hasan
Administrator
the fundamental belief of a muslim is that Allah taala exists - and His existence is transcendent from space, place, time and direction. the reason ulama refuted the anthropomorphic belief: that Allah ta'ala "sits on the Throne" - ta'ala Allahu uluwwan kabeera - is that the Throne is makhluq and exists in the constraints of space and time - if He were to 'sit' 'establish' whatever they (anthropomorphists) claim its meaning to be, it would require Allah ta'ala to be in space and time.
transcendent is He from space, time, place or direction.
----
when the dhat of Allah ta'ala is unknown, and impossible for us to know - insisting that He is present with His dhat on the earth is kufr.
transcendent is He from space, time, place or direction.
----
when the dhat of Allah ta'ala is unknown, and impossible for us to know - insisting that He is present with His dhat on the earth is kufr.
Tariq Owaisi
sunniport user
Could he be defending/trying to establish a form of wahdatul wujud and at the same time refuting sitting on the throne?
That would explain a lot if true
abu Hasan
Administrator
to refute 'sitting' on the throne, he tries to prove that He was present on the mountain where musa 'alayhi's salam went to 'meet' Him.
this is no explanation of wahdatu'l wujud. this is a statement of wujud bi'z zat on earth. al-iyadhu billah.
abu Hasan
Administrator
take this example:
------------------
the author titles this section:
"meeting Allah on the earth; whoever denies it is a kafir"
among the proofs he presents is this aayat from surah al-naml: v7-9 (the book says al-naHl which is an obvious mistake).
---
-----------
a summarised translation of the above: sayyiduna musa alayhi's salam said: "i see a fire. perhaps, i can bring some information or bring for you a glowing ember (to light a fire) and you can warm yourselves." when he came near it, he was told: "blessed is he, who has come near the fire (i.e. hazrat musa) and are around it (the angels). glory be to Allah, the Lord-Sustainer of the universe." "O musa! indeed, I am Allah, the Subduer, the Wise."
=============
now the author comments:
tell me o wahabis! hazrat musa alayhi's salam saw a light shining and he assumed that it was a fire and came to this place; and a voice came from this shining [light] that "I am Allah, the Powerful, the Wise". now tell me, that shining light on that mount Tur, from which the voice came: "I am Allah", was it Divine Light [khudawandi nur] or not?
If it were not so, musa alayhi's salam was a prophet of Allah. Allah would refute this and tell him: 'O musa! do not be deceived - this is not my manifestation [jalwah]". the Glorious Lord Almighty did not refute it. Rather kaleemullah (musa alayhi's salam) would come here repeatedly to speak to the Glorious Lord Almighty.
thus it is proven from this verse that the Glorious Lord Almighty is present on the earth with His Essence without how much or how [mawjudgi biz'zaat zameen par bila kam o kayf*].
hazrat musa heard the announcement: "I am Allah, the Powerful, the Wise" and accepted that Allah taala was present there with His Essence [khudawand e ta'ala ko wahan mawjud bi'z-zaat tasleem kar liya].
ALlah ta'ala wrote this incident in the Qur'an. All believers have faith in this - but you [wahabis] deny it.
it is thus proven that you wahabis hold a belief opposing Allah Almighty, the Qur'an, Prophets alayhimu's salam, awliya'Allah and all believers. your claim of being [pure] monotheists is a delusion, and Allah ta'ala has said regarding it: "they seek to deceive Allah and believers, but they deceive not except their own selves, and they do not realise".
[*bila kam o kayf = without ascription of how much and how. for some strange reason he keeps using this phrase.]
=============
pathetic reasoning in the passage above. yet this author is deemed a big munazir and i don't know why. this kind of reasoning keeps running throughout the book. perhaps standards have slipped so low, that people get lofty titles without actually deserving them. once again, this is not our major concern.
=============
MY COMMENTS:
according to the author, 'Allah WAS present with His Essence (bidh'dhaat) on the mount Toor' and denying it is kufr and opposed to the belief of muslims. and musa alayhi's salam went to Toor to meet him.
in other words:
"Allah was present in that place on Toor and spoke from that light"
"Musa alayhi's salam kept going there repeatedly to speak to Allah"
----
can't you see how absurd this is? in his bid to refute wahabi belief of 'sitting on the throne', because it confines Him to a place, the author brings Him down to the earth and confines Him to mount toor!
la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah. ma'adh ALlah. la ilaha illa'Allah.
----
he adds his own spin without any hesitation. he says:
which mufassir or muhaddith or kalam scholar said that "Allah ta'ala was present in that light on earth with His Essence [bidh'dhat]?
ta'ala Allahu `uluwwan kabeera.
yet he attributes this to Allah, His messengers, and other believers.
=====
next questions:
1. is He still present there or not? if not, why not? where did He go? if yes, why can't others find Him there?
2. if He is present with His Essence (bidh'dhat) on the earth - is it in specific places OR anywhere on earth? the author makes claims in other 'proofs' that he presents that "Allah is present with His Essence (bidh'dhat) with every mu'min". in which case, WHY did musa alayhi's salam have to go to the fire/light on Toor?
merely adding a disclaimer 'bila kam of kayf' doesn't absolve this anthropomorphic belief.
tell me how different it is from a hindu's/mushrik's statement: "God is present with His Essence (bidh'dhat) in my idols, bila kam o kayf [without how much and how]".
al iyadhu billah. laa ilaaha illa hu.
======
among other howlers is saying: "Allah wrote it in the qur'an" - the phrase 'kataba Allah' is used to mean, Allah ta'ala has ordained something; not the concept of 'writing in a book'. when it was not a book that came down in written form!
======
THE TAFSIR OF THIS VERSE
the 'fire' was only a bright light, a medium through which Allah ta'ala communicated to musa alayhi's salam. this does not mean that Allah was 'present' in that light. 'I am Allah' here means, it is Allah who is communicating with you - not that Allah IS in that light. preceding it with "sub'HanAllah", emphasizes on the transcendence of Allah [tanzih].
[summarised from tafsir qurtubi.]
----
imam razi's posits an interesting objection:
one can say: it is possible that this call could be from someone other than Allah; how did musa alayhi's salam know that [the call] was indeed from Allah?
there are two answers to this by the ahl al-sunnah:
1. he 'heard' a Speech that was free from letters and sounds* [the 'Communication'] and by necessity, he understood that it is an Attribute of Allah.
2. the scholars of ma-wara' al-nahr say that musa alayhi's salam actually heard a sound coming from the tree. and he understood that it was from Allah. there are three proofs for this argument:
[see tafsir kabir of imam razi, same verse]
** the verse does not say that hazrat musa 'heard a sound'. only: 'he was called'. this call [nidaa] could be without letters or sound. as we sometimes speak to ourselves in our heads, without articulation - this is speech without letters or sounds. Allah ta'ala knows best.
===================================
imam nasafi's explanation is: "I am Allah" - that is, the One who is communicating with you is Allah.
for an analogy [bila tashbih]: if someone calls you on the phone and the voice comes from the device and the person on the line says: "i am zayd". it is not that zayd is sitting in the device. zayd is only informing you that you are receiving this communication from zayd.
without claiming similitude, Allah ta'ala 'communicated' with musa via the shining bough in the tree.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
------------------
the author titles this section:
"meeting Allah on the earth; whoever denies it is a kafir"
among the proofs he presents is this aayat from surah al-naml: v7-9 (the book says al-naHl which is an obvious mistake).
---
-----------
a summarised translation of the above: sayyiduna musa alayhi's salam said: "i see a fire. perhaps, i can bring some information or bring for you a glowing ember (to light a fire) and you can warm yourselves." when he came near it, he was told: "blessed is he, who has come near the fire (i.e. hazrat musa) and are around it (the angels). glory be to Allah, the Lord-Sustainer of the universe." "O musa! indeed, I am Allah, the Subduer, the Wise."
=============
now the author comments:
tell me o wahabis! hazrat musa alayhi's salam saw a light shining and he assumed that it was a fire and came to this place; and a voice came from this shining [light] that "I am Allah, the Powerful, the Wise". now tell me, that shining light on that mount Tur, from which the voice came: "I am Allah", was it Divine Light [khudawandi nur] or not?
If it were not so, musa alayhi's salam was a prophet of Allah. Allah would refute this and tell him: 'O musa! do not be deceived - this is not my manifestation [jalwah]". the Glorious Lord Almighty did not refute it. Rather kaleemullah (musa alayhi's salam) would come here repeatedly to speak to the Glorious Lord Almighty.
thus it is proven from this verse that the Glorious Lord Almighty is present on the earth with His Essence without how much or how [mawjudgi biz'zaat zameen par bila kam o kayf*].
hazrat musa heard the announcement: "I am Allah, the Powerful, the Wise" and accepted that Allah taala was present there with His Essence [khudawand e ta'ala ko wahan mawjud bi'z-zaat tasleem kar liya].
ALlah ta'ala wrote this incident in the Qur'an. All believers have faith in this - but you [wahabis] deny it.
it is thus proven that you wahabis hold a belief opposing Allah Almighty, the Qur'an, Prophets alayhimu's salam, awliya'Allah and all believers. your claim of being [pure] monotheists is a delusion, and Allah ta'ala has said regarding it: "they seek to deceive Allah and believers, but they deceive not except their own selves, and they do not realise".
[*bila kam o kayf = without ascription of how much and how. for some strange reason he keeps using this phrase.]
=============
pathetic reasoning in the passage above. yet this author is deemed a big munazir and i don't know why. this kind of reasoning keeps running throughout the book. perhaps standards have slipped so low, that people get lofty titles without actually deserving them. once again, this is not our major concern.
=============
MY COMMENTS:
according to the author, 'Allah WAS present with His Essence (bidh'dhaat) on the mount Toor' and denying it is kufr and opposed to the belief of muslims. and musa alayhi's salam went to Toor to meet him.
in other words:
"Allah was present in that place on Toor and spoke from that light"
"Musa alayhi's salam kept going there repeatedly to speak to Allah"
----
can't you see how absurd this is? in his bid to refute wahabi belief of 'sitting on the throne', because it confines Him to a place, the author brings Him down to the earth and confines Him to mount toor!
la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah. ma'adh ALlah. la ilaha illa'Allah.
----
he adds his own spin without any hesitation. he says:
where and how did hazrat musa alayhi's salam say: bidh'dhat? or that he accepted that Allah ta'ala was present there on the mount? did umar icharwi get waHy?
which mufassir or muhaddith or kalam scholar said that "Allah ta'ala was present in that light on earth with His Essence [bidh'dhat]?
ta'ala Allahu `uluwwan kabeera.
yet he attributes this to Allah, His messengers, and other believers.
=====
next questions:
1. is He still present there or not? if not, why not? where did He go? if yes, why can't others find Him there?
2. if He is present with His Essence (bidh'dhat) on the earth - is it in specific places OR anywhere on earth? the author makes claims in other 'proofs' that he presents that "Allah is present with His Essence (bidh'dhat) with every mu'min". in which case, WHY did musa alayhi's salam have to go to the fire/light on Toor?
merely adding a disclaimer 'bila kam of kayf' doesn't absolve this anthropomorphic belief.
tell me how different it is from a hindu's/mushrik's statement: "God is present with His Essence (bidh'dhat) in my idols, bila kam o kayf [without how much and how]".
al iyadhu billah. laa ilaaha illa hu.
======
among other howlers is saying: "Allah wrote it in the qur'an" - the phrase 'kataba Allah' is used to mean, Allah ta'ala has ordained something; not the concept of 'writing in a book'. when it was not a book that came down in written form!
======
THE TAFSIR OF THIS VERSE
the 'fire' was only a bright light, a medium through which Allah ta'ala communicated to musa alayhi's salam. this does not mean that Allah was 'present' in that light. 'I am Allah' here means, it is Allah who is communicating with you - not that Allah IS in that light. preceding it with "sub'HanAllah", emphasizes on the transcendence of Allah [tanzih].
[summarised from tafsir qurtubi.]
----
imam razi's posits an interesting objection:
one can say: it is possible that this call could be from someone other than Allah; how did musa alayhi's salam know that [the call] was indeed from Allah?
there are two answers to this by the ahl al-sunnah:
1. he 'heard' a Speech that was free from letters and sounds* [the 'Communication'] and by necessity, he understood that it is an Attribute of Allah.
2. the scholars of ma-wara' al-nahr say that musa alayhi's salam actually heard a sound coming from the tree. and he understood that it was from Allah. there are three proofs for this argument:
2a) that the call coming from the fire or the tree, was supernatural and he understood it is from Allah because it is not possible for humans to do such. but this is a weak argument because one could refute it saying shaytan entered the fire or the tree and called out.
2b) the call itself was powerful and so great that it could only be a miracle. this is also a weak argument because we do not know of the strength and power of angels and devils, so we may rule out their presence.
2c) there was another miraculous occurrence that accompanied this call which validated the call [but is not mentioned in the text]. it is said, for example the tree was living, green and flourishing and in which the fire was blazing. this was a mu'jiz. and this is is the most correct opinion.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
2b) the call itself was powerful and so great that it could only be a miracle. this is also a weak argument because we do not know of the strength and power of angels and devils, so we may rule out their presence.
2c) there was another miraculous occurrence that accompanied this call which validated the call [but is not mentioned in the text]. it is said, for example the tree was living, green and flourishing and in which the fire was blazing. this was a mu'jiz. and this is is the most correct opinion.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
[see tafsir kabir of imam razi, same verse]
** the verse does not say that hazrat musa 'heard a sound'. only: 'he was called'. this call [nidaa] could be without letters or sound. as we sometimes speak to ourselves in our heads, without articulation - this is speech without letters or sounds. Allah ta'ala knows best.
===================================
imam nasafi's explanation is: "I am Allah" - that is, the One who is communicating with you is Allah.
for an analogy [bila tashbih]: if someone calls you on the phone and the voice comes from the device and the person on the line says: "i am zayd". it is not that zayd is sitting in the device. zayd is only informing you that you are receiving this communication from zayd.
without claiming similitude, Allah ta'ala 'communicated' with musa via the shining bough in the tree.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
this thread explains a lot....it explains where Tauqir Ishaq and the Aqtab brother's got their aqeedah from..http://sunniport.com/index.php?thre...n-makaan-jism-and-jihah-to-allah.12262/page-3
abu Hasan
Administrator
imam abu manSur maturidi in the tafsir of the verse says:
imam maturidi then presents four reasons that analyse the sentence structure and usage to prove that muqatil's interpretation is incorrect and that is muHal.
----
muqatil was a famous mufassir, but has been criticised for being a mushabbih - bearing anthropomorphic beliefs.
---
in siyar a'alam al-nubala, dhahabi quotes imam azam thus:
imam abu hanifah said: two filthy ideas came to us from the east: jahm [ibn safwan] is a rejector of attributes [mu'aTTil] and muqatil has anthropomorphic explanations [mushabbih].
----
the astute reader will notice that even muqatil's anthropomorphic descriptions were concerning attributes and in this case he simply said "the communication issued from the light said: i am Allah".
even HE did not insist that Allah ta'ala was present on the earth bi'dh dhat - with His Essence.
al iyadhu billah.
abu mu'adh said: muqatil ibn sulayman said: {O musa} he says: indeed the light which you have seen {I am Allah}.
[imam maturidi:] this is muHal [impossible] for many reasons:
[imam maturidi:] this is muHal [impossible] for many reasons:
imam maturidi then presents four reasons that analyse the sentence structure and usage to prove that muqatil's interpretation is incorrect and that is muHal.
----
muqatil was a famous mufassir, but has been criticised for being a mushabbih - bearing anthropomorphic beliefs.
---
in siyar a'alam al-nubala, dhahabi quotes imam azam thus:
imam abu hanifah said: two filthy ideas came to us from the east: jahm [ibn safwan] is a rejector of attributes [mu'aTTil] and muqatil has anthropomorphic explanations [mushabbih].
----
the astute reader will notice that even muqatil's anthropomorphic descriptions were concerning attributes and in this case he simply said "the communication issued from the light said: i am Allah".
even HE did not insist that Allah ta'ala was present on the earth bi'dh dhat - with His Essence.
al iyadhu billah.
Last edited:
confused like umar achravi while he refuses that Allah Ta'ala is in a place or any place, watch the next video too. very disgusting examples, astaghfirullah