Let’s attack Hamza Yusuf….in Ramadan? (The Qur’an is Created)

“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)

For many the last 10 days of Ramadan will be spent doing extra prayers, late night vigils, reading of the Qur’an, finding charitable causes, time with family and iktikaaf (over night) stay in the masjid.

Yet, for others the last 10 days of Ramadan presents a sort of moral dilemma.

So here we are. Attacking Shaykh Mufti Menk for breaking Iftar with a Jewish Rabbi. Let’s attack Dr. Jonathan Brown for writing the book: “Islam & Blackness” because human beings shouldn’t be writing books about corals in the coral reef! You aren’t a coral! And now attacking Shaykh Hamza Yusuf for the same beliefs that the attackers in reality themselves hold! Namely their baseless assertion that the Qur’an is eternal!

This belief leads the entirety of Sunni Muslims (Athari, Ashari, Maturidi) to assert the blasphemous and baseless that Allah (swt) is compound unity in a way that the Athanasian Christians assert that Allah (swt) is a compound unity.

All of them: Athari (so called Salafi), Ashari, Maturidi) are upon this. No proof other than Kalam and reliant upon their scholars. No proofs from the Qur’an or Sunnah that Allah (swt) is compound unity.

ٱللَّهُ لَآ إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ٱلْحَىُّ ٱلْقَيُّومُ (Qur’an 3:2) this one verse in the Qur’an absolutely demolishes Ibrahim Ibn Mahmud and anyone else who comes along and tries to tell you that Allah (swt) is a compound unity of attributes subsisting and not identical to the essence of Allah (swt). Al Hayyu and Al Qayyum is what Allah (swt) is. He told you in clear language in the plain text (dhahir) apparent text that He (ALLAH) IS the Ever Living the Self Existing!

You cannot have a self existing “attribute” called “al qayyum” subsisting! Authubillah min dhalik!

We don’t need the real proponents of innovation and speculative theology like Ibrahm Ibn Mahmud, the Athari, the Ashari and the Maturidi to come along latter and say other than what the clear text of the Qur’an says.

If the Qur’an is not from the time of the Salaaf Us Salih (than nothing is)!

Why would a well informed Christian who believes in the Athanasian creed leave their faith for Islam? What are you people really calling to?

This is what these people are calling to. It is THIS REASON why they will not admit what Allah (swt) has clearly stated in the Qur’an: “Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)

Give us a single text in the Qur’an where it says it is not made! Allah (swt) clearly told you that it is!

The Qur’an is created.

THE REASON is because to say that the Qur’an is uncreated is to say that Allah (swt) has an attribute called speech, and his attributes are eternal and yet they are not identical to his essence, nor other than it. yet subsisting. So that you end up sounding exactly like this…..

READ IT AND BEWARE!

Point 5.

“There is little in Berkhof’s explanation of the Trinity that should surprise anyone familiar with the Reformed tradition. He affirms that there is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence, and that in this Being there are three Divine Persons or individual subsistences (87). On this latter point, Berkhof helpfully reminds us that there are not three individuals in the Godhead, alongside of and separate from each other, but rather “personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence” (87). Perhaps this is why theologians in the Reformed tradition tend to talk of order and operations instead of roles and relationships. The first pair of terms suggests self-distinctions, while the second pair suggests separate individuals.” https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/distinguishing-among-the-three-persons-of-the-trinity-within-the-reformed-tradition/

Taking a look at the video attack upon Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.

Notice the very first thing this video does. Does it go to the Qur’an? No! Does it appeal to the Sunnah? No! @0:43 minutes we get an appeal to an IMAM. Can you imagine? These people castigate the Shi’a to appealing to the Imams and they do the exact same thing.

AFTER appeal to their Imam than what the revelation of Allah (swt) states comes next.

“Rather it is an honoured Qur’an in the preserved tablet.” (Qur’an 85:21-22)

Point 1). The Qur’an is in a preserved tablet. Preserved tablet =NOT ALLAH.

Yes the very preserved tablet that the revelation of Allah (swt) states:

“Ha-Mim By the Book that makes things clear,-We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic, that you may be able to understand and learn wisdom. And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high in dignity, full of wisdom. Shall We then take away the Message from you and repel (you), for that you are a people transgressing beyond bounds? (Qur’an 43:1-5)

Point 2). The Qur’an has been made in Arabic. ALLAH =NOT MADE.

Point 3). It is in the presence of Allah. It is distinct from Allah (swt). ALLAH = NOT COMPOUND UNITY

Point 4). The Qur’an is in the mother of the book. ALLAH=HAS NO MOTHER

Point 5) The attributes of Allah (swt) are not contained IN a mother book.

“Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.” (Qur’an 13:39)

This Qur’an that is in a preserved (maḥfūẓin) tablet.

Point 6) Allah (swt) nor his attributes are in need of preservation, sustenance, upkeep, maintenance, conservation. ALLAH=ETERNAL.

Point 7) The Qur’an is contained in ‘the mother of the book’ (43:4) which is WITH Allah (13:39)

With shows clear distinction from Allah (swt).

@1:20 we get another verse from the Qur’an

“And if any one of the ungrateful disbelievers seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.” (Qur’an 9:6)

Let us first deal with some flawed mantiq (logic).

First, it is sufficient to attribute to Allah (swt) the attribute of Power without the attribution of speech. Speech is not the opposite of dumbness such that dumbness is negated by affirming it. The opposite of speech is silence. It does not mean that a non-speaking person is dumb; rather he is not non-silent.

There also seems to be some confusion from those who call themselves: ‘Salafi’ among others in regards to Allah (swt) knowledge of it, Whereas there is an attempt to equate the attributes of Speaking and Knowledge as being both eternal. Eternal knowledge of a thing does not mean the thing itself is eternal. Otherwise all of us would be eternal.

We affirm the attribute of “speech” for Allah (swt) as Imam Diya al-Din ‘Abd al-Aziza Thamini (raheemullah), says in his Mu’alim:

“Know that speech is sometimes referred to Allah in the meaning of negating dumbness of Him, and it then to be understood as an essential attribute in the way of such attributes. And sometimes it is referred to Him in the sense of its being one of His actions, and it is then to be understood as such. So the meaning of His being Speaking, according to the first interpretation, is that He is not dumb; and according to the second that He is a Creator of Speech.” Source: (Ma’alim al-din (Oman: Wizarat al-Turath al-Qawmi wa l-Thaqafah, 1st edition 2:9.)

The Qur’an has never called the speech of Allah (swt) ‘eternal‘. This is pure kalaam!

“The reason why I don’t follow the Ashari creed is because it goes against the clear text of the Qur’an and human nature. People only follow it because they think it makes them look like intellectuals with all those fancy words.”

“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)

This text is quite clear.

Secondly the Qur’an has to be in harmony. How do you reconcile the challenge of Ibrahim with the belief of the Salafi/Athari that Allah (swt) speaks?

If the person believes that the Qur’an is literally the speech of Allah (swt) you can refer them to the challenge of Ibrahim (a.s).

“He said, “Rather, this – the largest of them – did it, so ask them if they should be able to speak.” (Qur’an 21:63) 

Does Allah (swt) make audible sounds?  Did the companions of the Blessed Messenger (saw)hear audible sounds when the Qur’an was being revealed to the Blessed Messenger (saw)?

When speaking of prophet Ibrahim (a.s) and the story of the idols Shaykh Yasir Qadhi says:

“In these verses, Ibrahim showed his people that their idols were not worthy of worship, primarily because they could not speak. After they themselves acknowledged this, Ibrahim rebuked them, and asked them, “Have you no sense?!” meaning, “How can an object that cannot even speak be worthy of worship?”  Notice that Ibrahim was referring to a speech that could be heard, for Ibrahim’s people did not answer Ibrahim with the belief of the Ash’arees, “Our god speaks, but a speech that is not heard-an internal speech of the mind!”  for they understood what Ibrahim meant!! This is why they turned to themselves, and realized the foolishness of their actions, and could only reply with the feeble response that everyone knew that their idols could not speak!”  Source: (An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 46)

So like Ibrahim (a.s) demands above the atheist has the right to demand from him speech from his Creator.

They have the right to demand “a speech that could be heard”

IMAM AHMED AN INNOVATOR ACCORDING TO IBN TAYMIYYAH? 

Think about this dear respected Muslim sisters and brothers. The fact that our great scholars actually mused over this is really sad.

“Then, among them are those who say that the ink is apparent in the mushaf but not incarnating, and some say that it is incarnating. In the sayings of some of them is what implies that for the form-the form of the letter and figure – but not for its material substance which is its ink. This opinion is also invalid. Just as the saying, that anything from the voices of human beings is eternal, is an invalid opinion. It is an opinion put forward by a group from among the followers of Malik, Shafi’i, and Ahmad, the majority of whom reject it. The saying of Ahmad and the majority if of his followers rejecting his opinion is well-known. There is no doubt that whoever says that the voices of the servants are eternal, he is an innovator and inventor. In the same way as whoever says that this Qur’an is not the word of Allah, he is an innovator and an inventor”

Source: (Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah (Matabi al-Riyad, 1st edition, 12:83-873,83-85)

THE REAL REASON FOR THIS DEBATE/DISCSSION: IS THE QUR’AN ETERNAL or CREATED?

The real reason for this debate is because the Athari/Ashari/Maturidi believe that Allah (swt) is a compound unity.

TAWHID vs TRINITY.

Tawhid: The Belief that God is one being that has an undefined/undisclosed number of self distinctions subsisting with in the divine essence.

Trinity: The Belief that God is one being that is three personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence.

In reality there is no such debate: Tawhid vs Trinity. The real debate is: In what sense is God a Unity? In the way that the Athari/Ashari/Maturdi proclaim? Or in the way that Athanasian Christians proclaim?

Truly pensive and well grounded Christians should never agree to debate: Tawhid vs Trinity. Why is that even a debate?

Why would any Christian who has the basic concepts of Christian theology debate that? In fact, you would hope that a Christian debating a Muslim would have at the very least some grasp of Islamic theology. So why would a Christian debate such a dubious topic? It prejudices the discussion.

It gives some people in the audience that Muslims some how worship a creator that is absolutely one where as the Christians do not. Tawhid is an anglicized Arabic word in the same way that Trinity is an anglicized Latin word.

The real debate between the vast majority of Christians and the vast majority of Muslims (Salafi-Athari/Ashari/Maturdi) should be: In what sense is God a Unity?

The Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqamah (The Ibadi Muslim community) is not part of this debate.

The reason being is simple: Our creed is clear and it is based upon the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

May Allah (swt) guide us all to what is beloved to him. May Allah (swt) bless Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Ibrahim ibn Mahmud.