“When Musa came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: “O my Lord! show (Yourself) to me, that I may look upon you.” Allah said: “You shall never see me; But look upon the mount; if it abides in its place, then you will see me.”
When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe.” (Qur’an 7:143)
﷽
Our brothers have done it again. An excellent overview of the meaning of the request of Musa (as) to see Allah (swt).
As for Musa (as), we get that he knows the attributes of Allah -Transcendent and Exalted He is. That which concerns the positive side and that which concerns the negative side. So he knows of the impossible -to affirm- attributes upon Allah. As we said that this is perceived through the natural instinct and the mind. And Musa (as) without doubt is greater than that; rather he is a prophet whom revelation is passed onto, and he has been chosen by Allah from all creation. So he cannot attribute to Allah that which is not suited. So he is not ignorant-dignified he is- rather he is knowledgeable. He is knowledgeable on the fact that it’s impossible for Allah to be described with being perceived.
As for connecting his request {“My Lord, show me [Yourself] that I may look at You.”} [Qur’an 7:143] and his Belief that this is impossible, then that is understood by saying that he didn’t request the ‘action of seeing’/ru’ya for himself. Rather, he asked (that) for his people. Even if it came in the singular form or first person(perspective). When he said {“My Lord, show me [Yourself] that I may look at You.”}. As for the proof that he asked it for his people then the ayats of the Qur’an are clear! {And [recall] when you said, “O Musa, we will never believe you until we see Allāh outright”;} [Qur’an 2:55].
So, they are the ones who asked Musa (as) for that. And they negate belief upon themselves until that is achieved for them. And Allah the Exalted also said, {For truly, they had asked Moses for something even greater than that, for they said, “Show us Allah openly.”} [Qur’an 4:153] The evidence is also when Musa (as) and those of those who were with him (from bani Israel, when asked for ru’ya) were struck.
He said {Will You annihilate us for what the fools among us have done?} [Qur’an 7:155]. So the sign here is that they are ignorant and they have brought this upon themselves. This all signifies that he asked the ‘action of seeing’ for them, as in him being attentive for them to believe. So he was Merciful to his people, benevolent towards them, even though he knows that this is a grave matter. But he wanted to prove its impossibility not in acceptance to them for what they asked. Rather they were stubborn, so he asked this not in respect to their request to them. All the while knowing it being impossible. Rather to show them by proof that it is not happening. Because they know with their stubbornness that he is better than them; and that he is a messenger of Alllah whom revelation is passed onto.
For if the perception was unachievable for him , then it will be all the more so unachievable for them, thus not happening. And indeed , this is what happened. And reality has been shown with the decimation of the mountain, and with them being struck alongside Mosa (as) by the lightning. And that signified the danger of what was asked.
And that was a punishment for them, but as for Musa (as) it was a type of guidance, because Allah the almighty knows the truth of Musa (as) , but this from Allah was due to Musa (as) being hasty in asking that which he should have sought permission in first. It was more appropriate and fitting for him to first ask permission from Allah the Exalted. Then, his repentance from this indicates that this is grave upon Allah, because when he became unconscious. What did he say, he first said {And when he awoke, he said, “Exalted are You! I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers.”} [Qur’an 7:143]
“And he is with you wherever you are.” (Qur’an 57:4)
﷽
Shaykh Masoud Al Miqbali- May protect him and benefit us from his knowledge.
“The existence of Allah is without beginning. Just like how it is without end. Just like how it is without place. So, just like how He -the transcendent-was without beginning and He is remaining with no ending like that He is existing with out a place.”
“So whomever clashes and argues with you on the ‘place’ and he told you: “How can I imagine an existence without a place and how can I believe in an existence without place?”
Say to him: “Just like how you affirmed the existence of Him that is without beginning. How did you accept, process and affirm an existence that has no beginning? With which mind did you accept an existence without a beginning? You affirmed that because that is the appropriate evaluation to this God. Who there is nothing like unto Him. Only! This is what made you accept that He is existing without beginning. Not because of something you’re used to. You’re not used to an existence existing without beginning. But when the topic was concerning a God who there is nothing like unto Him, you affirmed, complied, submitted, and believed this God has no beginning to his existence and there is no ending to His remaining.”
“So like so say to His place, that he has none. Because He is the God who is exalted from the shackles of time; and like so from the shackles of space. Him who is exalted from the shackles of time is exalted from the shackles of space/place. “
“Then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you indeed believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and more commendable in the end.” (Qur’an 4:59)
﷽
This subject is something that has stirred the emotions and passions of the Muslims in their history. It is a highly volatile subject. In the history of Islam, one party of Muslims, would persecute the other. When the persecuted party came into power, they returned the favour.
The Ibadi school was removed from these bloody affairs and allowed them to approach the subject with sobriety dealing only with the proof text and the justifications for the views.
From the outset it should be clear that all sides have their proofs and justifications for their positions. Albeit some like to pretend that the other side blatantly ignore verses of the Qur’an, this is a clear misrepresentation and meanness.
So, in this dispute we are commanded by Allah (swt) In the Qur’an:
“Then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you indeed believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and more commendable in the end.” (Qur’an 4:59)
It is up to you dear reader to see who relies more upon revealed text and who relies more upon theological speculation to draw their conclusions.
Any clear statement from the Blessed Messenger (saw) on this matter?
There is no clear statement from the Blessed Messenger (saw) on this matter.
Any clear statement from the immediate companions on this matter?
The only clear statement we have from a companion(sahabah) is the following:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud:
“Allah has not created (khalaq) in the heavens nor in the earth what is more magnificent than Ayat Al-Kursi.”
We do not have any reports from a companion(sahabah) to the contrary. So, our interlocutors will either have to weaken the hadith or employ interpretive principles to dismiss it as sound evidence.
Any clear statement from the Qur’an on the matter?
As regarding the Qur’an there is no clear statement that is it is uncreated. Those who oppose us on this matter have made it a theological conclusion. This is deduced after making certain assumptions about Allah (swt) and what are his essential attributes.
Whereas the Qur’an does have a clear text that states that is created. If there was such a text our interlocutors would be quick to quote it.
“Indeed, We have made it (ja’alnahu) an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
Our interlocutors have never been able to find any usage of the above word (ja’alnahu) in the Qur’an to show that something is uncreated, unmade, without origin, having an eternally abiding quality or trait.
In the Ibadi school we ground our aqidah on the source common to all Muslims (the Qur’an) and then we draw our beliefs from this.
We do not have theological speculations about Allah (swt) and then try and make the Qur’an conform to our theological suppositions about Allah (swt) as you the reader will soon see.
The issue regarding Sifat (Attributes) and Dhat (Essence) of Allah (swt)
Before I have approached this topic as a novice, and I still very much am a layman and not a scholar. With that out of the way I think it is very important to start with the crux of this issue which is really about the clash of understanding of essence (dhat) of Allah (swt) and what are/are not his essential sifat (attributes) and what categories they fall under as well as how different schools of aqidah (creed) further categorize those sifat (attributes).
The categorization of the Attributes of Allah is based on whether the Attributes are intrinsically bound to the Self (or Dhāt) of Allah or not bound intrinsically to the Self of Allah. So according to this, the Attributes are divided into three categories:
Attributes ascribed to His Self (Sifāt Dhātiyyah).
Attributes ascribed to His Actions (Sifāt Fi’liyyah).
Attributes ascribed to both His Self and His Actions (Sifāt Dhātiyyah Fi’liyyah)
A definition for each: 1. As for As-Sifāt Adh-Dhātiyyah (Attributes ascribed to His Self) then what is intended is those Attributes that are intrinsically bound to the Self of Allahsuch that He never ceases and will never cease to be described with them. Examples are Life (Al-Hayāt), Knowledge (Al-‘Ilm), Ability (Al-Qudrah), Might and Power (Al-‘Izzah), Wisdom (Al-Hikmah), Majesty (Al-Jalāl), Highness (Al-‘Uluw) and other such Attributes of the Self. They are referred to as Adh-Dhātiyyah (i.e. ascribed to the Self) because they are intrinsically bound to the Self of Allah, and similarly His other Attributes such as His Two Hands (Al-Yadayn),Two-Eyes(Al-‘Aynayn) and Face (Al-Wajh) — and these Attributes can be called As-Sifāt Al-Khabariyyah (i.e. Attributes that provide information of the Self of Allah, such as, Two Hands, Two Eyes, Fingers, etc.).
2. As for As-Sifāt Al-Fi’liyyah (Attributes ascribed to His Actions), they are the Attributes connected to His Will (Al-Mashee’ah) and they are not intrinsically bound to His Self (Adh-Dhāt), not in type and nor in their individual occurrence. Examples are the Ascending (Al-Istiwā) of Allah over the Throne, the Descending (An-Nuzool) of Allah to nearest Heaven of this world and the Coming (Al-Majee’u) of Allah on the Day of Resurrection to judge between the people. These are all Attributes ascribed to His Actions and connected to His Will — If He Wills, He does these actions and if He Wills, He does not do them. So, these Attributes are [newly] happening events in terms of their type and in their individual occurrences. So, the Ascending of Allah over the Throne did not take place until after He had created the Throne; the Descending of Allah to the nearest Heaven of this world did not occur except after He had created the Heavens, and [of course] the Coming of Allah will not occur before the Hour is established.
3. As for As-Sifāt Adh-Dhātiyyah Al-Fi’liyyah (Attributes ascribed to both His Self and His Actions) then if one was to consider this type of Attribute, he would find that Allah never ceases and will never cease to be described with it, so it is intrinsically bound to the Self (Dhāt) of Allah. And if one was to consider its occurrence, he would find that it is also connected to His Will, and not intrinsically bound to the Self (Adh-Dhāt). The Scholars use as an example the Speech (Kalām) of Allāh, the Most High. Speech (Al-Kalām) — in terms of the type of Attribute, it is ascribed to Allah’s Self, since He does not cease and will not cease to be described with speaking. His Speech is from His perfection that is due to Him (free is He from all imperfections). And as for individual occurrences of His Speech, then He speaks whenever He Wills [to whom He Wills at a time designated by Him] — so His Speaking is from the Sifāt Fi’liyyah (i.e. it is an Attribute ascribed to His Actions) because it is done according to His Will (i.e. when He Wills).
Do note that these categories and descriptions are the categories and descriptions not found in the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Our main point of difference with this sect of the Sunni Muslims (the ones who have been most vocal on the issue) is that where they would put the quality of speaking in category 3, we would put the quality of speaking in category 2. That being Sifāt Al-Fi’liyyah.
“These are all Attributes ascribed to His Actions and connected to His Will — If He Wills, He does these actions and if He Wills, He does not do them. So, these Attributes are [newly] happening events in terms of their type and in their individual occurrences.”
Also note some interesting admission in their description in point 3. They state: “And if one was to consider its occurrence, he would find that it is also connected to His Will, and not intrinsically bound to the Self.”
So what are the points of difference between us on this?
First, we don’t’ agree with them that anything and everything attributed to Allah (swt)is an attribute. Examples being but not limited to the following: Their belief that Allah (swt) has such attributes as: hands, face, eyes, that Allah chuckles or laughs, has a leg or foot. Some of them even affirm the idea that Allah (swt) has an uvular, runs, trots or jogs and so forth.
Then they make lofty claims that they take the outward meaning of text and leave it at and do not perform ta’wil (interpretation)yet from their own sources
“There is in no private conversation of three but that He is the fourth of them, nor are there five but that He is the sixth of them, and no less than that and no more but that He is with them wherever they are. Then, He will inform them of what they did on the Day of Resurrection. Verily, Allah knows all things.” (Qur’an 58:7)
Notice the title when speaking about the text in the Qur’an states: “By His Knowledge not His Essence) and that is not what the text (of the Qur’an) says at all! This is them applying their understanding of a text to refute other rival Muslim sects.
Another view concerning Allah (swt) that they have which has no support in the Qur’an or Sunnah is a what can be termed as pseudo-attributes or quasi-attributes of Allah (swt). Their claim ultimately is that Allah (swt) has attributes that are not identical to his essence nor other than it! You can see them try and make justification for it here: https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/282904/elaboration-required-if-one-says-allaahs-attributes-are-other-than-him
Notice that they make no recourse to the Qur’an nor to the Sunnah. This is speculative theology, and, in this manner, they are ahl kalam. Though they will claim they are people who take only the text.
“And that you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)
Whereas we rely upon the following text to show the absolute oneness of Allah (swt)
Your God is One (wāḥidun) God; there is no god but He, the All-merciful, the All-compassionate.” (Qur’an 2:153)
Say: ‘He is God, One (ahadun),” (Qur’an 112:1)
Wahid is that Allah (swt) is one and there is no other. When this is coupled with ahad it means that Allah (swt) is absolutely one. This is what the Qur’an affirms, and it is what we believe.
“The word ahad, -conveys an uncountable oneness. It is not one in a series. It cannot be added to or divided into fractions. It stands for a singular, unique entity.”-Shaykh Salman al-Oadah
However, our interlocutors believe Allah (swt) has attributes that are neither his essence nor other than it. This is important to keep in mind when reading the article.
The belief in the eternity of the Qur’an though its meanings differ, and its ways are diverse because of the differences among its supporters emanates from one source, namely not differentiating between Speaking as an Essential attribute of Allah and its EFFECTS, the Books that Allah has sent down to His Messengers. All who hold this opinion must necessarily believe in the eternity of all originated things, because these (also) are effects of Allah’s attributes. Because the creatures, regardless of their differences (from each other), are not other than effects of His Power, Will and Knowledge. His Power, Will and Knowledge is an eternal essential attribute because of the impossibility of Allah’s qualification with their opposites.
So, understand that by this when we say kalaam Allah it literally translates as the speech of Allah. And it is known the speech is but a by-product, an EFFECT of the attribute of Speaking. This is what we affirm.
And now here comes the real differentiation between the two:
1.Having the ability to speak.
2.Creating the speech itself.
If it’s the first, then it’s a necessary for the mind to affirm it as an attribute. If it’s the latter, then it’s a possible attribute, as Allah (swt) make create speech or may not create speech.
So, the kalaam Allah is from the Sifāt Al-Fi’liyyah
Remember above they themselves have defined Sifat Al-Fi’liyyah as:
These are all Attributes ascribed to His Actions and connected to His Will — If He Wills, He does these actions and if He Wills, He does not do them. So, these Attributes are [newly] happening events in terms of their type and in their individual occurrences.
You know that those among them who hold that Allah’s being Speaking is without His Will base their opinion on what is necessitated by making His worldly speech an eternal attribute abiding in His Essence. For the Eternal, no Will can precede His Eternity, as also for knowledge, Power, Life and other attribute of Allah, exalted is He. Just as it cannot be said that Allah is Powerful by His Will, Alive by His Will, Knower by His Will lest minds should infer origination (and contingency) in respect of these attributes, in the same way it becomes necessary for those who believe in the eternity of His being Speaking to say that it is not bound by His Will.
SPEAKING AS AN ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE ABIDING WITH ALLAH (SWT)
Whereas the Athari (also called Salafi), Ash’ari and Maturidi schools of aqidah (creed)of what is known as Sunni Islam affirm speaking as an essential attribute we do not. Whereas Power, Will, and Knowledge are essential attributes of Allah (swt) because of the impossibility of Allah’s being qualified by their opposites. Revealed books are, indications of His Knowledge which is an attribute of His Essence.
They are not the attribute of the Knowledge itself which is a quality of his eternal Essence.
Our response to the first rational objection by the Athari/Salafi school of Sunni Islam.
They will say: “Just as the attribute of speech is a noble attribute, its opposite, muteness, is a characteristic that is not desired, nor is it considered praiseworthy. It is well known that the one who is mute is not like the one who speaks. Therefore, to claim that Allah does not possess the attribute of speech (or to interpret it away as the Ash’aris do) is in reality blasphemous, as this then implies that the Creator is mute, yet Allah is free of all attributes of imperfection.”
Source: (pg. 45. An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an by Yasir Qadhi)
The above statement is inter-Sunni polemic. Salafi/Athari Sunni Muslims directing this at Ash’ari Sunni Muslims, this line of thinking is severely flawed.
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.
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.”
The meaning of Allah’s being Speaking is producing speech on the occasion of it.
What is not in dispute between us and the Sunni Muslims.
1) That Allah (swt) has never been unable to produce speech from all eternity.
2) That the Qur’an does not originate from any other than Allah (swt).
3) It is his Word, His Revelation and that which He sent down.
4) It was revealed in letters and words.
5) It was revealed to the heart of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
6) It is inimitable in its combinations and meanings. No human being can produce the like thereof.
7) It has been narrated from the Blessed Messenger (saw) through firm tawatur
It does not emanate from other than Allah (swt).
Just as all created things. “That is Allah—your Lord! There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. ˹He is˺ the Creator of all things, so worship Him ˹alone˺. And He is the Maintainer of everything.” (Qur’an 6:102)
The dispute among the Sunni Hanbali school of Aqidah(creed). Due to the Hanbali school being among the Ahl Kalaam and people of speculative theology they have produced some of the more bizarre debates the Muslim Ummah has ever seen. If you research this matter you will find it to be true.
Among the Hanbali differences:
a) The voice of the reciter of the Qur’an and his recitation. Are they created or not?
b) The letters of the alphabet from which the words of the Qur’an and others are composed. Is it created or not?
c) Allah’s being Speaking, whether it is by His Will or not (By His Will).
Since their differences about the letters, sounds and recitation overlap, we have considered them together in reviewing and criticizing their opinions about them.
They attribute to Imam Ahmad the statement: ‘Whoever says My utterance of the Qur’an is created, he is a Jahmi and whoever says it is not created, he is an innovator.’
In this text that they have narrated, there is a contradiction that cannot be obscure to any intelligent person. There is no intermediary between creature and non-creature.
The thing is neither created nor non-created. If it is created, then why does he not accuse of error those who speak of its creation? If it is not, then why does he attribute innovation to those who speak of its non-creation? “Ahmad said: ‘Whoever says that any letter of the alphabet is created, he is a Jahmi, because he has walked on a path of innovation, and whoever says that the alphabet is created, then he [also] says that the Qur’an is created.’
Source: (Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, 12:83-85)
That is an excuse of no use. To deny the being created of what is known by reason and tawatur tradition to be created, and to attach it to Allah, exalted is He, in eternity, avoiding the firm Qur’anic texts that everything other than Allah is created-such as Allah’s saying:
“That is Allah—your Lord! There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. ˹He is˺ the Creator of all things, so worship Him ˹alone˺. And He is the Maintainer of everything.” (Qur’an 6:102)
His saying: “The One Who holds control over Heaven and Earth, Who has not adopted any son nor has He any associate in control. He has created everything and measured it out precisely.” (Qur’an 25:2) is in no way permissible. How so, when the driving force behind this is only the fear of the rising sun of reality, and the evaporation of the fog of fancies, which they intended as a veil between reason and their grasp of the realities. Not content with mere refusal of reality, they went further to pass judgements on those who proclaim the reality as being Jahmi, innovators and unbelievers. Fa in-na li-l-lahi wa in-na ilayhi raji’un: so surely, we belong to Allah and to Him surely, we are returning!!
In how wretched a state Islam is left when interpreted in these contradictory directions! How far astray are the people of Islam if they do not recognize Islam but through these things.
Imam Ahmad was asked: “What is your opinion concerning those who say, ‘Our recitation of the Qur’an is created”? Imam Ahmad replied: “These people are worse than the Jahmiyah. Whoever believes this, then he believes that Gabriel came with something created, and the Prophet (saw) preached something created!” Source: (adh-Dhahabi, Ual-Uluww, p 212.)
So, then is our recitation uncreated?
No evidence from the Qur’an, the Sunnah or rational proofs, except what they bring from Ahmad. The make Ahmad and their scholars the standard by which the truth is measured. They will often use the term “salaaf” as the standard but what was the standard that Allah (swt) gave the salaaf if they should fall into disputes?
“Then if you were to dispute among yourselves about anything refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you indeed believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is better and more commendable in the end.” (Qur’an 4:59)
If that standard is good enough for them it is good enough for us! Whoever wants a more comprehensive understanding (of their various positions) should refer to the books of the holders of this belief, such as the 12th volume of Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya, which exceeds 600 pages. You will not move from one topic therein to another without witnessing the contradiction of what he says such as will suffice to demonstrate that the foundation on which they have laid down this belief is crumbling from its bases.
These huge disagreements among them are an indication that they are the people of innovation -differing among themselves in these matters in Aqidah (creed).
The positive evidence advanced by those that say that the Qur’an is uncreated.
Please note that the Sunni are divided on this issue, thus not all of them will agree to using the same arguments. However, this is as brief over view of arguments and evidences that they claim justify their position.
What they feel are logical/rational arguments.
The first one was already dealt with above. That was under the section: Our response to the first rational objection by the Athari/Salafi school of Sunni Islam.
Another logical/rational argument they bring is the following:
Only Allah (swt) is perfect, and the creation is imperfect. Thus, the trap they intend is this. Those who say that the Qur’an is created must therefore have to admit that it is imperfect!
However, this is a very flawed argument that you will see them retreat from. This argument destroys them. If A=B and B=C than A=C. So let us play the game: If only Allah (swt) is perfect. And the Qur’an is perfect = Allah (swt) is the Qur’an!
So, they must retreat further to their quasi-attribute. The one that is neither Allah(swt) nor other than Allah (swt). Since that is between negation and affirmation that really can’t say by their reasoning that the Qur’an is not Allah (swt).
Secondly, this can be answered by saying that the Qur’an is perfect in one way in that is a perfection revelation of Allah (swt). This is affirmed by:
“Lo! We, even We, reveal the Reminder, and lo! We verily are its Guardian.” (Qur’an 15:9)
Allah (swt) doesn’t have a guardian. That should be clear.
However, it is not absolutely perfect as Allah (swt) and the proof for that is:
There is nothing like unto Him. (Qur’an 42:11)
Yet do not be surprised nor dismayed if those who disputed on rather or not the ink, recitation or mushaf is created would not be swayed by such clear evidence.
Positive evidence from the Qur’an for those who argue it is eternal and uncreated.
The Creation and the Command argument:
“His are the creation and the command.” (Qur’an 7:54)
The argument that those who believe the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated is that the creation is the created and the command is His Word -which is not-created.
The command is His saying ‘Be’: “Indeed when He intents a thing, His is “be” and it is’ (Qur’an 36:82)
So, they feel this is strong evidence for their position. For if His Word which is command has been created, then He would have said: “His are the creation and the creation.”
Their reasoning fails on several counts:
1) The first is that the context of this statement is nothing other than Allah’s being alone in originating the originated things and turning them according to His will.
The text of the whole verse is: “Surely your Lord is none other than Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and then ascended His Throne; Who causes the night to cover the day and then the day swiftly pursues the night; Who created the sun and the moon and the stars making them all subservient to His command. Lo! His is the creation and His is the command. Blessed is Allah, the Lord of the universe.” (Qur’an 7:54)
The most that this verse tells us is that, just as Allah, glorified is He, is alone in bringing the universe out of non-being (into being), in the same way He is alone
in the management of it. He has no partner in its creation and in its management. None other than Him alone belong the creations and the command. The meaning here, clearly, is management. And there is nothing in that which even remotely points either to the eternity of the Qur’an or to its contingency.
2) The second point that the conjunction ‘Wa’ or ‘And’ in English does not necessarily mean difference between the conjoined elements in every respect. Rather, it is enough that the difference is relatively, like the difference between specific and general, unconditioned and conditioned, or the difference of qualifiers with sameness of the noun.
Among the examples of that are His saying: “Guard strictly prayers and the middle prayer.” (Qur’an 2:238) The middle prayer is not (separated) out of the genus of the prayers, the guarding of which has been commanded.
And His saying:
“Whoever is an enemy to Allah, and His angels, and His Messengers, and Jibril and Mikael.” (Qur’an 2:98)
No-one says that Jibril and Mikael are (separated) out of the genus of angels.
There are many other examples. That should suffice.
3) The third point is that the command of Allah, exalted is He, has been mentioned in the Qur’an jointly with what denotes its creation. He says: “And Allah’s command must be fulfilled.” (Qur’an 33:37)
And He says: “So that Allah might accomplish a matter (amr) already decided.” (Qur’an 8:42)
And he says” “And the command of Allah is a decree determined.” (Qur’an 33:38)
4) The fourth point is that His command means in one place in the Qur’an something different from what it means in another. In His saying: “(So it was) till then there came Our Command and the oven gushed forth (water like fountains from the earth)” (Qur’an 11:40). It is not the same as in His saying: “Has come the command of Allah, seek not then to hasten it.” (Qur’an 16:1)
5) The fifth is that the interpretation of ‘the command’ in these verses which we have cited as (meaning) the Qur’an is not correct. It is known with certainty that the Qur’an is not meant (by ‘command’) in His saying: “Or there comes the command of your Lord.” (Qur’an 16:33) and His saying: “Until, when Our command came, and the oven overflowed.” (Qur’an 11:40)
As well as His saying: “So that Allah might accomplish a matter(amran) already destined.” (Qur’an 8:42)
So how can ‘command’ (amr) in His saying; “His are the creation and the command” be interpreted as the Qur’an, whereas the text denotes the opposite of it?
The next argument that they advance is creating with ‘be’ and the understanding of bi-l-haqq.
“We created not the heavens, the earth and all between them, but for just ends (bi-l-haqq) (Qur’an 15:85)
The way they argue is that the ‘haqq’ with which Allah has created them is His saying to them ‘Be’. If this saying (of ‘Be’) had (itself) been created, then it would not be correct to (say that) the creations were created by it, because the creation is not created by a creature. First, we do not accept that the meaning of ‘bi-l’haqq’ is as they say. The best tafsir of the Qur’an is the Qur’an itself.
His saying: “Our Lord, not for nothing have you created this.” (Qur’an 3:191), firmly denotes that the meaning of bi-l-haqq in the verse is in opposition to al-batil (i.e. Creation for nothing, vanity). The intention of describing Allah’s creation of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them as bi-l-haqq is to negate the futility of Allah, exalted is He, in His actions.
It is refutation of the futility that the unbelievers thought of His actions, as is clear His saying: “Not without purpose did We create heaven and earth and all between. That was the thought of the unbelievers. But woe to the unbelievers because of the Fire.” (Qur’an 38:27)
The meaning of ‘Be’ in the like of His saying, exalted is He, “For to anything which We have willed, We but say “Be” then it is.” (Qur’an 16:40)
This relates to the execution of His Will, exalted is He, in respect of anything of the mumkinat (what is possible) in the context of giving it existence or completing it. It is explained by his Saing, “When We have willed’ i.e. When Our Will has conjoined with it in a way of execution (of the command). Because ‘when’ is for time in the future, and this is emphasized in His saying: “an naqula la-hu.” (that We say to it), (Qur’an16:40) which is in the imperfect tense which, when it is with ‘an’, means the future.
It is known with certainty that whatever is since forever-like His Knowledge, His Power and His Life-the Will cannot be conjoined with it, because nothing can precede (what is eternal).
And this is emphasized by His saying ‘fa-yakun’ (then it is), the connecting particle ‘fa’ meaning order and sequence. From this you know that His saying, exalted is He, ‘kun fa-yakun’, is, wherever it occurs, nothing but an indirect expression of the speedy response of things to Him, glorified is He, in accordance with the conjunction of His Will with these things. Otherwise, there is no utterance of kaf nun (kun) in the concrete sense (of utterance). If we accept that, then we will say that our discussion is about the Word revealed such as the Qur’an, not the Word unrevealed.
It is also a metaphor for the expediency of Allah’s creative command.
“Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days” (Qur’an 7:54).
“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.” (Qur’an 3:59) Yet didn’t Jesus (as) take time to form in the womb?
Some scholars have said that Allah (swt) created this word and willed for it to follow his orders. So, all in all it’s not something coexisting with Allah (swt).
The next argument they bring: Seeking refuge in Allah’s complete words.
This is from the following hadith:
Khaula bint Hakim Sulamiyya reported:
I heard Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying: When anyone lands at a place, and then says: “I seek refuge in the Perfect Word of Allah from the evil of what He has created,” nothing would harm him until he marches from that stopping place.
Second, that this seeking refuge in fact is with Allah (swt), because He is the Lord of the words. The words are included (in the sense) because of the blessing and goodness that Allah (swt) has put therein. It is a kind of metaphor.
And in the sound hadith has come seeking refuge in His actions, exalted is He, as in the prayer of the Prophet (saw) as follows:
It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that ‘Aishah said:
“I noticed the Prophet (saw) was not there one night, so I started looking for him with my hand. My hand touched his feet, and they were held upright, and he was prostrating and saying: ‘I seek refuge in Your pleasure from Your anger, in Your forgiveness from Your punishment, and I seek refuge in You from You. I cannot praise You enough, You are as You have praised yourself.'” Source: (https://sunnah.com/nasai:169)
Forgiveness is one of His actions, exalted is He, and it is (therefore) definitely originated. Seeking refuge in it was allowed because (forgiveness) does not emanate from other than Allah (swt).
Is Allah’s forgiveness Allah himself? Is Allah’s punishment Allah himself?
The next argument is the hadith of Ali in making the Qur’an and not a creature a judge.
The fifth is what Abu l-Qasim al-Lalka’i has narrated from Ali bin Abi Talib that he said -when it was to him that you made two men as your judges -‘I did make a creature a judge, I did not make a judge but the Qur’an’.
The answer to this is simple: His negation of making a creature as judge by making the Qur’an as judge is because the Qur’an is from Allah (swt). All that it in it the commands, prohibitions, permissions, restrictions, approval, rejection it is from Allah (swt). So, making the Qur’an as judge is referring for judgement to Allah who has sent it down with His Knowledge, and has related its judgement to Himself.
He says: “Who is better than Allah in judgement?” (Qur’an 5:50)
Do Note I have not been able to find the hadith attributed to Ali bin Abi Talib. Insh’Allah when I have the source it will be included.
The next argument is that Ibn Abbas (ra) critiqued a man for saying: Lord of the Qur’an
Is what has been narrated from ‘Abdullah b Abbas (ra) that he criticized a man who said: “Lord of the Qur’an.”
The answer is: that the evidence as to its not being sound is in abundance.
Do Note I have not been able to find the hadith attributed to Ali bin Abi Talib. Insh’Allah when I have the source it will be included.
Some discussion on Allah (swt) speaking with Musa (as)
The Hanbali/Salafi agree with us (The Ibadi School) that Musa (as) heard from Allah’s Speaking a speech composed of letters and that it had sound. On this point the Ashari disagree with us both. However, we differ on its eternity or origination. They believe in its eternity, and we believe in its origination.
Those who said that the speaking to Musa (as) that it is an eternal attribute, or that it is abiding with the essence of Allah (swt) both are incorrect.
Weak argument used by Hanbali/Salafi Sunni Muslims against Ashari Sunni Muslims.
There is however a very weak argument used by the Hanbali/Salafi in their discussion with the Ashari. They feel it is a strong argument.
The Hanbali/Salafi argument against the Ashari goes like this:
“If the Kalaam of Allah is without sound, then what did Musa (as) hear when Allah spoke to Him? If they respond that Allah (swt) created a sound, and caused Musa (as) to hear that created sound, then this means that this created object stated, “Oh Musa, Verily, I am your Lord, Verily, I am Allah, there is no god save me, so worship Me.” (Qur’an 20:12-14)
Source: (Pg. 44 An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an by Yasir Qadhi)
Yet, obviously, we know that Musa (as) did not perform any act of worship towards the direction of the voice. Or at least no act of worship is recorded.
Shaykh Yasir Qadhi and those who think this is some knock down killer argument must really have to wonder about the following:
What did Rasul Allah (saw) think when Angel Gabriel (as) said. “Indeed this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so worship Me.” (Qur’an 21:92)
What? Did the Blessed Messenger (saw) make sujud and worship Gabriel? Obviously not!
Gabriel(as) was used as a medium in the same way the burning bush was.
Has the story of Musa reached you ˹O Prophet˺? When he saw a fire, he said to his family, “Wait here, ˹for˺ I have spotted a fire. Perhaps I can bring you a torch from it or find some guidance at the fire.” But when he approached it, he was called, “O Moses! It is truly I. I am your Lord! So, take off your sandals, for you are in the sacred valley of Ṭuwa. I have chosen you, so listen to what is revealed: ‘It is truly I. I am Allah! There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Me. So, worship Me ˹alone˺, and establish prayer for My remembrance.” (Qur’an 20:9-14)
“And when Musa had completed the term and was traveling with his family, he perceived from the direction of the mount a fire. He said to his family, “Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire. Perhaps I will bring you from there [some] information or burning wood from the fire that you may warm yourselves.” But when he came to it, he was called from the right side of the valley in a blessed spot – from the tree (mina l-shajarati), “O Musa, indeed I am Allah, Lord of the worlds.” (Qur’an 28:29-30)
So rather it was a created word, or created tree or created angel, the Prophets of Allah (swt) are peak monotheist and understand the difference between the which is spoken (created) and the real source of the one speaking (Creator).
Allah (swt) also can make anything speak that wishes to make speak. An example would be:
“And they will say to their skins, “Why have you testified against us?” They will say, “We were made to speak by Allah , who has made everything speak; and He created you the first time, and to Him you are returned.” (Qur’an 41:21)
Imagine being in a masjid and a man recites from the Qur’an: “Indeed, this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so worship me!”
Would anyone in that masjid begin to worship that man? Of course, they wouldn’t. The man is a created being reciting created speech. Yet, understanding the ultimate source of the statement is the key.
Another example: “Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him ˹alone˺. This is the Straight Path.” (Qur’an 19:36)
Allah (swt) could have revealed the Qur’an in which he was always spoken about in the third person such as above.
However, he has allowed for his creation to recite the created speech: “I am Allah! There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Me. So, worship Me ˹alone.”
The scholars have never declared someone a kafir for reciting this if they speaker did not claim the speech was a reference to him/herself.
“When Musa came at the appointed time and his Lord spoke to him.” (Qur’an 7:143)
“And messengers We have mentioned unto you before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee; and Allah spoke (takliman) directly unto Musa.” (Qur’an 4:164)
“And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.” (Qur’an 42:51)
Unless our interlocutors want to say that the Qur’an contains a flat contradiction than they will need to understand ‘Allah spoke to Musa with directly’ considering the above verse.
This spoke to Musa directly must fall under the category of inspiration, behind a partition or by sending a messenger to reveal his will to them.
Surely this is something to ponder for those who believe that Allah (swt) has a location.
WORDS OF FOREIGN ORIGIN IN THE QUR’AN AND THE IMPACT UPON THIS DEBATE.
This is not an argument from the scholars our school (Ibadi Scholars). Nor is it an argument that they rely upon.
This is an argument that I (Prima-Qur’an) conceived when investigating this issue.
“In other words, these particular phrases are originally non-Arabic in origin. However, as is the case with any language, these words were ‘borrowed’ by Arabic, and were used so commonly that they became a part of the Arabic language. Thus, for all practical purposes, these words became ‘a part of fluent Arabic, and were use din poetry…and if an Arab were ignorant of these words, it was as if he were ignorant of other Arabic words.” Source: (az-Zarkashee, v 1, p, 289)
“Therefore, the correct opinion is that there are no non-Arabic words in the Qur’an, although there are words that have non-Arabic origins. Due to the continued usage of these words by the Arabs, however, they can no longer be considered foreign.”
Source: (pg. 27 An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an by Yasir Qadhi)
Now this is a matter of debate among Muslim scholars and orientalist. That is rather or not the Qur’an contains words of foreign origin. Now, Praise be to Allah (swt) no matter the outcome: Yes, the Qur’an contains words that are borrowed from other languages and became part of the Arabic language or no it does not contain as such either way our position is untouched.
However, if one was to believe that the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated the discovery of foreign words borrowed from other languages is devastating to such a theological position A revelation that is eternal and uncreated does not need to incorporate words and expressions that are from languages that do not even exist at the time.
Now some clever theologian may try and argue: “Yes, but Allah (swt) knew in his infinite knowledge that those words would one day end up in the Qur’an, and thus he chose them for his revelation.” That creates a type of paradox in which a series of events are caused in such a way to have created words from a created language that are chosen to be part of an uncreated eternal attribute.
All in all, no matter the outcome it does not have an impact on our theological position on the matter.
The origins of statements in the Qur’an and the eternal knowledge of such statements.
If the khatib during a Friday sermon quotes a hadith of the Blessed Messenger (saw) the whole of the sermon is the speech of the khatib. However, it cannot be said that everything stated with the in speech of the khatib had its origin with the khatib. For example, if the khatib is quoting a hadith of the Prophet (saw), even though it is the speech of the khatib the quote has its origin with the speech of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
The Qur’an is Kalam Allah.
The Qur’an is a revelation from Allah.
It is clear when we read the Qur’an that we can see Allah (swt) speaking and addressing His creation in it. We can also see conversations between Iblis and Allah (swt). We can see conversations between Allah (swt) and his Angels. We can see conversations between the created beings. All of this known in the pre-eternal knowledge of Allah (swt). However, not all statements in the Qur’an are original statements of Allah (swt).
Examples:
Allah said, “What made you disobey Me?” Iblis replied, “I am better than Adam, for You have created me out of fire and Adam out of clay.” (Qur’an 7:12)
The part: “I am better than Adam, for you created me out of fire and Adam out of clay.” Is originally the statement of Iblis. In the Qur’an Allah (swt) is quoting Iblis.
Anyone who believes that it was Allah (swt) who stated: “You have created me out of fire.” And not that it was the words of Iblis has entered disbelief.
“And lo! those who disbelieve would fain disconcert you with their eyes when they hear the Reminder, and they say: Lo! he is indeed mad.” (Qur’an 68:51)
Anyone who believes that it was Allah (swt) who said about the Blessed Prophet (saw): “Lo! He is indeed mad!” that person has entered disbelief.
The part: “Lo he is indeed mad!” This is the statement of some of the Quraish against the Blessed Prophet (saw). In The Qur’an Allah (swt) is quoting the Quraish.
All this is from the knowledge of Allah (swt). Yet, the origins of the statements are from created entities. These statements from them are from the actions they have acquired.
The eternity of knowledge does not imply the eternity of the known, otherwise, all things that have come into being would be eternal!
Positive evidence from the Qur’an for those who argue it created.
Arguments from logic and rationality.
An obvious point is that everything other than Allah (swt) is created. So, is the Qur’an a creation or not?
If the interlocutors respond that the attributes of Allah (swt) are uncreated do keep in mind as above that the attributes are in a quasi-or pseudo status. They cannot say that they are the essence nor other than the essence.
Argument against attributing multiplicity to Allah (swt)
Permitting multiplicity of the eternal is contradictory to the unicity which is the most special of the attributes of Allah, Exalted Is He. (It is rejected) because it leads to permitting multiplicity of gods. Because the True God, Glorified and Exalted is He, only deserved Godhood in connection with His precedence over everything in existence. If there were any equal to Him in being eternal, then it would be correct for that equal to be His partner in Godhood, for there is nothing to prevent its being creator, sustainer, manager and wise.
If it is said that Allah (swt) is distinct from the Qur’an and other (instances of the) eternal Word, because of attributes other than eternity -such as Knowledge, Power, Hearing, Seeing-by Which He alone merits Godhood and Lordship.
The answer to it is that specification of Allah, glorified is He, with these attributes, as against His equal in being eternal, is giving a preference to Him over it, and this giving preference must have a justification. If it is said-that the (attribute of) being Speaking is itself, one of those attributes by which Allah merits being alone in the creation and command than We say that those attributes are not separated from Him, glorified is He.
Everything whose eternity is affirmed, its non-existence is impossible because the existence of the eternal is Essential Necessary Existence, which does not need justification in contrast to the existence of (that which) is only permissible (not necessary). It is impossible that anyone should have any authority over it in establishing, or removing, sending down or raising up, maintaining or taking away. While Allah Exalted is He, says about the Qur’an: “If it were Our Will, We could take away which we have revealed to you. (Qur’an 17:86)
The effects of that which is produced is apparent in the Qur’an. Each letter of it needs the other in sequence, its words being composed form them. And each word needs other words to combine as a sentence. Composition is an artwork that points to the artist and the artist must precede in existence the made art.
That kind of reasoning in not allowed in respect of any of His attributes. Thus, (in respect of His attribute of Power) it will not be said that Allah got power over this because of this, and (in respect of His Knowledge) that He knows this because of this, and (in respect of His being All-Seeing) that He saw this for this reason. And the same in respect of the other attributes.
The Proof Text from The Qur’an That Establish that is Created.
1. The first proof is that Allah (swt) has explicitly told us he created it in Arabic.
“Indeed, We have made it (ja’alnahu) an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
Our interlocutors have never been able to find any usage of the above word (ja’alnahu) in the Qur’an to show that something is uncreated, unmade or without origin.
“And thus, We have revealed to you an inspiration of Our command. You did not know what the Book is or, what is faith, but We have made (ja’alnahu) ita light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed, you are guiding to a straight path.” (Qur’an 42:52)
“It is He who CREATED you from one soul and CREATED from it its mate that he might dwell in security with her.” (Qur’an 7:189)
The above text the first term used is “khalaqakum” (created) and the second term “ja’ala” (created). Again, this shows the interchangeable nature of these two terms.
We could simply stop here. That which is made-namely, the Qur’an in its Arabic, its giving light and its guidance is an established reality. Whoever rejects it, he has certainly unbelieved.
The Maker is other than the made. Making precedes the made.
2. The second proof is regarding its obvious order and arrangement.
“And He created all things, then made them in order.” (Qur’an 25:2)
“Verily, all things have We created in proportion and measure.” (Qur’an 54:49)
This is a quality apparent in the Qur’an. It is also showing the Qur’an is subject to order.
Just as Ibrahim (as) understood that the celestial bodies were subject to order.
That which follows laws and order is not that which creates the laws and order, namely Allah (swt). Ibrahim (as) understood this, yet it seems some Muslims do not.
Each letter needs the other in sequence, its words being composed from them. And each word needs other words to combine as a sentence. The letters are different, and none of them is not in need of the other. From what has been said of the distinctness of these letters, and their being absorbed in the composition, (it is clear) that someone has made this distinctness and has made each of them different from the other, and composed them with this art of composition, and made of it this eloquent speech!
3. The third proof is a Logical and textual proof.
Is the Qur’an a thing or nothing?
If the Qur’an is nothing than let that stand on the record. No need to discuss with those who do not see the obvious. If the Qur’an was a nothing or a non-thing there would be no discussion or dispute about it. However, If the Qur’an is a thing, then please be reminded of what Allah (swt) says:
“That is Allah, your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of all things.” (Qur’an 6:102)
So if the Qur’an is a thing, what excludes it from the generality of ‘all things’ mentioned in the verse?
4. The fourth proof. Nothing comes anew from your Lord.
Muhdath in Arabic means newly made. And since it’s newly made it cannot be eternal. i.e. It came after being nothing which means it is created.
“No mention comes to them anew (muh’dathin) from their Lord except that they listen to it while they are at play.” (Qur’an 21:2)
“And no revelation comes to them anew (muh’dathin) from the Most Merciful except that they turn away from it. (Qur’an 26:5)
Our interlocutors and opponents say it refers to the sending down of the book and not the book itself. The response to this is that the eternal does not shift from its root, and that which is merely (accidental) cannot happen to it.
Second there is no authority of anyone or anything over the eternal because the eternal is not caused to be.
5. The fifth proof is that the Qur’an itself has been established and detailed by something external to it.
“This is a Book with verse established and further explained in detail from One who is All-Wise and All Informed.” (Qur’an 11:1)
The argument from this verse is that Allah has described the Qur’an as being established and detailed. Both attributes are an effect emanating from an effect-giver. It is not possible that the effect should be eternal since forever, because of the necessity of the effect-giver having precedence over it. The preceded is originated because evidently it is after when it was not.
So either
A) This Qur’an either it is joined with being established and detailed from its beginning, or these are qualities that Allah has created in it, after it had been void of them. Both possibilities point to its creation and origination.
B) Establishing and detailing are two effects falling upon it. The effect emanates from the effect-giver, attesting to the transferring from one state to the other of that upon which the effect has fallen. That is impossible for the eternal, because of the impossibility of anyone having authority over it. That is the reason why it is impossible to say that Allah has established His Power, or detailed It, or that He has established His Knowledge or detailed it.
Because that phrase necessarily implies origination of His Power and His Knowledge, exalted is He.
“Indeed, We brought them a Book, We detailed it knowingly.” (Qur’an 7:52) A) being ‘brought’ is transferal from one state to another state. That is impossible for the eternal as was explained above.
B) The second is the report about it that it is detailed. As in the foregoing already mentioned point.
C) The third is that its detailing emanates from His Knowledge, glorified is He. The emanating from a thing must be preceded by it.
6. The abrogation is impossible for the eternal.
“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar.” (Qur’an 2:106)
Abrogation is omission and removal, and that is impossible for the eternal. The idea that some part of Allah’s eternal attribute of speech would be more perfect or more suitedthan other parts merits pensive reflection. Remember their argument from reason is the Qur’an perfect or not. This also falls back on them like a crushing tsunami wave.
7. Is that which is sent greater than that which sent it?
“The month of Ramadan, in which the Qur’an was sent down.” (Qur’an 2:185)
Sending down is moving from one place to the other, which is impossible for the eternal, because of the impossibility of anything having authority over it, or its being changed in its state.
“Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.” (John 13:16)
Is the Qur’an fulfilling a task or a mission or a purpose from Allah (swt) is or Allah (swt) fulfilling a mission, task or purpose of the Qur’an?
8. The preservation of the Qur’an.
“Surely We have sent down the message, and surely We will preserve it.” (Qur’an 15:9)
The preserved cannot but be the created, because the eternal does not need preserving by those that preserve. It is impermissible to say that Allah preserved His Life, or His Existence, or His Power, whereas it is permissible to say that Allah (swt) has preserved his Word, if the Word revealed is intended by that, and not kalam al-nafsi. The verse is a proof of its permissibility.
9. The division of the Qur’an into clear and allegorical and one is dependent upon the other.
The saying, exalted is He: “In it are verses clearly defined-they are the core of the Book-and others allegorical (mutashabihat).” (Qur’an 3:7)
The argument from this verse is that the verses of the Qur’an are divided into two types: the clearly defined and the allegorical, and that the clearly defined verses are the base for the allegorical which should be referred to the former in interpretation. That is impossible in respect of what is eternal.
This shows the division in the Qur’an. The Qur’an has division; this cannot be an abiding quality with Allah (swt) that has a division within it. If it has division as mukham and mutashabi it is divided, and we cannot ascribe that to Allah (swt).
10. The created cannot be a vessel for the uncreated.
“Rather: it is clear verses in the hearts of those who are given the knowledge.” (Qur’an 29:49)
The argument from it is that the hearts of scholars are originated the originated cannot be a vessel for the eternal. It is not appropriate to say we contain Allah (swt) in our hearts. That maybe appropriately only in a metaphorical way as mystics say. This is another objection to those Christians and other belief systems or ideas who believe that something eternal can reside in that which is originated.
11. The Qur’an itself mentions it is preserved in a created tablet.
“But it is a Glorious Qur’an, in a Preserved Tablet.” (Qur’an 85:21)
A) The Tablet is created, and the created cannot be a vessel for the non -created, as mentioned above. After all, if one were to believe that the Tablet is eternal and uncreated, then this is nothing other than Allah (swt).
B) This is the perfect opportunity for Allah (swt) the All-Mighty to say: “But it is a Glorious Qur’an, abiding with the All-Mighty, the All Praised.” That is not what was said. It is abiding in a preserved tablet, a created thing.
This is like Christian theology here:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
12. The evidence of that which is mastered is originated.
“We have sent down to you the Book with the truth, confirming the Book before it, and mastering it.” (Qur’an 5:48)
The argument (from this verse) is that He has affirmed its being preceded by other (than it). The preceded cannot but be originated. And He has said that it is mastering its predecessor. The mastering is evidence that the mastered is originated. If the one before it is originated, then the quality of being originated its quite appropriate for it also.
The mastering is evidence that the mastered is originated. Alas the Torah is revealed in Hebrew, and the Injeel in Aramaic and thus the opponents cannot say that this eternal attribute is in Arabic, for it is also in Hebrew, and Syriac and Greek and all other languages, which is an attribute of his knowledge of the diverse languages of humanity and that revelation is produced in the language of the recipients.
13. Is Allah (swt) divided?
“It is a Qur’an which We have divided in order that you might recite it to men at intervals: We have revealed it by stages.” (Qur’an 17:106)
That which is divided is made and the made cannot be but originated.
So, are the believers in Allah (swt) saying He is One or divided?
14. No mention or admonishment of human beings in an eternal uncreated attribute that has mention and admonishment of human beings?
“There was certainly a time when there was no mention of the human being.” (Qur’an 76:1)
If the Qur’an is eternal than this verse would make little sense. Allah (swt) would be speaking for all eternity and human beings would be mentioned/remembered and given admonishment all throughout the Qur’an.
15. Allah (swt) acting upon a revelation prior to the Qur’an.
“Before this We wrote in the Zabur, after the reminder: My servants the righteous, shall inherit the earth.” (Qur’an 21:105)
The fact that Allah (swt) wrote in the Zabur (before the Qur’an) says that he did not something to a revelation that was prior to the Qur’an.
16.Allah (swt) is ascribed as writing his supposed eternal attribute of speech in the Torah
Narrated Abu Huraira:
“The Prophet (saw) said, “Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. ‘O Adam! You are our father who disappointed us and turned us out of Paradise.’ Then Adam said to him, ‘O Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His Own Hand. Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?’ So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses,” the Prophet (saw) added, repeating the Statement three times.”
17. Allah (swt) the effects of Allah (swt) upon revelation given to Musa
And We wrote for him on the tablets [something] of all things – instruction and explanation for all things, [saying], “Take them with determination and order your people to take the best of it. I will show you the home of the defiantly disobedient.” (Qur’an 7:145)
This clearly shows that this is creation from Allah (swt)
18.Did Musa (as) throw down a creation of Allah (swt) or did he throw down something uncreated from Allah (swt)?
“And he threw down the tablets and seized his brother by [the hair of] his head, pulling him toward him.” (Qur’an 7:150)
Wonder what the Hanbali would have thought of Musa (as) and this action?
19. The Qur’an taking on forms and shapes and making intercession for us?
The eternal attribute of speech making intercession with the dhat (essence) of Allah?
“Abu Umama said he heard Allah’s Messenger (saw) say:
“Recite the Qur’an, for on the Day of Resurrection it will come as an intercessor for those who recite It. Recite the two bright ones, al-Baqara and Surah Al ‘Imran, for on the Day of Resurrection they will come as two clouds or two shades, or two flocks of birds in ranks, pleading for those who recite them. Recite Surah al-Baqara, for to take recourse to it is a blessing and to give it up is a cause of grief, and the magicians cannot confront it.”
Narrated Abu Hurairah narrated that the Prophet (saw) said:
“The one who memorized the Qur’an shall come on the Day of Judgement and (the reward for reciting the Qur’an) says: ‘O Lord! Decorate him.” So he is donned with a crown of nobility. Then it says: “O Lord! Give him more!’ So he is donned with a suit of nobility. Then it says: “O Lord! Be pleased with him.’ So He is pleased with him and says: “Recite and rise up, and be increased in reward with every Ayah.'”
This text is not devastating for those Sunni Muslims who follow the Māturīdī & Ash`ari schools of aqidah (creed) This is because they apply taw’il (interpretation) as you can see in the second hadith quoted above: (the reward for reciting the Qur’an) The are smart enough to realize the dangers to their creed in taking the position that an uncreated attribute of Allah (swt) comes in forms and shapes.
However, these text are absolutely devastating to those Sunni Muslims who follow the Salafi/Athari/ strand of aqidah (creed). Because they take the text as it is without taw’il (figurative interpretation).
So they have to do one of two very unpleasant things by their standards and one is a bitter pill to swallow and the other is simply game over on this whole debate.
a) follow the Ash’ari & Maturidi in applying taw’il (interpretation) to the text which they have apparently done at sunnah.com
b) admit that the eternal attribute of Allah (swt) takes on forms and shapes and thus check mate.
20. Can Allah (swt) destroy Jesus (as) completely or partially?
“They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allāh is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, “Then who could prevent Allāh at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?” And to Allāh belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allāh is over all things competent.” (Qur’an 5:17)
Naturally Allah (swt) can destroy Jesus (as) completely. This includes him as flesh and blood and as (bikalimatin). If a word from Allah (swt) can be destroyed it is not eternal.
21. Is Jesus the created word of Allah or the uncreated word of Allah?
“When the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word (bikalimatin)from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. (Qur’an 3:45)
Jesus (as) is a word from Him.
“And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel, and she believed in the words (bikalimati) of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.” (Qur’an 66:12)
Mary (as) is believing in the Lord and his words. Meaning they are not identical.
“O People of the Scripture do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and a word (kalimatuhu) from Him which He directed to Mary and a soul from Him. So, believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.” (Qur’an 4:171)
Jesus (as) is a word from Him.
“And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the (kalam al-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 9:6)
“Those who remained behind will say when you set out toward the war booty to take it, “Let us follow you.” They wish to change the (kalama l-lahi) Words of Allah.” (Quran 48:15)
All these words come from the same Arabic trilateral root.
ك ل م (kaf) (lam) (mim) Jesus is the created word of Allah (swt) just as the Qur’an is the created word of Allah (swt). If someone was to believe that Jesus (as) is the uncreated word of Allah (swt) than that would be Christianity. If someone was to believe that Jesus (as) is the created word of Allah (swt) that would be Islam and the path of safety.
One of our teachers has known of people who have left Islam for Christianity. You also encounter them online and some of them have said a study of the Qur’an helped them make that decision.
I have never heard of a Muslim that believes that Allah (swt) alone is the Creator and everything else (including the Qur’an as being created) become a Christian.
I do not doubt, respected reader, that after your acquaintance with the arguments and debates presented in this discussion on the issue of the Creation of the Qur’an, you will have realized that the correctness and safety lie in the belief that it is, like all other existing things, other than Allah. It came into existence after it had not been. Whatever is like that, it is without doubt created. You will have realized also that this belief in its being eternal opens the door for those who believe in the possibility of multiplicity of the eternal to the extent that it leads to belief in the world’s being eternal.
Our reliance is upon Allah (swt).
“So, in Allah let the believers put their trust.” (Qur’an 9:51)
“The faculties of seeing (tudriku) cannot grasp Him, and He grasp all–seeing (yudriku), He is the All-Subtle and All-Aware.” (Qur’an 6:103)
May Allah (swt) bless our teacher, Shaykh Juma Muhammed Rashid Al-Mazrui.
These are notes I have taken from our Aqidah class on the subject: On the visibility of Allah (swt).
In the class we look at the proofs that other schools give to prove the visibility of Allah (swt). We go through each ayat of the Qur’an that is used. We go through the ahadith that are used. We than go through our proofs and evidences to show that Allah (swt) will not be seen in the life to come.
The hadith in question:
Narrated Jarir:
We were sitting with the Prophet (saw) and he looked at the moon on the night of the full-moon and said, “You people will see your Lord as you see this full moon, and you will have no trouble in seeing Him, so if you can avoid missing (through sleep or business, etc.) a prayer before sunrise (Fajr) and a prayer before sunset (`Asr) you must do so.” (See Hadith No. 529, Vol. 1)
Shaykh Juma was going to show the weakness in the chain of the transmitters in the sanad as well as problems with the matn. However, in this class there was a change of pace.
Of course we reject the hadith “That we shall see our Lord in the like manner as we see the full moon.”
So Shaykh Juma mentioned that next time (which has already passed and that lesson was recent) that there are many contradictions in the matn and the hadith is not logical and it is not acceptable.
HOWEVER…
For the sake of argument let us agree with those who say it is authentic. What is our interpretation of this hadith?
In the science and fundamentals -we have a principle -reconciliation between the text are apparently in conflict or contradictory to one another.
A verse that apparently contradicts another verse for example.
What is really intended by this verse. An example:
“Wherever you may be, death will overcome you—even if you were in fortified towers.” When something good befalls them, they say, “This is from Allah,” but when something evil befalls them, they say, “This is from you.” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Both have been destined by Allah.” So what is the matter with these people? They can hardly comprehend anything!” (Qur’an 4:78)
Then immediately verse 79:
“Whatever good befalls you is from Allah and whatever evil befalls you is from yourself. We have sent you ˹O Prophet˺ as a messenger to ˹all˺ people. And Allah is sufficient as a Witness.” (Qu’ran 4:79)
“Good is from Allah and what ever misfortunes is from yourself.” or the “Good and the misfortunate are both from Allah”
So, apparently this looks like a conflict.
So what is the interpretaton here? Here we apply the principle of reconcilation.
When Allah says everything is from Allah, he determines everything from his limitless, eternal knowledge. The second verse that says only good is from Allah and the bad from ourselves, that we are the real cause of those bad things.
The best thing to use to understand the Qur’an is the Qur’an itself.
“And if not that a disaster should strike them for what their hands put forth [of sins] and they would say, “Our Lord, why did You not send us a messenger so we could have followed Your verses and been among the believers?” (Qur’an 28:47)
“If We give people a taste of mercy, they become prideful ˹because˺ of it. But if they are afflicted with an evil for what their hands have done, they instantly fall into despair.” (Qur’an 30:36)
Something inflicts them because of their own actions and their own sins
Now when we read the same chapter:
“Corruption has spread on land and sea as a result of what people’s hands have done, so that Allah may cause them to taste ˹the consequences of˺ some of their deeds and perhaps they might return ˹to the Right Path˺.” (Qur’an 30:41)
So we have seen how this principle works.
Now to the subject: Is Allah visible? Will Allah be seen in the hereafter or not?
We reject it based upon the matn, but we say for the sake of the argument for those who say it is authentic, what is interpretation. Rueya is the word used.
You see or you will see, rueya , it also means to know or knowledge.
In other words you will have certainty of Allah (swt). That we will know Allah (swt).
Where do we get this interpretation of seeing to mean knowing?
“Have you not seen ˹O Prophet˺ how your Lord dealt with the Army of the Elephant?” (Qur’an 105:1)
So it is logical to ask someone this question if he did not see those people. That is if you interpret and understand optical seeing. This means that Allah (swt) would ask the Prophet (saw) about something that is not logical.
“Have not those who are ungrateful disbelievers seen how Heaven and Earth were once one solid mass which We ripped apart? ” (Qur’an 21:30)
Have not they seen?
“Have you not seen what your Lord did deal with ‘Aad?” (Qur’an 89:6)
So we use this method to understand and reconcile text.
“Did they not see how many generations we destroyed before them.” (Qur’an 36:31)
Did they not see: This means to know. They are aware about something to some degree or another.
“The heart did not lie about what it saw.” (Qur’an 53:11)
(The Prophet’s) heart did not deny what he (Muhammed) saw. His heart did not lie about what he saw. His (the prophet’s) heart/mind did not deny what he saw. His heart didn’t deny what he saw.
The poet says, “I have seen Allah is greater than anything in power and he has most soldiers.”
The Poet saw Allah (swt) ?
Another poet says: “I have seen Allah destroyed the people of aad, thamud and Noah as well.”
So we need to use methodological principles that are also acceptable to the other schools so that they can see the point.
So the hadith about seeing Allah like the moon.
We have to interpret it since the Qur’an is clear.
“The faculties of seeing (tudriku) cannot grasp Him, and He grasp all–seeing (yudriku), He is the All-Subtle and All-Aware.” (Qur’an 6:103)
That no eyes will see Allah (swt), no optical vision.
Next week we will look at the sanads (chains of transmission)
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
For further articles on this subject kindly read the following:
“Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
Above credit is to Kennst du schon die Umkreisel photo taken from: pexels.com
﷽
This entry is to educate and enlighten those Muslims who hold the view that Allah (swt) is everywhere.
They may rely upon the following proof text:
“It is He who created the heavens and earth in six days and then established Himself above the Throne. He knows what penetrates into the earth and what emerges from it and what descends from the heaven and what ascends therein, and He is with you wherever you are. And Allah, of what you do, is Seeing.” (Qur’an 57:4)
“Have you not considered that Allah knows what is in the heavens and what is on the earth? There is in no private conversation three but that He is the fourth of them, nor are there five but that He is the sixth of them – and no less than that and no more except that He is with them wherever they are. Then He will inform them of what they did, on the Day of Resurrection. Indeed Allah is, of all things, Knowing.” (Qur’an 58:7)
“And to Allah belongs the east and the west. So wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah. Indeed, Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.” (Qur’an 2:115)
In the Ibadi school, we understand that Allah (swt) has full power and knowledge of all things. We do not believe that Allah (swt) is omnipresent.
A text that seemingly conflicts with the belief that Allah (swt) is everywhere is the following:
“Nay, when the earth has been pounded with a great pounding and your Lord and the angels come row upon row.” (Qur’an 89:21-22)
If Allah (swt) is everywhere it would make little sense to believe that our Allah (swt) would ‘come‘ to a place he already ‘is‘.
“It is He who created for you all that the earth contains: then He turned to the heavens and made them seven skies-and He is the Knower of All Things.” (Qur’an 2:29)
If Allah (swt) is everywhere it would make little sense to believe that Allah (swt) would ‘turn‘ anywhere, for he is already ‘there‘.
“Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
The verses above demolishes any concept of Allah (swt) resembling the creations. This shows that Allah (swt) exists without a place because whatever exists in a place is by nature composed of particles, body, occupying space. Allah (swt) is clear of occupying space.
This means Allah (swt) does not occupy one place (the throne) or (every place). After all space is a creation and one would need to ask who created spatiality? If it has always co-existed with Allah (swt) it cannot said to be created by our Lord.
The very idea of ‘where‘ is Allah (swt) is inappropriate. Just as the very idea of ‘when‘ is Allah (swt) is inappropriate.
All the above verses that quote Allah (swt) being ‘with you wherever you are’, or Allah (swt) ‘turning’ or Allah (swt) ‘coming’ are all interpreted using the sound principles embedded in the Arabic language in a way that conforms to Qur’an 42:11.
We also have two very important pieces of information. One from Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib and the other from the Blessed Messenger (saw).
The saying “Allah existed eternally without a place, and He is now as He ever was” is related – without chain – from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib
Sources: (Ibn ‘Ata’ Allah al-Sakandari (d. 709) cites it as one of his Hikam (#34). As cited by ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429) in his al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq page. 256)
We also have from the Blessed Messenger (saw) who is reported to have said:
“Allah was when there was nothing else than Him, and His Throne was upon the water, and He wrote in the Reminder (al-dhikr) all things, and he created the heavens and the earth.”
Source: (Narrated from ‘Imran ibn Husayn by al-Bukhari, in the Book of the Beginning of Creation: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/59/2 )
Some people especially perennialist may like to argue that Allah (swt) is everywhere because it will end up supporting concepts like pantheism or pan-deism. Everywhere is basically pantheism or pan-deism. Allah (swt) exist as he was before all Creation (time/space).
Some questions for those who believe in the omnipresence of Allah (swt) is to ask them:
Is Allah (swt) fully present or partially present? What proof text would be offered to show ‘fully‘ or ‘partially‘?
Why not fully present? If fully present than why is it wrong to worship idols, Jesus, Iblis, Demons, or anything for that matter? Authubillah min dhalik!
If Allah (swt) is only partially present where is the other part that isn’t there?
The belief of Muslims is that Allah (swt) is not present in all of his Creation nor that Allah (swt) is his creation or that Allah (swt) became the universe.
“All will perish except His face.” (Qur’an 28:88)
If This verse is taken by its apparent meaning, it would indicate that that the Creator would increase or decrease. If the universe or reality ‘expands‘ or ‘retreats‘ it entails that the Creator ‘expands‘ or ‘retreats‘.
The only challenge to Allah as a “being” that I am aware of is Process Theology (or Process Theism) in Christianity where they state: “God is becoming” not being.
The irony is that the one opening for process theology in Islam is the following hadith Qudsi:
“Abu Huraira(ra) reported:
The Messenger of Allah, (saw), said, “Allah Almighty said: The son of Adam abuses me. He curses time and I am time. In my hand are the night and day.”
The irony here is that this one opening also defeats process theology of becoming a reality among Muslims. It defeats the whole idea of ‘becoming‘ if you are omnipresent or time itself. Glory be to Allah!!
“And when Musa came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: My Lord! Show me (Yourself), so that I may look upon You. He said: You will not see Me but look at the mountain if it remains firm in its place, then will you see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble and Musa fell down in a swoon; then when he recovered, he said: Glory be to You, I turn to Thee, and I am the first of the believers.” (Qur’an 7:143)
Know that the creation cannot contain the Creator nor is the Creator present in the Creation.
Last point of consideration. When teaching young children one can tell them that ‘Allah is everywhere’. This is based on the following verses:
He is with you wherever you are. And Allah, of what you do, is Seeing.” (Qur’an 57:4)
“When My servants ask you about Me: I am truly near. I respond to one’s prayer when they call upon Me. So let them respond to Me and believe in Me, perhaps they will be guided.” (Qur’an 2:186)
This is to instill in them a sense of Allah being near and close to them as well as Allah being with them.
As one gets older and their thinking develops the correct position should be introduced.
Allah knows best.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).
For those who are interested you may wish to read the following:
“And he is with you wherever you are.” (Qur’an 57:4)
﷽
*There is no place for him* Just as there is *No when for him*
Be careful of the tricky questions the slicksters use. These people are the real Ahl Kalam, though they deny it for themselves. When the text clear text no longer support them they run to their kalam arguments.
The choice between two false proposition. They may ask you:
“Is Allah inside the creation or outside the creation?”
In reality the one who is asking this question believes that Allah (swt) is inside his creation. Because he believes that Allah (swt) occupies place.
This is a graphical representation of the thought process behind this trap.
And we know that there is nothing like unto Allah (swt).
They want you to say “Outside of the Creation” so that you posit for Allah (swt) a place.
Inside/Outside/Up/Down/Left/Right all relate to spatial location.
The response to that question is: Allah exist without a place.
Realizing you didn’t take the bait they will try and follow up with a second tricky question they will ask you is as follows:
When Allah (swt) created the creation did he create the creation inside himself or outside of himself?
Answer them by saying: “Mash’Allah! What an excellent question! When Allah (swt) created space and location where/when was Allah (swt)?”
That will give them their answer.
At this point your objective is to bring the Salafi/Athari away from their kalam and back to the revelation.
“Allah is Creator of all things, and He is Guardian over all things.” (Qur’an 39:62)
Like if you ask me can I comprehend the idea of my Creator w/o spatiality?
I can
Do I have a visual or a model?
I do not.
What I DO KNOW is that to say Allah co exist with something that he did not create is problematic.
Ibn Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “Reflect deeply upon the creation, but do not reflect upon the essence of the Creator. Verily, His essence cannot be known other than to believe in it.”
Source: (Musnad al-Rabī’ 742 عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ تَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَلْقِ وَلا تَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي الْخَالِقِ فَإِنَّهُ لا يُدْرَكُ إِلا بِتَصْدِيقِهِ 742 مسند الربيع بن حبيب 2976 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث حسن في صحيح الجامع)
* *وجود الله لا افتتاح له* *كما أن بقاءه لا انتهاء له* *كما أن وجوده لا مكان له* *فكما أنه سبحانه كان ولا إبتداء له وهو باقٍ ولا إنتهاء له كذلك هو موجود ولا مكان له* *فمن جادلك وحاجك في المكان، وقال لك : كيف لي أن أتصور موجودا لا مكان له، وكيف لي أصدق بموجود لا مكان له* *قل له : كما صدقت بموجود لا ابتداء له* *كيف تعقلت وتصورت وصدقت بموجود لا افتتاح لوجوده، بأي عقل صدقت، موجود ليس لوجوده نقطة بداية* *صدقت بذلك لأنه المقام اللائق بهذا الرب الذي ليس كمثله شيء* *فقط، هذا الذي دعاك للتسليم بأنه موجود بلا إبتداء ، لا عادتك التي اعتدتها ، أنت لم تعتد لوجود لا إفتتاح له* *لكن لما كان الكلام متعلقا برب ليس كمثله شيء، صدقت وأذعنت وسلمت وأمنت أن هذا الرب لا افتتاح لوجوده، ولا نهاية لبقائه* *فكذلك قل في مكانه لا مكان له؛ لأنه الرب الذي تعالى عن ظروف الازمنة وكذلك يتعالى عن ظروف الامكنة* *المتعالي عن ظروف الازمنة متعالي عن ظروف الأمكنة*
Some may also believe that Allah (swt) is omni present. Meaning that Allah (swt) is located every where (omni) all present. This is also an error.
May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt). May Allah (swt) protect this Ummah from those who believe that Allah (swt) is inside of his creation and than provide the caveat: “In a way that befits him.”
“When they see it, the criminal will wish he can ransom himself from the chastisement of that day by sacrificing his children.” (Qur’an 70:11)
“Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom’s weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.” (Qur’an 4:40)
﷽
“And the request of forgiveness of Ibrahim for his father was only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became apparent to Ibrahim that his father was an enemy to Allah, he disassociated himself from him. Indeed was Ibrahim compassionate and patient.” (Qur’an 9:114)
In this short entry we will be discussing a very curious hadith found in Bukhari.
We like to call this: The TO BE CONTINUED….hadith.
You can see how some Sunni scholars tried to deal with this hadith.
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī in Fatḥ al-Bārī says Āzar was transformed from human form into an animal form for two reasons:
The first reason: As a mercy to Abraham — because if Āzar entered the Fire in the form that Abraham knew, Abraham would be pained every time he looked toward the Fire and saw his father. So Allah wished to show mercy to Abraham by transforming his father’s form.
The second reason: Āzar had seen the signs indicating Allah’s oneness, the proof had been established against him, yet he refused anything but polytheism. Therefore, the punishment is of the same kind as the deed. He was transformed into a stupid hyena because he was characterized by stupidity and rejected the call to monotheism, so he was transformed into this form.
The Lord will answer him with the decisive word, that He has forbidden Paradise to the disbelievers. Then it will be said to Abraham: Look at what is under your feet. So Abraham, peace be upon him, will look and see a hyena covered in filth. The hyena is the male hyena with much hair. He will find it covered in excrement or blood. Then it will be seized by its limbs—that is, its hands and feet—and thrown into the Fire. It is said that it appeared to him in this repulsive form because So that he might disown him. The wisdom behind his transformation into a hyena, rather than any other animal, lies in the fact that the hyena is the most foolish of animals. Part of its foolishness is its heedlessness of what requires vigilance. When Azar rejected the advice of the most compassionate person towards him and instead accepted the deception of Satan, he resembled the hyena, known for its foolishness. This hadith also illustrates God’s honoring of His friend Abraham. Furthermore, it provides evidence that a child’s conversion to Islam will not benefit the parent on the Day of Judgment if the parent was not a Muslim
“This hadith also illustrates God’s honoring of His friend Abraham.” What?! This wild explanation does nothing to tell us how Abraham (as) was notdisgraced on that day. What is the resolution? What did Abraham learn about Āzar?
If Ibrāhīm knows the animal is his father, he still sees his father punished. The transformation doesn’t remove the shame—it merely changes the visual. This explanation solves nothing theologically. It also introduces a special privilege for Ibrāhīm that no other believer gets, which contradicts Qur’ānic justice (Qur’an 4:40).
If the animal were a ransom, Āzar would be saved. But the ḥadīth explicitly says Paradise is forbidden to disbelievers. So the animal is not a ransom—it’s just an animal being punished. That’s the plain reading.
Also, if this whole elaborate and fanciful interpretation is needed so that Abraham is not disgraced and dishonored, what good is that those reading this very article know that indeed his father was disgraced?!
So now we will need another elaborate and fanciful interpretation (let us see if we can beat the Sufis to it). That someone would suggest that we all have our memories wiped concerning the fate of Azar on the day of judgment!
We call the above hadith: The TO BE CONTINUED hadith.
You know, sometimes you get wrapped up in watching a series on television, and suddenly they cancel season three just when it was getting really interesting!
That’s the case with the following hadith:
“Ibrahim will meet his father on the Day of Resurrection, and Azar’s face will be dark and covered with dust. Ibrahim will say to him, “Did I not tell you not to disobey me?’ His father will say, ‘Today I will not disobey you.” Ibrahim will say, ‘O Lord! You promised me not to disgrace me on the Day of Resurrection; and what will be more disgraceful to me than cursing and dishonoring my father?” Then Allah will say, ‘I have forbidden Paradise to the disbelievers.’ Then he will be addressed, ‘O Ibrahim, what is beneath your feet?’ He will look and there will be a sacrificial animal (Dhahb) WHICH WILL BE CAUGHT BY THE LEGS AND THROWN INTO THE FIRE!”
In ya go ya little booger!
“He will look and there will be a sacrificial animal (Dhahb) which will be caught by the legs and thrown into the fire!”
When you look at this text, it is sensible that it stops at this part: “Then Allah will say, ‘I have forbidden Paradise to the disbelievers.” This concludes the matter.
Now the messy part.
The following part is all too easily an accretion by a redactor:
“Then he will be addressed, ‘O Ibrahim, what is beneath your feet?’ He will look and there will be a sacrificial animal (Dhahb) which will be caught by the legs and thrown into the fire!”
So we saw that this particular Hadith had a sensible conclusion. Yet theology won’t have it that way….we need it to continue…. “THEN….”
From this part on, the redactor just lets the imagination run wild…..
This becomes more interesting when you consider that, in Islamic history, both theShi’i Muslims and the Ash’ari Sunni Muslims have had a real problem with the idea of the parents of the Prophet (saw) being in hellfire or even the father of Ibrahim being in the hellfire.
The Shi’i have made some very wild attempts to assert that Azar is not the father of Ibrahim but his uncle instead. Not to be outdone by none no other than Jalal Al-Din Al-Suyuti, threw his weight behind the idea as well.
(insh’Allah, perhaps these are subjects for future articles) ..
So there are two things to be immediately said about the Hadith above.
First point.
If Prophet Ibrahim (as) gets to ask for privileges on behalf of his father, then this means that all the Prophets will get to ask privileges for their wives, sons, daughters, uncles. Noah (as) gets to ask for his sons. Lut (as) gets to ask for his wife.
Second point.
This will indicate double standards. The Prophets get special treatment from Allah (swt) — Astaghfirullah and the rest of us. If we go to the Jannah, can we ask the same for our family members:” Will Allah (swt) be just and give this same treatment to everyone or only to the Prophets?
“And certainly We know best those who are most worthy of being burned therein.” (Qur’an 19:70)
So what did the sacrificial animal do to be burned by the fire?
Was this (let’s say a goat) was he:
Among the Mujrimun-criminals?
Among the Fasiq-defiantly disobedient?
Among the Munafiq-hypocrites?
Among the Mushrik-those who associate partners with Allah (swt) ?
May Allah (swt) forgive us. May Allah (swt) deal justly with those who forge narrations and put words in the mouth of the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Our understanding in the Ibadi school is that the animals are the creations of Allah (swt). They are created according to their fitra, and they do not rebel against Allah (swt). They are not subject to any punishment, certainly not hellfire.
To believe that the Blessed Messenger (saw) would not overburden camels or that he would cut his robe so as not to disturb a sleeping cat and then turn around and think that he narrated something like this is certainly wanting.
All praise be to Allah. Al hamdulillah.
“And the request of forgiveness of Ibrahim for his father was only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became apparent to Ibrahim that his father was an enemy to Allah, he disassociated himself from him. Indeed was Ibrahim compassionate and patient.” (Qur’an 9:114)
The idea of not accepting that the father of Prophet Ibrahim (as) goes to hell is the same train of thought that leads some Sunni Muslims to launch attacks upon the very Sahih hadith themselves!
“The Originator of the heavens and the earth; He made mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby; there is nothing like unto Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”(Qur’an 42:11)
﷽
This verse is sufficient to refute the rational proofs that the Ashari may try and bring forth to assert that Allah (swt) is perceptible.
This article will give the position of the Ibadi School, The Muslims, also known as: (Ahl al Haqq wal Istiqamah) on seeing Allah (swt) on the day of judgement.
We will critique the position of our brothers from Ahl Sunnah. As Ahl Sunnah is divided on this issue we need to make sure that our arguments are addressed to both sides of the divide among Ahl Sunnah itself.
The school of Ahl Sunnah that asserts that Muslims will see Allah (swt) in an apparent sense. (Athari, Salafiyya)
The school of Ahl Sunnah that asserts that Muslims will see Allah (swt) as being perceptible in the heart or mind.
In our estimation, the Athari, Salafiyya among the Ahl Sunnah are more consistent in their principles on ‘seeing’ Allah (swt) than are the Ashari. We will leave that to you the reader to decide where lay the truth.
Whereas we regard the Ashari/Maturidi to be the most inconsistent in this regard, as there are a few positions of them on this matter. Insh’Allah that will be shown in this article. We will present two examples straight away to prove this point:
“The Day the shin will be uncovered and they are invited to prostration but the disbelievers will not be able.” (Qur’an 68:42)
Ask all the Ashari/Maturidi on the planet, do they take the outward meaning of this verse? Certainly, this would be a strong verse to support their position? That people will see Allah (swt) by seeing the ‘shin’ of Allah (swt).
“People asked the Prophet (saw): O’ Messenger of Allah will we see our Lord in the Day of Resurrection? Then the Messenger of Allah replied: Is there any dispute among you whether a full moon is visible? They answered: No. then The Prophet (saw) continued asking them: “ Is there any dispute among you whether the sun is visible in a cloudless sky? They replied in the negative. Then The Prophet stated (saw): “Then you will see your Lord JUST LIKE this”. Allah will get the people together in the Day of Resurrection then He says: those who were worshiping any deity shall follow it. Then the ones who were worshiping the sun will follow the sun and the ones who were worshiping the moon will follow the moon and those who were worshiping Rebels will follow Rebels …Then Allah will come to them in a FORM other than WHAT THEY KNEW and say: “I am your Lord”, they reply: “We seek refuge in Allah from you. This is our place until our Lord Comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him. THEN ALLAH WILL COME TO THEM IN A SHAPE THEY KNOW and will say, I am your Lord’ They will say, ‘(No doubt) You are our Lord,’ and they will follow Him.”
Source:(Al Bukhari hadith no.6573 Book Of Ar-Riqaq)
They (Ashari/Maturidi) leave their students absolutely gob smacked that on the one hand, they battle against fellow Sunni who takes the outward meaning and they(the Ashari/Maturidi) constantly deny corporeality, and space/time for Allah (swt) and yet at the same time assert that we will see (sorry Mohamed Ghilan) I mean look upon Allah (swt) !!
We will show the strength and consistency both textually and intellectually of those of us who say that we will not see Allah (swt) on the day of judgement.
We will also be interacting with material from two videos. In the first video, you will only need to watch the first half-hour. That is the only section relevant to this post. https://youtu.be/5_6zRI0eH44 When we quote from this we will reference this as video A.
I personally was quite shocked and taken aback as I listened to our respected brother Mohamed Ghilan. Yet, as I listened he showed such what has to be described as a simple understanding of basic tenets of creed and certainly did not understand the beliefs of others. May Allah guide him and us.
Mohamed Ghilan echoing Shaykh Hamza Yusuf calls seeing Allah (swt) in the hereafter as “beatific vision” borrowing terminology from Roman Catholics. He states this @ 54:14 seconds (Video B) into the discussion.
Like when he says about Moses and the burning bush… “He really spoke.”
Oh, do tell us what do you mean when you say that, “He (swt) really spoke”??
What follows will be fromvideo A above. The Ustaz ask:
First Question: Is it rationally conceivable that Allah (swt) can be seen?
The Ustaz says that we can conceive of images in our minds. So Allah (swt) is being compared to temporal objects and bodies with accidents!
Now, this is important you will notice some bait and switch tactics going on with Ahl Sunnah. They are all over the place on this point of creed. All of this about “seeing” Allah (swt) and yet the first point is to talk about “seeing” Allah (swt) in the mind! Not with the eyes, not with the faces nor with the hearts.
So the Ustaz ask” “Is it possible in the mind?” He responds: “Yes he can! Why? Because he is existent. He is an existent being!”
My response:
That is a very weak argument. Because what will soon to follow will be likening Allah (swt) to spatial objects with accidents and bodies.
And sure enough @14:51 The Ustaz does exactly that. “Now this pen is made of substance body (plastic) and it’s made up of accidents, colour, shape size, weight, occupying space, etc, moving not moving. These are all accidents. Now can you is it possible in the mind for you to see this body without the accidents. Now you don’t see it. You don’t see it separate from its accidents but that does not mean it’s not possible. There is nothing in your mind to say to you, hear me out. There is nothing in your mind to say that you cannot see substance without the accidentsexcept that you are unable since bodies do not exist except with accidents. But there is nothing inconceivable in your mind. There is nothing that is blocking it in your mind.”
@21:19 the Ustaz continues… “Is it a contradiction in the mind that an accident can be seen. It’s not a contradiction. It actually can be seen because it exists. Anything that exists as an existent being can be seen.”
Notice the student @21:49 (whomever he is) he is brilliant. He tried to save the whole creed and its nonsense by saying what they should be saying, that is: “Because Allah exists it’s possible we can grasp his existence.” Then the teacher responds abruptly “That he is seen yes.” My response: “WOW!”
The student was on to something brilliant but the teacher wanted to quickly make sure that he affirms his (the teacher’s) position in the creed.
So the questions we really should be asking is:
“Is Allah an accident or a substance?”
“Is Allah’s wujud like or unlike his creation?”
The argument that Ustadh is making is that you can’t see accidents but that it is possible. However, he failed to give a single example of someone actually seeing an accident. So you can’t affirm something is possible when you haven’t given a single example of untold thousands of examples of this being a reality. That is even in relation to created things! How much more for that which is not contingent upon or dependent upon anything?
One of the students uses an argument about a man in a dark room. He is there but you cannot see him. So then the Ustaz replies that:
“The reason he can be seen is because he exists is not the means by which he is seen.”
This is fallacious. The reason he can be seen here is that he is a substance, a body. Which still does not make the argument the Ustaz is trying to establish at all. In fact, even in the case of the man in the darkroom, there are many things to be said:
He can’t be seen but he could be perceived. He could be perceptible without even being seen.
Even if you saw him would you say that you comprehend him?
The man has that which you can see his outward and that which you cannot see his inward.
It is part of the fitra that Allah (swt) created us and actually, a proof of his wahdat al wujud is the fact we can’t see him. The Ustaz can’t give a single example because it goes against the fitra. Another example that Allah (swt) has put inside of human beings that is quite powerful is the following:
The concept of nothing. It is part of your fitra, that you cannot picture nothing in your mind. Your mind will either picture an all-black space or an all-white space. That is still something. The irony here is that you can comprehend nothingness but you cannot see nothingness. Certainly, Allah (swt) is more than nothingness! If you cannot see nothingness how much more do you think you can see Allah (swt) who is the wahdat al wujud! You cannot comprehend Allah (swt) let alone see Allah (swt).
“Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators.”(Qur’an 52:35)
On the possibility of seeing Allah (swt) this claim is demolished by the fact that there are so many invisible existents The soul, the intellect, the sense, perception, sounds, ether, etc.
Their opening the door of comparison of the Creator and the creation will lead to describing Him with many of those that are impossible about Him, Exalted is He. The existence of creatures cannot be perceived except with the existence of space and time. Perishing existents do not have the capacity to see the Eternal.
The peak of perceptibility of Allah (swt) ends with: “There is nothing like Him, and He is All-Hearing, All-Seeing” (Qur’an 42:11)
Muslim narrated from Abu Dhar, he said: “I asked the Prophet Muhammad (Blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), Have you seen your Lord? He replied: ” A light. How can I see Him”.
Source: (Sahih Muslim hadith 341. Kitab Al Iman)
The aforementioned evidence is enough to demolish the rational proofs that the Ashari/Maturidi bring forth in trying to liken Allah (swt) to his creation. May Allah (swt) protect the believers from it!
BE CAREFUL OF THE BAIT AND SWITCH-RUHYA-IDRAAK-NAZAR
I want to caution you the student of knowledge the seeker of truth on something very important. Do yourself a favour and note down every time someone from Ahl Sunnah uses these words ‘Ruhya’ or ‘Idraak’ or ‘Nazar’. I have often found that one speaker will claim Ruhya means this and Idraak means that and then another speaker will actually turn around and say the exact opposite!
Also, take note of the proof text they use. When they use a proof text from the Qur’an which word is being used there and why? Are they using ‘Ruhya’ or are they using ‘Idraak’ or are they using ‘Nazar’?
When they use a proof text from the hadith which word is being used there and why? Are they using ‘Ruhya’ or are they using ‘Idraak’ or are they using ‘Nazar’?
What about Idraak?
Be familiar with these arguments because the advocates of seeing Allah (swt) will rush to this argument first. It is perhaps the strongest they feel that they have. Even in the comment section below you will see one of our brothers from Ahl Sunnah rush to it.
“And what will make you know (idraka) what the Reality is?” (Qur’an 69:3)
The meaning of idraka here means perception when it is connected to the senses.
It has the sense of seeing when connected to the eyes or sight. When Idraak is connected to sight (ba sad ra) it means to see.
In this text yud’rikkumu is to reach or overtake.
“Wherever you may be, death will (yud’rikkumu) reach you, though you should be in raised-up towers. And if a good thing visits them, they say, ‘This is from Allah’; but if an evil thing visits them, they say, ‘This is from you.’ Say: ‘Everything is from Allah.’ How is it with this people? They scarcely understand any tiding.” (Qur’an 4:78)
So will we totally comprehend Allah (swt) or not? To totally comprehend Allah (swt) undermines the Wahdat al Wujud of Allah (swt). Can it be said that the finite will comprehend the infinite?
If we only partially comprehend Allah (swt) this means Allah (swt) would be broken into parts. He would be a part that we can comprehend and a part that we cannot comprehend. If we do not comprehend Allah (swt) at all it strengthens the argument of those of us who say that we will not see Allah (swt) at all. This is because comprehension is of the eyes.
Now, one has to be careful when dealing with various translations of the Qur’an. No doubt the translators have to toe the line of the various theologies they are beholden to.
The faculties ofseeing (tudriku) cannot grasp Him, and He grasp all–seeing (yudriku), He is the All-Subtle and All-Aware.” (Qur’an 6:103)
Now the Ustaz in (video A) gave to his students the impression that Idraak means to ‘behold something in its entirety’. ‘To encompass‘ ‘To see something in its entirety to comprehend it‘.
My response:
There is a difference between reaching (idrak) and encompassing (ihata)
There is no lexical reference work which interprets idrak as ‘encompassing’. That is sufficient proof as to the error of this interpretation by the respected Ustaz and anyone else who follows suit in this.
One’s saying (for example) lahiqtu al-jidara bi yad-i (I reached the wall with my hand) does not mean anything other than touching the wall. It is impossible that the hand should ‘encompass‘ the wall.
if someone says, “ahata bi-hi al-sahmu (the arrow reached him) it is sensible. If someone says “ahata bi-hi al-sahmu (the arrow encompassed him) then no reasonable person will regard his utterance as anything but senseless.
“Allah will say, “Enter among nations which had passed on before you of jinn and mankind into the Fire.” Every time a nation enters, it will curse its sister until, when they have caught up with one another (‘iddarku) therein, the last of them will say about the first of them “Our Lord, these had misled us, so give them a double punishment of the Fire. He will say, “For each is double, but you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:38)
“when they catch up with one another.” It does not mean that each group encompassed the other.
If I cannot make you see this and if the usage of the lexicons cannot make you see it than I pray that Allah (swt) will open your eyes and your heart to what the pure Arab, and mother of the believers had to say about this.
Narrated Masruq:
I said to ‘Aisha, “O Mother! Did Prophet Muhammad see his Lord?” Aisha said, “What you have said makes my hair stand on end! Know that if somebody tells you one of the following three things, HE IS A LIAR: Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Lord, IS A LIAR.” Then Aisha recited the Verses:
‘No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is overall vision. He is the Most Courteous Well-Acquainted with all things.’ (Qur’an 6:103)
‘It is not fitting for a human being that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil.’ (Qur’an 42:51)
Source: (Al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 378)
Notice our mother Aisha (May Allah be pleased with her). Notice the response? “What you have said makes my hair stand on end!”
Now a desperate response to the above text after realizing that the first argument did not work is they may well say:
“The negation is without any condition, and therefore not bound to any meaning of ‘for all time’.”
Response to that claim:
Obviously this is now how our mother Aisha (r.a) understood this verse. She did not reason that perhaps he did see that time whereas other times he did not. No. In fact, that argument also works in our favour as it is not conditioned upon a time (this life or the life to come).
Other textual evidence from the Qur’an.
“When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: “O my Lord! show (Yourself) to me, that I may look upon you.” Allah said: “You shall never see me; But look upon the mount; if it abides in its place,then you will see me.”
When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe.” (Qur’an 7:143)
This is a powerful text against the claims of the Ashari/Maturidi and all those who say that we can see Allah (swt)!
Moses was dealing with his stubborn and rebellious people and demonstrated them the futility of their request which was:
“The People of the Scripture ask you to bring down to them a book from heaven. But they had asked of Moses [even] greater than that and said, “Show us, Allah, outright,” so the thunderbolt struck them for their wrongdoing. Then they took the calf [for worship] after clear evidences had come to them, and We forgave them for that ˹after their repentance˺ And We gave Moses a clear authority.” (Qur’an 4:153)
“And [recall] when you said, “O Moses, we will never believe you until we see Allah outright”; so the thunderbolt took you while you were looking on.” (Qur’an 2:55)
“And Moses chose from his people seventy men for Our appointment. And when the earthquake seized them, he said, “My Lord, if You had willed, You could have destroyed them before and me [as well]. Would You destroy us for what the foolish among us have done? This is not but Your trial by which You send astray whom You will and guide whom You will. You are our Protector, so forgive us and have mercy upon us; and You are the best of forgivers.” (Qur’an 7:155)
Prima Qur’an Comments: There is so much to be said about the above-mentioned ayats. First of all Allah (swt) said, ‘you will never see me‘. However some of these people have no shame nor fear of their Lord and they will play with the English translations and perform all kinds of maneuvers to make you think that this verse should be understood as, “You will not see me now” meaning the possibility of being seen in the future is there.
In fact, the Ustaz in (video A) unfortunately, he did exactly that.
This is similar to the following verse:
Say: Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth,Who feeds and is never fed? Say: I am ordered to be the first to surrender (unto Him). And be not you (O Muhammed) of the idolaters. (Qur’an 6:14)
No one who reads the Arabic text understands this as Allah (swt) is not currently fed but has the possibility of being fed in the future! Authubillah min dhalik.
Not only that but if we do not understand the negative imperative to include all times what does it say about the laws of Islam? Does it ever occur to the mind that there will be a time in the future where shirk would be permissible? Authubillah! There will be a time in the future where adultery and taking the soul without the right will become permissible? Authubillah!
This argument is also negated by the fact that there is division among the Ahl Sunnah as regards Allah (swt) will be seen in this life or not.
Look at the hadith again.
“People asked the Prophet (saw): O’ Messenger of Allah will we see our Lord in the Day of Resurrection? Then the Messenger of Allah replied: Is there any dispute among you whether a full moon is visible? They answered: No. then The Prophet (saw) continued asking them: “ Is there any dispute among you whether the sun is visible in a cloudless sky? They replied in the negative. Then The Prophet stated (saw): “Then you will see your Lord JUST LIKE this”. Allah will get the people together in the Day of Resurrection then He says: those who were worshiping any deity shall follow it. Then the ones who were worshiping the sun will follow the sun and the ones who were worshiping the moon will follow the moon and those who were worshiping Rebels will follow Rebels …Then Allah will COME TO THEM in a FORM other than WHAT THEY KNEW and say: “I am your Lord”, they reply: “We seek refuge in Allah from you. This is our place until our Lord Comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him. THEN ALLAH WILL COME TO THEM IN A SHAPE THEY KNOW and will say, I am your Lord’ They will say, ‘(No doubt) You are our Lord,’ and they will follow Him.”
Source:(Al Bukhari hadith no.6573 Book Of Ar-Riqaq)
Can it really be imagined that Allah (swt) who knows all things, and is perfect in the expression of his language would say to Moses (a.s), ‘You shall never see me’ knowing that Moses (a.s) would see him in the afterlife?
Someone should ask the Ustaz (from video A) what form is it that the believers KNOW concerning Allah (swt)?
Not only that but if the negation in this verse is taken to mean for this world, not for the hereafter, then it must be allowed in similar verses, like His saying:
“Slumber does not overtake Him, nor sleep.”(Qur’an 2:255)
“He has neither a companion nor a son”(Qur’an 72:3)
“He is not brought forth from like-kind nor does like kind come forth from him.” (Qur’an 112:3-4)
Whatever is forbidden in this world like slumber, sleep, companion, peers must be permitted in the hear-after. Should we really reason like this?
It is obligatory for every Muslim to believe that this world and the next world have no effect on the essence of Allah!
It is impossible for Allah (swt) that time can affect him or space to accompany him. His essence never changes and his attributes never shift.
What are we to do about the challenge of Allah (swt) in the Qur’an?
“But if you do not – and you will never (walan) be able to – then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.”(Qur’an 2:24)
This negation is eternal and permanent. Is the Ustaz (in video A) or any other going to claim no this statement of Allah (swt) is only for a ‘period of time’. Which means it is possible people will create the like of the Qur’an!
Also, we know that the mountain did not abide. Allah (swt) didn’t set his being perceived on the condition of the mountain but on his knowledge that it is not possible and that was manifest clearly to the people of Moses.
Also, note the concept of blasphemous ideas and concepts being related to mountains being destroyed as with the following blasphemous concept.
“The heavens almost rupture therefrom and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse in devastation That they attribute to the Most Merciful a son.” (Qur’an 19:90-91)
These are the people of disbelief. It is obvious when they say that they will not attain to faith until they see Allah (swt) plainly at which it says in response that the thunderbolt overtook them! Think about it! They are the ones who wanted a golden calf a ‘sura’ a form. These are the same people who want to look upon Allah (swt). They are wanting something perceptible to the eyes.
The people who adhere to the Ashari/Maturidi doctrine need to think clearly on this matter.
Again we have the following text…
And those who do not expect the meeting with Us say, “Why were not angels sent down to us,or [why] do we [not] see our Lord?” They have certainly become arrogant within themselves and [become] insolent with great insolence.” (Qur’an 25:21)
So now let us look at the positive proof that the Ashari/Maturidi will bring forth from the Qur’an to try and establish their proofs. Let us see if it is consistent with
a) The Qur’an itself.
b) with their own theology concerning Allah (swt) not being in space/time
c) reason.
Positive proof for the Ashari/Maturidi position from the Qur’an.
“The heart did not lie [about] whatit saw. So will you dispute with him over whathe saw? And he certainly saw him in another descent. (Qur’an 53:11-13)
“Andwithout doubt, he saw him in the clear horizon.” (Qur’an 81:23)
#1) If we are to believe that this is Allah (swt) then it clashes with the clear text of the Qur’an.
#2) If we are to believe that this is Allah (swt) then it clashes with Ashari/Maturidi Aqidah. For example:
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace, and blessings be upon him, said, “Our Lord descends to the lowest heaven in the last third of every night, and he says: Who is calling upon me that I may answer him? Who is asking me that I may give him? Who is seeking my forgiveness that I may forgive him?”
Source:(al-Bukhārī 1094,Muslim 758)
So do the Ashari/Maturidi believe that in the hadith above that Allah (swt) descends?
Do the Ashari/Maturidi believe that distance is a hindrance to Allah (swt)?
Do the Ashari/Maturidi believe that Allah (swt) does the ascending and descending depending on the time of day as (the last third of every night) is depending upon the relative timings of the globe?
So if the Ashari/Maturidi use the above verses to argue that the Blessed Messenger (saw) had seen Allah (swt) then they must believe the part where it says, “certainly saw him in anotherdescent.”
#3) It goes against reason as already mentioned above. Allah (swt) is imperceptible.
#4) Lastly, it contradicts well-established hadith on the matter:
It is narrated that `Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, said: “I asked the Messenger of Allah about these two verses. He said, “That is Jibreel; I never saw him in the form in which Allah created him except on these two occasions. I saw him descending from the heavens, with his huge size filling the horizon between heaven and the earth.”
Source: (Muslim Book 1 Hadith Number 0337 Book of Faith)
`Aisha may Allah be pleased with her, was asked about the verse (which means): “Then he [Jibreel] approached and descended.”[Quran 53:8] She, may Allah be pleased with her, said, “That is Jibreel. He used to come to him (the Prophet ) in human form, but on this occasion, he came in his real form, and he filled the horizons of the sky.”
Source: (Muslim Book 1 Hadith Number 0340 Book of Faith)
Those counter proofs should be enough to ground to powder any Ashari/Maturidi pretension concerning those verses.
The big verse that the Ashari/Maturidi use to support their position from the Qur’an is the following:
“ Some faces, that Day, will be radiant, Looking toward their Lord. And some faces, that Day, will be contorted, Expecting that there will be done to them something backbreaking.” (Qur’an 75:22-25)
So here the Ashari/Maturidi interpret the word Nazar as looking, seeing. (Insh’Allah we will come back to this, especially in the context of brother Mohamed Ghilan above).
This word (Nazar) is more general than ru’yah.
Will they see with their faces?
Will they see with their eyes?
Will they see with some sixth sense?
This confusion is clear evidence that they do not have any ground for their opinion.
Remember the hadith:
“Soon you will see your Lord openly as you see the moon on the night of the full moon.”
We understand this verse as: “waiting for their Lord”.
We need to again ask if the Ashari/Maturidi position contradicts the following:
a)The Qur’an itself.
b) with their own theology that Allah (swt) is not in space/time.
c) reason.
We would translate or understand the text as: “Faces, that day looking forward to receiving mercy from their Lord.”
The first thing that should be pointed out, is that no one from the Ashari/Maturidi school can find fault with our interpretation of the text. Observe yourself and see the many forms, as a verb, noun, active participle, and passive participle.
Second, the context of the verse itself shows the people of the station waiting to receive their just rewards:
‘Some faces will be radiant, looking forward to receiving mercy from their Lord. Some faces will be contorted, expecting something backbreaking.’
To give you (the truth seeker) a solid proof to show you that Nazir does not have to mean seeing ponder the following text.
“Indeed, those who exchange the covenant of Allah and their [own] oaths for a small price will have no share in the Hereafter, and Allah will not speak to them or look at them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them; and they will have a painful punishment.”(Qur’an 3:77)
If Nazar in this verse is interpreted as seeing, it will lead to the meaning that Allah will not see these people on the Day of Resurrection. This is not possible, and such a belief is in real error because it is a rejection of faith in Allah (swt)! There is no way but to interpret Nazar here as mercy and favour. Allah (swt) will not show his mercy or favour upon them.
Now going back to what our brother Mohamed Ghilan said in his talk @ 54:32 “But the Sunni position is that we will actually see Allah (swt), but you can but that does not negate that Allah is above everything and he’s above comprehension.”
The other thing that our brother Mohamed Ghilan does is bring in a straw man argument. This is clear evidence that he is not confident of his position.
Thus, he brings up the following verse:
“And if you invite them to guidance, they do not hear; and you see them looking at you while they do not see.” (Qur’an 7:198)
It is clear to me that our brother Mohamed Ghilan by bringing into the discussion a non-argument he is preaching to the choir.
Perhaps our brother Mohamed Ghilan can mention to his students who among the Ahl Al Haqq Wal Istiqimah (The Muslims), the Mu’tazilis, the Jahmis, the Zaydi’s , the Imamis-12er Shia and from among those who scholarsfrom Ahl Sunnah who are independent of taqlid, who among them holds to the position or view that Allah (swt) is comprehensible?
Again a straw man.
As regardsQur’an 75: 22-25 The Ahl Sunnah differ who will see him in the next life.
They are of three views;
1) Only believers will see Him.
2) All people will see him at the Station, believers and unbelievers then the unbelievers will be veiled from him.
3) The third is that hypocrites will see Him but not the unbelievers.
This is enough to prove the weakness of the foundation on which they have established their belief.
By contrast, the truth cannot bear such conflict, because its arguments are clear and its path is straight.
Is this a special treat for the believers only? Is this a special treat just for the believers and people who have remained steadfast?
Apparently not. Ponder the following:
“Soon you will see your Lord.”-Hadith The context of this hadith requires the seeing to take place at the station where all are gathered. It will not be restricted to believers only, Hypocrites, “and this ummah will remain with its hypocrites. Then, Allah, Exalted is He, will come to them in a form other than what they knew, then he will say: “I am your Lord.” Then they will say: “We seek refuge in Allah from you. This is our place until our Lord comes.”
It also follows from it that Allah, will be seen by this ummah believers and hypocrites- This goes against the verse in the Qur’an from
Moses: “NEVER WILL YOU SEE HIM.”
Why the unbelievers and hypocrites from the time of Moses did not get to see Allah (swt) but the unbelievers and hypocrites will be able to see now?
As regards this hadith. Let me put the hadith again for you to read and reflect upon it.
“People asked the Prophet (saw): O’ Messenger of Allah will we see our Lord in the Day of Resurrection? Then the Messenger of Allah replied: Is there any dispute among you whether a full moon is visible? They answered: No. then The Prophet (saw) continued asking them: “ Is there any dispute among you whether the sun is visible in a cloudless sky? They replied in the negative. Then The Prophet stated (saw): “Then you will see your Lord JUST LIKE this”. Allah will get the people together in the Day of Resurrection then He says: those who were worshiping any deity shall follow it. Then the ones who were worshiping sun will follow the sun and the ones who were worshiping moon will follow the moon and those who were worshiping Rebels will follow Rebels …Then Allah will COME TO THEM in a FORM other than WHAT THEY KNEW and say: “I am your Lord”, they reply: “We seek refuge in Allah from you. This is our place until our Lord Comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him. THEN ALLAH WILL COME TO THEM IN A SHAPE THEY KNOW and will say, I am your Lord’ They will say, ‘(No doubt) You are our Lord,’ and they will follow Him.”
Source: (Al Bukhari hadith no.6573 Book Of Ar-Riqaq)
Response:
First point. It also follows from it that His Essence (dhat), Exalted is He, changes from one form to the other. Such change is a characteristic of contingent existents (huduth).
Second point.
Shaykh Ahmed Al Khalili (May Allah continue to benefit us through him) asked our brothers from the Ahl Sunnah, the following:
“Whoever has read the Book of Allah and has studied the Sunnah of His Messenger must know that real form in which He will see His Lord, Exalted is He, so that, when he sees Him in another form he does not recognize Him.Then please bring me the description of this form and definition of it from your knowledge through your reading of the Qur’an and your study of the hadiths of the Messenger (saw)? Then they were taken aback and their arguments became void.”
Third point.
Both wordings are clear that their knowledge of His form will be a result of previous seeing. There is no way for those who take the hadith literally but to say that He is seen in this world. Yet most of them have rejected that (the seeing of Him in this world).
Fourth point.
Most believers in the seeing hold that it will happen without kayf (without an understanding how it will happen). The comparison in the hadith with the seeing of the moon ‘like that you will see Him‘ contradicts this view. So too does the mention of the form in the hadith and their not recognizing it when it has changed from what they were familiar with.
Fifth point. How will an angel be commanded to lie? It is a shameful thing.
Abu Musa reported: The Prophet (saw) said, Verily, In Paradise are two gardens with silver vessels and two gardens with golden vessels. Nothing comes between the people and their looking at their Lord but the mantle of Majesty on His Face in the Garden of Eden.”
Source: (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 2527)
In other words, you won’t be seeing Allah (swt) in the afterlife after all!
Remember the Ashari/Maturidi understand face as Allah himself, his essence! That ‘mantle of majesty‘ will prevent you from looking at Allah (swt).
“It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil.”(Qur’an 42:51)
“The Messenger of Allah stood among us with five words he said Verily Allah exalted is he does not sleep, and that is not appropriate for Him. He lowers the Balance and raises it. To him are carried aloft the actions done in the night before the actions done in the day and the actions of the day before the actions of the night. His veil is “light” (and on one narration “fire”). If He lifts the veil then the light of His Face will burn whatever it reaches of His creation.” The universe itself will be utterly annihilated! Allahu Akbar!
Source: (Sahih Muslim 179a, Book 1 Hadith 352 English reference Book 1 Hadith 343)
“And call not, besides Allah, on another god. There is no god but He. Everything that exists will perish except His Face. To Him belongs the Command, and to Him will you all be brought back.” (Qur’an 28:88)
So regarding this verse that those of our brothers from Ahl Sunnah believe that the Qur’an 75:22 to be strong proof. However, it is weak from all conceivable angles.
It also goes to show to anyone who has eyes and a heart after the truth that the Ahl Sunnah and their consensus down through the ages, has not been guided on this matter. Rather they are in error.
Is it reasonable to assume that the seeing of Allah (swt) is merely hinted at in the Qur’an whereas food and drink, accommodation, gardens, rivers are mentioned time after time with clear phrases with no scope for any other interpretation? Think about it. May Allah (swt) be with you.
So we can see that the Ashari/Maturidi position concerning thee verses in question contradicts other clear text of the Qur’an.
It also contradicts their own theological position.
It also contradicts reason.
The difference between us Ibadi (Ahl Haqq Wal Istiqama) and our brothers from the (Ahl Sunah) when it comes to Qur’an 75:22is that we use an understanding that is consistent with the verb form itself, used throughout the Qur’an: in the way we translate and interpret it, and is consistent with the clear verses of the Qur’an, that clearly negate seeing Allah (swt).
We do that in all verses that indicate corporeality, or time/space for Allah (swt). It is clear that some of our brothers from Ahl Sunnah do so only when it suits them. Allah (swt) knows best.
“Would you question your Messenger as Musa was questioned before? But whoever changes from faith to unbelief has strayed without doubt from the even way.”(Qur’an 2:108)
“The servants of the RaHmān (the All-Merciful, Allah) are those who walk on the earth humbly, and when the ignorant people speak to them, they reply peacefully.” (Qur’an 25:63)
﷽
So it was just after Farj on Jumaa morning here in Singapore when I checked my WhatsApp and there from that gentle and noble soul, brother Nazzam were the latest links of interest. Bless him! I would get updates from time to time on articles, blog posts and vlogs and debates that have taken place. So this particular morning was a debate between two people I had not really known before.
So I head over to twitter and what do I see, already that one side has censored comments. So, I go and click on the link to the debate posted on YouTube. The comment section was clearly pro Dr. Khalil. I saw many people in vigorous exchanges with followers of the Athari creed; and they were getting pressed. I then recalled that the first time I heard of this Jake guy. I believe he was introduced by Mufti Abu Layth (Naheim Ajmal) in one of his episodes. I believe it was pointed out that he used arguments he pinched from Professor Emad Hamdeh’s against the Quraniyoon, to use as reasons why (he), Jake, was no longer intrigued with that movement. From there on this Jake threw in his lot with the Athari/Salafist crowd. In this day and age if you want to gain followers and notoriety quickly through social media that is the most strategic decision one could make.
Not knowing of Dr. Khalil Andani, however, was clearly a loss for me. It is clear to me that Professor Andani is quite formidable. There is no doubt in mind that anyone who ever had the blessing of attending his class got their hard-earned money’s worth. Beyond that, they learned at the hands of an adept.
As for those people who are sitting comfortably in their homes drinking high grade coffee shrugging their shoulders and saying ‘who cares’ about such a debate. Welcome to the world of privilege and security! Professor Andani is doing you and everyone else a huge service! He is debating a person who is representative of a certain strain of thought that on the regular participates in the anathematization of other Muslims.
It is no stretch of the imagination to say that by putting a dent in such creedal positions he could be saving lives! Imagine an impressionable young Muslim who believes that Professor Andani and all like him hold such abhorrent aberrant and dangerous views that they must be dealt with. Imagine a gathering of high profile Muslim philosophers conducting a symposium, Professor Andani is in attendance, suddenly an attacker unleashes a few rounds killing many people in the process.
Imagine that same impressionable young Muslim saw the disasters performance on behalf of Jake, and although he may not be inclined to agree with everything Professor Andani says, he witnessed enough to make him question the absolute certainty that he once placed in the Athari creedal position. Instead of wanting to pop off a few rounds into a crowd of people who have been anathematized; this youth leaves Salafism altogether, or he becomes convinced of his own position, while holding space for other views.
I will be fair to say that Al Qaeda, Al Nusrat, ISIS and others do not necessary represent Salafism per say. However, it is not even a point of debate to say that Al Qaeda, Al Nusrat, ISIS have more in common with Salafi/Athari thought than they do Ashari/Maturidi/Mutazali theological positions.
Make no mistake about it, this debate is a watershed moment. The Athari creed has never been laid bare, deconstructed and destroyed in such a public formatted debate as it was in this debate.
Jake went in so cocksure of himself thinking Dr. Andani would be easy prey.
It was like watching a Discovery Channel documentary where you see the Mongoose carefree through the forest, and you spot a cobra skulking and slithering its way through the foliage, poised to strike. Yet, this Mongoose will be no prey! On the contrary, once the Mongoose caught on to the scent, and pressed the attack, the poor cobra takes such a thrashing that you almost feel sorry for the elapid.
Let us look at the opening statements of each of the debaters. The big surprise for me not really knowing anything about these two debaters is who actually used more naql or text? My presumption would be that Professor Andani would come in using more philosophy, and logic and less textual proofs. My presumption is that the Athari would come to a debate loaded with textual proofs and evidence.
This was simply a no contest!
Professor Andani used 7 positive arguments from the Qur’an. Jake used 4. Andani gave us some commentary on how these text support his position. Jake simply quoted them without explaining how they support the Athari school. Jake used two other text from the Qur’an from Khusraw and Al Tusi in a polemical fashion against Andani. When it came to the Sunnah or ahadith, Professor Andani gave 5 a hadith. Firstly to show us that the guardians of proper understanding of the primary and secondary sources come from the Ahl Bayt. Secondly he gave two ahadith for his argument concerning the pen. Professor Andani quoted no less than 20 different source showing questionable ahadith that are an affront to the idea of a transcendent divine being. When it came to giving positive ahadith for the Athari position Jake gave us nothing. When it came to ahadith bringing into question Islamic philosophy Jake gave us nothing. Since Jake lacks the trade mark beard of the bulk of Salafi/Athari Muslims one could easily mistake Andani for being the Athari in the debate.
Since Athar means remnant or report, clearly not only is Professor Andani an adept in Islamic science, he is actually the true Athari between the two! Jake on the other hand, a nothing burger.
Not necessarily an argument against either Ismaili doctrine or Islamic Philosophy in general Jake repeated several times the Professor Andani asserts that anyone who claims that who ever states that Allah (swt) has names and attributes is tantamount to shirk and anthropomorphism. Please see @22:06 minute mark:
“Khalil does not believe that Allah is the direct creator of the heavens and the earth. He does not believe that Allah is All Knowing, All Powerful and Perfect, in fact HIS BOOK states: that to ascribe such names and attributes to God is shirk and anthropomorphism.”
A similar claim is made at the 23:37 minute mark.
Why didn’t Jake show us the extract from Professor Andani’s book? He claims that these are the beliefs of Professor Andani yet he doesn’t give us the quotes for this. This would certainly help Jake, as Jake has made takfir of Andani, he can now turn around and claim that Andani did the same thing.
Professor Khalil gives 5 arguments for refuting the Hanbali creed. He gives 5 arguments for the Absolute Oneness of Allah & His Creation of First Intellect. Although, I feel Professor Khalil more than proved his case in regards to the Absolute Oneness of Allah (swt), he possibly needed more time to flesh out his argument of the creation of the First Intellect.
Professor Khalil showed quite forcefully the issue with Tafwid.
Affirming the apparent meaning, or do ta’wil for metaphorical meaning. Jake must affirm the apparent meaning and reject ta’wil. This leads us to Tafwid al-Ma’na where you deny the apparent meaning and deny the opposite of the apparent meaning. This position is logically incoherent. If you say you do not know the meaning, then there is no meaning that is accessible to humans. This is a devastating argument because it shows that Athari are actually the one with some esoteric belief in the divine. The Qur’an and Sunnah conveys that which is not intelligible to humanity. Another devastating point given by Professor Khalil @39:27 minute mark that if you want to argue for Tafwid al-Ma’na and Tafwid al-Kayf and say ‘Bi Li Kayf’ than you should stop debating with Christians. The argument here is that Athari are in reality believers of Mysterianism.
All of the points given in Professor Andani’s slides are effectively devastating for the Athari position.
“No Qur’anic verse and NO Prophetic Report teaches that God possesses real attributes (sifat) that are additional to and distinct from His Essence.” Where did they get the idea from? They got it from speculative theology.
During his first 10 minute rebuttal.
Surprisingly for someone who has done many debates Jake seemed to forget how the rebuttal part of a debate goes. Instead of showing why Dr. Andani’s five points against Athari creed were wrong, Jake continued his opening presentation of attacking Andani’s views. The only thing he really interacted with was that which was easy pickings. He scanned the list of the slide Professor Andani put up and picked out Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani. (An Athari). Even, I am not sure why Professor Khalil had him on that list.
When quoting Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani
“We believe that Allah CONSTRICTS, EXPANDS, rejoices, loves, dislikes, becomes pleased, becomes angry, and abhors, he has two hands and both of his hands are right. The hearts of his servants are between two of his fingers and he is in the direction of uluh…..” Jakes says @ 50:35 “This sounds like Athari creed to me.”
What did Jake mean when he says Allah (swt) constricts and expands? Does he mean that it is an action that Allah (swt) does to the creation? As in constricting the breast or expanding the breast? Or does he mean that Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani is asserting that Allah (swt) himself, his essence, expands/constricts? This sort of irresponsible reading of the text in English without proper explanation is no Bueno. Jake did not deal with the issues of divine simplicity or the problem of the ontological collapse of his position.
Professor Andani’s first 10 minute rebuttal.
@1:03:27 They were not putting up Professor Adnani slides. It is hard to know if that was intentional or not.
@1:11:36 Professor Adnani claims that Jake was intellectually dishonest by admitting a fact from Nasir al-Din Tusi’s work by not admitting the fact of what he had actually written. @1:12:07 Professor Adnani bemoans the fact that Jake cannot read Arabic and therefore cannot go to the primary sources. He is overly reliant upon Orientalism and Orientalist.
Jake’s second 5 minute rebuttal.
@1:18:34 Jake puts up the claim that he has a document ‘with all these references if anyone is interested I’ll make them publicly available and you can read them yourself.” This statement is followed up with a dig @ Professor Khalil doing Taqiyyah, practicing obfuscation or lying.
@1:19:44 “No it does not mean there are multiple necessary beings, we don’t say there are multiple humans, that Jake is multiple humans just because I have multiplicity within me. I’m still one being. We don’t say that there are multiple uh beings within Jake. This is not the language that we use”
Did he just use himself to compare with Allah (swt)? This is very problematic. It is a violation of “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
@1:20:07 “My argument is quite simple, just read the Qur’an, for the most part.” WHAT??
@1:21:23 Jake says that he trusts someone else over going directly to the text himself! Especially doesn’t trust Professor Andani. “You keep talking about Arabic but you cannot even pronounce basic words, which I find to be quite shocking.” You can tell that Jake felt the sting of Professor Andani’s comment about Jake not being able to go to the primary sources because Jake lacks the requisite command of Arabic to do so.
Professor Khalil second 5 minute rebuttal.
@ 1:24:06 Professor Adnani wanted to know whom Jake will rely upon for creedal positions. Prior to the debate Jake gave Professor Andani the creed of Ibn Qudama. Ibn Qudama says: “We do not go beyond the traditions from the Prophet and his companions; nor do we know the how these, save by the acknowledgement of the Messenger and the confirmation of the Qur’an.”-Ibn Qudama (Tahrim)
“Debate is for people who can use logic and reason which you are not allowed to do!”
Ouch! That was yet another stinging point from Professor Andani.
@1:26:00 Professor Adnani makes another great point. Jake did not specify what he meant by necessary attributes.
1:26:34 I almost fell out of my chair, Captain Planet? It is good to see that Dr. Khalil is forceful in his presentation and can keep a serious topic light-hearted.
@1:26:45 Professor Adnani bemoans the fact that Jake is severely handicapped in this debate by not being able to read the primary sources.
@1:26:58 Professor Adnani puts forth a very blunt question to Jake. “How do you define wujud, existence?
15 minute cross examinations. Jake cross-examines Professor Andani
During his 15 minute cross-examination, Jake spent less time asking questions and more time giving a sermon. As regards demeanor, Jake was like this angry child, who ran away from home only to find a wise and comforting father in Dr. Khalil Andani. Khalil was warm and had presence, Jake was bitter and needed consoled.
@ 1:30:19 Jake ask Professor Andani about true knowledge of Allah (swt) only coming through the Imams. Through the intellect or the imams (qualified scholarship). Jake himself admits its from qualified scholarship when he even queerly offered, “just read the Qur’an, for the most part.”
1:30:57 Jake could frame his question another way. ‘During the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was true Tawhid known only through the Prophet (saw), whom would be the ‘rightly guided Imam’ or through other means? If we can understand this, it will help us to understand the position of not only Ismaili Shi’a but our Shi’a brothers in general. Even if we disagree with them.
When Professor Adnani gives his reply that there are two types of ‘ilm and one is supra discursive, also known as marifa. This is something that adherents of Sufi paths would appreciate. Where as those who have no familiarity with the Seeker-Shaykh relationship would have no appreciation of this.
@1:33:41, Jake moves on to the next point because he saw no way in. Usually if you strongly argue, you will overwhelm your opponent and press the attack until you get them to capitulate through the sheer strength of your argument.@1:34:12 Jake started to bite his fingernails which is usually a sign of stress or anxiety. I don’t know if it is me but it looks like he proceeds to chew for a moment on a piece of fingernail.
@1:37:40 Professor Andani makes the point that there is no way Kirmani is refuting Ibn Sina because Ibn Sina has not even written his works yet!!! “Remember Ibn Sina died in 1037 and Kirmani died in 1020. There is no way Kirmani is refuting Ibn Sina because Ibn Sina hasn’t even written his major works when Kirmani is writing. Kirmani is likely referring to a pre Ibn Sina falsifa tradition.”
@1:38:40 Professor Andani enlightens Jake who confuses the Ashari position of the divine will that is entirely self determined, with that of the Ismail’i position.
1@:40:00 Jake when pressed on whether he knows what type of shirk Al Sharistani is referencing, Jake replies, ‘You can’t respond with a question.” Professor Khalil is not familiar with debates or debate territory. So, he could have used the most common trick there is in this situation, which would be to ask a statement of clarity, ‘I’m not sure the type of shirk you are referring to?’ Interestingly, as a point of order Jake ignored the ‘you are not supposed to respond with a question’ when he was being questioned. He (Jake) did this multiple times.
Anyway, Jake gets educated on the two different types of shirk, shirk kafi and shirk jalil. This itself shows further lack of preparation on his behalf.
@1:40:40 You really have to love Professor Andani at this point, he is totally, relaxed and having a great time. That slight smile on the face is transporting him straight to the class room where he is tenured Professor teaching a subject he has full grasp of to a first year student, thirsty for knowledge and information.
More Than an interlocutor or debate opponent, Professor Andani at this point takes on the role of a willing teacher, trying to help Jake in writing a thesis paper. It’s delightful to watch the good Professor work and it has made me keen to read his published works and follow up with more of his material.
@1:42:11 Jake asks Professor Andani the question: “If creation did not exist would God exist? Khalil asks a question, but Jake doesn’t’ pause him. At this point Jake is clearly forsaken any crusade he may have thought he was upon. Jake actually looks tired.
@1:42:31 Jake asserts about Professor Andani “You said he couldn’t exist without creation” -Always not a good sign in a debate when the opponent wants to put words in the other’s mouth.
@1:43:54 Professor Andani again asserts that Jake is unfortunately relying upon secondary sources. Jake responds that’s not true. “Well it is!” Quick to the rejoinder Professor Andani is!
15 minute cross examinations. Professor Andani cross-examines Jake.
@1:45:24 “Do the attributes depend on God’s essence or are they ā sē necessary in themselves?
@1:45:27 Jake ask a question: “What do you mean by depend?” As you can see as a point of order Jake violates the stipulations of the debate.
Professor Andani presses the question again: “Does the existence of an attribute of Allah depend on the essence?”
Jake responds: @1:45:34 “In the SAME WAY that for you the existence of creation or God’s existence depends on the existence of creation.”
This is what happens when you are in attack mode and you do not think your arguments through.
Here Jake is involved in pure speculative theology upon which he has provided no clear proof text from the Qur’an or the Sunnah. He is comparing the creation of Allah (swt) with his attributes. He is also arguing against Athari creed; because, if he is saying he believes THE SAME WAY (that he assumes Adnani believes) this is a problem.
Again Professor Andani presses: “Do the attributes depend on God’s essence, either they do or they don’t?”
@1:45:44 Jake responds: “Yes, in the SAME WAY you would say that God’s existence depends upon creation.”
Trust me people there are Muslims who are Athari/Salafi in Aqidah listening to these statements of Jake and their jaws are gaping open and they are stroking beards repeated ‘astaghfirullah’ over and over upon hearing these things.
@1:46:15 Professor Andani ask: “Are the attributes of Allah are they ā sē or not ā sē?
1:46:22 Jake breaks the rules again and asks a question: “Why are you changing the question?”
The reason he is changing the question is you are so elusive and Professor Andani is trying to get you to clarify your position. @1:46:30 Professor Andani has to bring in the moderator because Jake is evading the questions.
@1:47:24 Professor Andani is having none of it. He presses Jake ‘You define dependence and tell us whether the attributes depend upon the essence or not.”
@1:47:42 Professor Khalil “Let’s make some breakthrough here. Creation depends on God I said that? Are you saying the attributes depend on the essence the same way creation depends on God?”
@1:47:50 Jake responds: “I am saying there is a counterfactual dependence.”
May Allah (swt) guide us and protect us from being among the lost! At this point I began to wonder if Jake really is a Muslim. Because, if he is now stating there is a counterfactual dependence, which is to state that the attributes and the essence are mutually dependent or inter-dependent. Not necessarily problematic in and of itself; However, either one in Islam is major shirk, especially if you juxtapose that statement to Jake’s earlier admission:
Thus, Allah (swt) and his creation are counterfactual? They are mutually dependant or inter-dependant? That is not the belief of the Muslims, and for us, Jakes’ statements take him out of Islam. That is unless Jake claims he misspoke or he was confused during the debate. Hopefully he will clarify in the future. Those statements juxtaposed together take one out of Islam.
Listen @1:48:48 “In a sense, one cannot exist without the other. We don’t say it’s a casual dependence.” @1:49:12 Professor Andani says, “The attributes depend upon the essence.”
Moreover, Jake responds: “Only in the sense that they cannot exist without each other.”
I was surprised by Professor Andani’s continued line of questioning considering Jake’s admission that he believes the essence and attributes are counterfactual and that the attributes depend on the essence in the same way that God depends on the existence of creation.
Nonetheless @1:49:45 “If something is not ā sē (aseity) can it be God?”
Jake responds: “Sorry” I do not believe that Jake is familiar with the Latin terminology for aseity.
Professor Andani continues: “If something is not ā sē is it contingent?”
Jake is uncertain about what he is being asked. He is not supposed to ask questions but answer them. Nonetheless: “Anything that is not God is a contingent is that the question?”
Jake responds: “Yeah sure.”
@1:51:00 Jake is buckling under the pressure, disengaging the rules of the debate, speaking out of turn. Jake established that he believes that God is the essence and the attributes.
@1:52:08 Professor Andani “So God contains and essence and real distinct attributes?”
1:52:22 Professor Andani presses the point: “The attributes are not identical to the essence and not identical to one another.”
“Jake responds: “Correct.”
@1:52:25 Professor Andani states: “O.K Therefore your God is a conglomerate of different entities. Thank you for confirming that. Next, I’m gonna move on now.”
@1:52:47 A very classic moment in this debate. Professor Andani set this up nicely. “My view is this, O.K.? The will of God is necessary. Every decision, choice that God has made could not have been any other way O.K.? Its the best possible choice. And any choice God has made it is impossible to conceive it could have been other way. This is my position.” “Is that position compatible with Islam according to you or not?
@1:53:24 Professor Andani “Does it go against Tawhid?” To which Jake responds: Yes it does!”
“It goes against Tawhid in the sense that your saying God does not have free will, that creation is just a necessitated by his essence. Yes that goes against Islam because the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah say otherwise.”
An odd statement from Jake considering he just stated earlier:
Jake responds: @1:45:34 “In the SAME WAY that for you the existence of creation or God’s existence depends on the existence of creation.”
This Jake does not have a sound aqeedah position. Nonetheless, go back and read Professor Andani’s statement above @1:52:47 you will see that he is reading from either a piece of paper or screen. He is reading verbatim a statement from Mohamed Hijab!
That was very cunning of Professor Khalil. Remind me never to debate that guy!
If Professor Andani made any “bad” move during the debate it was @1:54:26. It is not an error per say. It’s just that he should have saved that explosive bit of information for his closing remarks! Because, the way that Professor Andani puts the bait on the hook, Jake caught on real fast, and knew what was up.
@1:55:05 Jake is sensible enough to know the trap that Dr. Khalil is laying out before him. However, he is reluctant to make that commitment. This shows the shifting nature of his own doctrinal position. Haqq is Haqq. How can you be firm on a position literally just 3 minutes ago and now you are hesitant!
@1:55:43 Professor Andani drops the bomb on Jakes “I read to you the words of Mohamed Hijab during his Londoniyyah video published 6 months ago! You can go see it! He literally says, what I just said!”
Professor Andani doesn’t stop there: “
“So Mohamed Hijab is teaching a view of Tawhid that you think is not Tawhid yet you go and work for the Sapiens Institute!” If there was a debate equivalent of Khabib Nurmagomedov making Conor McGregor submit during their UFC bout that was it! @1:55:57 “Can you read it?”
Jake at this point is desperate to find any contentious point to avoid the devastating blow just dealt to him. “Your claiming he is my Ustadh.” “How is he my Ustadh?”
Asking Professor Andani to read a text is a strategic move. It also gives Jake a breather, so that Professor Andani will just stop asking more devastating questions and the timer can run out.
You wanna know something telling. Is the heavy weights in the Athari/Salafi community. Those most visible out there in the Daw’ah. If anyone thinks for an iota of a second that Jake won this debate surely the silence of the Athari/Salafi dai’ee is deafening.@ 2:00:42 Professor Andani asks: “Where is Allah? Can you point with your finger?”
Jake pointing towards the direction of Allah (swt). The Earth spins on its axis on a 24 hour rotation. Now imagine if we placed someone on the polar opposite side of the Earth and asked the same question at the same time. Allah’s throne would have to be somewhere in the middle of the Earth. Then next we put Jake in a space suit in zero gravity and ask him the same question.
@2:00:50 Professor Andani asks: “Is the Throne below Allah?” Jake responds: “Yes”
Professor Andani ask: “Is the lowest heaven below the throne?” Jake responds: “Yes”
@2:01:26 Professor Andani ask: “Do you affirm Allah as per the hadith descends every night to the lowest heaven?” Jake responds: “Yes I affirm Nuzul.”
@2:01:41 Professor Andani ask: “Do you affirm that Allah descends from above the throne to below the throne?” Jake responds: “He never leaves the throne.”
22:01:51 Professor Andani asks: “What is the meaning of a descent here? Because descent means to go from above to below. So what does Nuzul mean?” Jake responds: “Yes we understand it in the plain meaning which is mentioned in a hadith….it’s very clear I think everybody knows what descent means.”
2:2:02:11 Professor Andani asks: “So you affirm that Allah descends from above the throne to the lowest heaven below the throne.” Jake: “Without entering his creation. Yes”
Jake just posited pure speculative theology. Where is there a text from the Qur’an or Sunnah that says that Allah (swt) does not enter his creation? Where did he get that idea from?!
2:02:08 Jake claims: “It’s very clear I think everyone knows what descent means.”
@2:02:25 Professor Andani asks: “What is the meaning of descent that everybody knows? Jake responds: “I just explained it to you.”
As one person on Twitter described this segment: “Descending means descending but not descending as descending can be descending when we say descending but you know and I know you know what descending is.”
Another point of contention. From what text of the Qur’an and Sunnah do the Athari get the idea that Allah (swt) is above the throne as some ‘default position‘?
Jakes closing remarks:
@2:06:36 Jake claims he will have a talk with Mohamed Hijab. So it will be interesting in the future, if Jake retracts his claim or claims Mohamed Hijab’s views on Tawhid are mistaken.
@2:08:30 Jake is clearly upset that he couldn’t turn this into an Athari Sunni vs a Shi’a Ismaili debate. This is also why either he or his team changed the name of the YouTube Video.The misleading and dishonest title vs the agreed upon debate topic and correct title.
@2:08:50 An admission from Jake that he did not address many of Khalil’s points.
Professor Adnani closing remarks:
In his closing remarks Dr. Khalil Andani had made comments about Jake that was not insulting. He said that Jake is certainly a smart individual; however, Jake needs practice in defending his creed (which he does).
In my humble opinion, Professor Andani messed up with giving good will points. Professor Andani means well but unfortunately in Jake’s mind saying that he (Jake) is intelligent but utterly demolishing his (Jakes) ability to defend the Athari creed was worse than if Andani had not said anything in good will at all.
@2:18:25 Professor Andani brings up a point that should have been brought up during his rebuttal period. I am not a fan of either party introducing pertinent points of a debate during closing statements. However, it would be interesting to see if Jake has any rejoinders to that statement in the future concerning Kashf Al Asrar-‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani
@2:19:35 Professor Andani comments on how Jake calls his presentation a machine gun approach, because he (Jake) was utterly unprepared. Which is true.
@2:21: Professor Andani likened Athari creed to mysterianism which was a very tight intellectual slap. It certainly hurts the Daw’ah and prepared Christians WILL use these counter arguments, as well they should.
Conclusion: Final Thoughts.
Professor Andani put on a clinic in that debate! If someone mentions his name to me I will reply, ‘Oh you mean the excellence of execution?’ Because Jake was excellently executed by the excellence of execution, Professor Andani. The man is not even a seasoned debater, but he was methodical, lucid and on point!
In fact as stated before, this is a watershed moment. Never that I can think of has Athari creed been laid bare in public in such a way. Professor Andani reached deep and took a piece of Jake’s soul. Not that this was the good Professor’s intention; however, you can tell by Jake’s Kamkazi approach after the debate that he realized he got destroyed.
Observe: Jake: The Kamkazi: I got destroyed in this debate but I am going to do my best in my little Mitsubishi A5M to take you down with me!
Who won this debate?
When I was first told about the debate in the early morning hours of 17/6/2002 I went to see the video and I observed in the comment section the Athari’s were getting pressed. The majority of comments were in favour of the Professor. So they deleted comments in favour of the Professor. They deleted comments of exchanges where athari were not doing too well. They changed the title of the debate. Finally, they stopped comments altogether.
You want to know something telling? It is this. The heavy weights in the Athari/Salafi community, those most visible out there in the Daw’ah, if they think one of their people did well in a debate it will be broadcasted all over social media. It will go viral. The after math of this debate is radio silence. If anyone thinks for an iota of a second that Jake won this debate surely the silence of the Athari/Salafi community is deafening. May Jake repent of the blasphemy he uttered during the debate and renew his Shahadah. May Allah (swt) bless Professor Andani, illuminate the way for him, forgive him and us, guide him and us.
Oh I see we are already playing games of censorship and control my Salafi friends?
Good thing I came prepared. For those of you who do not want to watch the debate (on a channel that blocks comments) I have uploaded the debate here:
“Today those who disbelieve have lost all hope of damaging your faith. So, do not fear them, and fear Me. Today, I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My blessing upon you, and chosen Islam as a way of life) for you.” (Qur’an 5:3)
﷽
Anyone who says, “There is no Allah but Allah and Muhammed is the Messenger of Allah.” enters Islam. That person is a monotheist. Simple. The Blessed Messenger (saw) never taught that tawhid consists of two parts, one part being tawhid al-rubuiyya and the other tawhid al-uluhiyya.
“When the Prophet sent Mu’adh to Yemen, he said to him, “You are going to a nation from the people of the Scripture, so let the first thing to which you will invite them, be the Tauhid of Allah. If they learn that, tell them that Allah has enjoined on them, five prayers to be offered in one day and one night. And if they pray, tell them that Allah has enjoined on them Zakat of their properties and it is to be taken from the rich among them and given to the poor. And if they agree to that, then take from them Zakat but avoid the best property of the people.”
According to those who are truly ignorant in the religion they believe that the Prophet (saw) should have said to Mu’adh, “call the people to tawhid al-uluhiyya of which they are ignorant, as far as tawhid al-rubiyya they knew it already.”
Allah (swt) in his Book never ordered or even mentioned tawhid al-uluhiyya to anyone! Even in Surah al-Ikhlas which is one equivalent to 1/3 of the entire Qur’an!
If Ibn Taymiyya is to be believed then it means Allah (swt) did not deliver to us the knowledge of tawhid al-uluhiyya since everyone and their father knew about tawhid al-rubiyya.
Authubillah min dhalik! May Allah protect us from that!
Since this doctrine is so central according to certain sects, it means the following verse was not completed:
“Today those who disbelieve have lost all hope of damaging your faith. So, do not fear them, and fear Me. Today, I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My blessing upon you, and chosen Islam as a way of life) for you.” (Qur’an 5:3)
We had to wait for Ibn Taymiyya who introduced this division in tawhid and this bid’ah in the religion!
So in the view of this sect, the average Muslim (possibly you the reader) your knowledge of tawhid is on the same level of that of idolaters! Authubillah min dhalik!
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal never said that tawhid consisted of two parts, one being tawhid al-rubiyya and the other tawhid al-uluhiyya.
Imam Ahmad is nowhere recorded to have said, “Whoever does not know tawhid al-uluhiya, his knowledge of tawhid al-rububiyya is not taken into account because the idolaters also had such knowledge.”
Tawhid Al-Hakamiyyah!! Why Should Ibn Taymiyya Have All The Fun?
“They say that there is a Tawheed of Allah’s Lordship, the Tawheed of Allah’s worship, the Tawheed of Allah’s Names and Attributes and the Tawheed Al-Hākimiyyah ―i.e. The Tawheed of Allah’s rule and judgment. This is founded upon the false assumption that the division of Tawheed is a mere matter of terminology, merely tradition and it is not connected to the textual proofs. So, there is no harm, as far as they are concerned, in increasing upon the three categories. They have made the same mistake as many people make, believing that Tawheed is merely an issue of terminology and that the number of categories does not matter. But, in reality, the affair of the division of Tawheed into three categories can only be seen through these categories, and there is no fourth. There is no reduction or increase because anywhere Allah (the Most High) speaks about Himself in the Qur’an, and He explains and clarifies Tawheed, He does so in one of these three categories, and no more.”
“So, it is said to such a person who divides and adds to Tawheed: “This division is not merely invented terminology, rather, this categorisation refers back to the Book and the Sunnah.”
“When the Salaf categorised Tawheed into three categories, they established it from the Book and the Sunnah.”
Well, well, well. we are told that dividing Tawheed into three categories, “is from the Book and the Sunnah” So we have the right to ask where? Where did the Blessed Messenger (saw) teach that tawhid consists of three parts? Or where did He (saw) teach that tawhid consists of two parts, one part being tawhid al-rubuiyya and the other tawhid al-uluhiyya?
Where does the Book of Allah (swt) teach that tawhid is divided into two or three parts? Didn’t the people who advocate Tawhid al Hakimiyyah find that the Blessed Messenger (saw) already divided the tawhid into two or three? Didn’t they find these clear descriptions in the Qur’an? The answer is: They didn’t. Just like Ibn Taymiyya and those who follow him today can’t find the Blessed Messenger (saw) teaching two or three tawhids either! It is Bid’ah! It’s reprehensible innovation in the religion.
However, in the case of Tawhid al-Hakimiyya we can understand why some people who call themselves Salafi distance themselves from it. It has little to do with evidence and truth and more to do with $$$ We get our answer here:
“They are mistaken in adding a fourth category and in saying that there are more than three categories of Tawheed. They have innovated into the Religion with intentions to raise the people against their Rulers with this slogan of Tawheed Al-Hākimiyyah.”
Why are they mistaken in adding a fourth category? On what consistent basis can they not add a fourth category when you people have added three categories? I am only allowed to quote excerpts and not the full article but take a look at the list of scholars that are said to refute Tawheed Al-Hakimiyyah.
The truth of the matter is all those who say that tawhid is divided into tawhid al-uluhiyya, tawhid al-rubiyya and tawhid al-hakimiyya are upon bid’ah (innovation). That’s a consistent position.
However, if I was on a government payroll of course I would be told to preach against tawhid al-hakimiyyah.
Which this idea of theirs that one can never go against the government is absolutely refuted in our article here:
