The creed of Ibn Taymiyyah is NOT the creed of the Salaf. I rejected the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah because it is unnatural, it is forced. IT IS VERY FORCED.
The definition of a word is specific.
The meaning of a word is general.
The definition of hand in relationship to a human is a limb comprised of blood, bones and fleshed, used for writing, eating, etc. THIS IS SPECIFIC to a human.
The meaning of hand, is limb. Limb is general. It can be applied to a wood statue, a human, a jinn, an angel and if you are an anthropomorphist, god.
A wood statue has a wooden limb. A human has a limb made of flesh. A jinn has a limb made of fire. An angel has a limb made of light. In the view of the anthropomorphist, god has an uncreated limb. These are definitions of hand in relationship to those particular entities.
Hand can have an even more general meaning, part. The parts of a body. A hand is a part of the body. The hands of a clock are the parts of the clock used to tell time.
Any meaning outside these two general meanings, are philosophical. They aren’t so obvious.
The meaning of hand that Salafis affirm for Allah is a philosophical meaning, not a linguistic one. Salafis believe Allah has a real hand, that is not a limb. That is like saying, Allah has real mercy that isn’t kindness. Or like Christians who affirm that God is not a man (it says this clearly in the bible), yet believe God incarnated as Jesus. Or like Christians who affirm that God is One, yet Three. That’s all philosophical.
It doesn’t make sense in reality. Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah negates the literal meaning of hand, limb and body part for Allah. What linguistic meaning are you affirming for Allah after that? None, it is a philosophical meaning, because it takes reflection and convincing. IT IS FORCED, it is not natural. I personally rejected it, because I didn’t find the Salaf saying Allah had a real hand, there is nothing in the Shariah that says I have to believe Allah has a real hand (yad haqiqatan). Allah having a real hand, literal hand, is nothing more than Ibn Taymiyyah philosophizing trying to legitimize the anthropomorphic creed of the Hanbali which has its roots in fabricated hadiths.
There is nothing in the Shariah that say, I am obligated to believe Allah has a real (literal) hand. NOTHING. There isn’t a single authentic report of the Salaf, saying Allah has a real (literal) hand (yad haqiqatan). NOT a single report.
How can Ibn Taymiyyah’s creed be the creed of the Salaf???
How???
The definition of a word is specific.
The meaning of a word is general.
The definition of hand in relationship to a human is a limb comprised of blood, bones and fleshed, used for writing, eating, etc. THIS IS SPECIFIC to a human.
The meaning of hand, is limb. Limb is general. It can be applied to a wood statue, a human, a jinn, an angel and if you are an anthropomorphist, god.
A wood statue has a wooden limb. A human has a limb made of flesh. A jinn has a limb made of fire. An angel has a limb made of light. In the view of the anthropomorphist, god has an uncreated limb. These are definitions of hand in relationship to those particular entities.
Hand can have an even more general meaning, part. The parts of a body. A hand is a part of the body. The hands of a clock are the parts of the clock used to tell time.
Any meaning outside these two general meanings, are philosophical. They aren’t so obvious.
The meaning of hand that Salafis affirm for Allah is a philosophical meaning, not a linguistic one. Salafis believe Allah has a real hand, that is not a limb. That is like saying, Allah has real mercy that isn’t kindness. Or like Christians who affirm that God is not a man (it says this clearly in the bible), yet believe God incarnated as Jesus. Or like Christians who affirm that God is One, yet Three. That’s all philosophical.
It doesn’t make sense in reality. Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah negates the literal meaning of hand, limb and body part for Allah. What linguistic meaning are you affirming for Allah after that? None, it is a philosophical meaning, because it takes reflection and convincing. IT IS FORCED, it is not natural. I personally rejected it, because I didn’t find the Salaf saying Allah had a real hand, there is nothing in the Shariah that says I have to believe Allah has a real hand (yad haqiqatan). Allah having a real hand, literal hand, is nothing more than Ibn Taymiyyah philosophizing trying to legitimize the anthropomorphic creed of the Hanbali which has its roots in fabricated hadiths.
There is nothing in the Shariah that say, I am obligated to believe Allah has a real (literal) hand. NOTHING. There isn’t a single authentic report of the Salaf, saying Allah has a real (literal) hand (yad haqiqatan). NOT a single report.
How can Ibn Taymiyyah’s creed be the creed of the Salaf???
How???
1. Dhahir = Apparrent meanings
2. Haqiqatan = Real (i.e. nonfigurative)
It is perferable not to translate either of these terms as "literal" due to the misunderstandings and abuse that often occur as a result. The Salafi methodology regarding the Dhahir isn't "literal" in the radical sense because they fully recognize the linguistic and theological context of the passages. None of the descriptions about Allah's Names & Attributes are to be understood without first acknowledging that the one being described is Eternal, Self-Sufficient and unlike His creation. Allah's Essence is completely unique from that of His creation and His Attributes are to be understood in light of this obvious distinction. The Salafi interpretation of Allah's Hands is not "forced" or "philosophical" because the Dhahir reading of the texts naturally distinguishes between the existence of Allah and His creation.
When Salafi-Atharis claim that the meanings of the Attributes are known what is meant is that the primary/basic conception of their descriptions are conceivable. This is different from Tahdid or 'universal definitions', which have been explicitly negated. When we affirm the Attributes of "Basr" or "Hayat" for Allah none of us are in doubt with regards to what type of qualities we're referring to. This is because Basr and Hayat are well-established linguistically via our own human experience with the attributes. Had the meanings of the Attributes been completely unknown due to how dissimilar Allah is from His creation, then it would be impossible for us to affirm any of the descriptions in the Quran/Sunnah beyond their mere wordings. However, this type of radical approach to the meanings of the Attributes wasn't adopted by any of the mainstream Sunni theological groups. Moreover, there are mass transmitted reports from the Salaf explicitly using certain Ayat which some scholars classified as Mutashabih in order to prove that Allah was Above the Throne and not everywhere. This could only take place if they recognized the Dhahir of the text as being a valid interpretation.
With regards to Allah's Hands there is Ijma from the Salaf (including the early Kullabi Ash'aris) that they are to be affirmed as Divine Attributes without Ta'weel. The Dhahir of the Quran & Sunnah indicate that certain passages are clear references to the Hands being Divine Attributes. What the Salafis and the Hanaabila mean when they say Haqiqatan is that the Attributes exist in reality. Allah has "real Hands", in the sense that they are not fake (i.e. figurative). Also, the meaning of Allah's Yad is known on a conceptual level due to the similiarities in usage with regards to how He described Himself. Allah created us with limbs or body parts called hands which we use to perform most of our physical tasks with. Allah also has Two Hands which He used to perform various tasks such as creating Adam(as); Writing the Torah; and grabing/holding certain things.
So the question is do you have a problem affirming for Allah Divine Attribute of the Essence called Yad or Hands which He uses to perform various tasks with? If not, then we both believe in the same thing. The term "literal" is misleading and unnecessary. The apparent meaning of hands is an attribute connected to the body/essence which is used to perform physical tasks. If Allah described Himself as creating and holding things with His Face or Shin, then I would agree that the meanings do not conceptually conform with our understandings of the term. However, the manner inwhich Allah described how His Divine Hands function relate to our perception of hands, and therefore their meanings are known in a manner which befits His unique Essence.
Comment