Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis"

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

You seem to have a good head on your shoulders. You need to seek knowledge, study the scholars, make dhikr daily, recite the Quran daily and do a lot of reflections.

The Messenger of Allah, (sallahu alayhi was salam) said the Lord said, "Whoever is engaged in reading the Quran or engaged in My remembrance and is too busy to supplicate to me on account of that, I shall give him the best of what is given to the supplicants." (Tirmidhi, al Darimi, and al Bayhaqi)

A little doubt is healthy because we are all sinners. Allah created us sinners. You can doubt the scholars, but don't doubt the Quran and Sunnah. Don't doubt that Allah is guiding you. The scholars of tasawwuf say, the path to Allah is with two wings fear and hope. Fear that you aren't doing it right, and hope that Allah will forgive you. I'm always reading and studying things I've already read and studied before. And I'm always taking into consideration what others say. It is not about what I think the truth is, it is about, what is the truth. Yes I am Ashari, but I am not fixed on any particular Ashari text or belief.

Hanbalis say, Allah speak with letters and sounds. Asharis say, Allah speaks without letters and sounds. Imam Tahawi said, "The Quran is the Speech of Allah that emanated from HIm without how in its expression." (Aqida Tahawi).

In my opinion, Imam Tahawi is most correct, because we don't know how Allah's Speaks. The Salaf didn't delve into the howness of Allah's Speech. Sometimes there are investigations that the khalaf did, where they went too far, on both sides whether it is the Asharis or Hanbalis.

Allah says, Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are….and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge. (7:33)

Definitive knowledge concerning Allah and His Attributes can only come from two sources, the Quran and Sunnah. There is proof in ijma. And general acceptance in following the majority concerning an issue. But if doubt emerges concerning an issue, return to the Quran and Sunnah, especially in matters of aqida..

For me, I am Muslim before I am Ashari, meaning, the Ashari school is only means. It is only a general guide to follow the Quran and Sunnah in matters of Aqida. If there is something one of the scholars of Aqida says, that goes against the Quran and Sunnah, I always pick the Quran and Sunnah over the statements of the scholars of Aqida, if I disagree.

One is only obligated to follow Allah and His Messenger, sallahu alayhi was salam, in matters of aqida.

The great Ashari Muhadith and Faqih, Shaykh al Islam, Imam al Nawawi said, “As for the basic obligation of Islam, and what relates to tenets of faith (Aqida), it is adequate for one to believe in everything brought by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and to credit it with absolute conviction free of any doubt. Whoever does this is not obliged to learn the evidence of the scholastic theologians. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not require of anyone anything but what we have just mentioned, nor did the first four caliphs, the other prophetic Companions, nor others of the early Muslim community who came after them.� (Al Majmoo)

A breath of fresh air from a great Ashari scholar and Muhadith, a contemporary of Ibn Uthaymeen and Bin Baz:

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Alawi al Maliki al Hasani said, "An example (of facts that are lost in research) is that which takes place among the scholars in their research concerning the reality of Allah's Speech and the major difference that revolves around this. Some say that the Speech of Allah is inner speech (kalam nafsi), and some say that His Speech is with both letter and sound. I am of the belief that both of these groups seek the reality of Divine transcendence for Allah and that both are far from idolatry in all of its forms. the issue of Speech is real and affirmed and there is no room to deny it, for denial of t contradicts Divine Perfection - this is from one angle. From another angle, Belief in His Attributes and affirmation of that which appears in the Quran is obligatory, for no one knows Allah but Allah. The view that I hold and call to is that of affirming (the Speech of Allah) without going into details of the "howness" and quiddity. So we affirm speech for Allah and say that this is speech of Allah and that He speaks Beyond that, we give no glance the falsehood of it being inner speech or not, or whether it is with sounds or letters or not. All of this is extremism that was not articulated by the one who brought tawhid, the chosen one (Rasullah), sallahu alayhi was salam, so why should we make this addition to what he came with? Is this not the ugliest of innovations. Glory be to You (Allah), this is but a manifest slander! Indeed, the Shall speak to us on that day that we shall gather with him in front of Allah. We are calling for our discussions to always be about this reality and its likes, being far removed from delving into its quiddity, image and appearance." (Notions that must be corrected)

Something to ponder.

Abu Nu’aym reported: Al-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, said, “I never debated anyone but that I would love for him to be guided, directed, helped, and for him to be under the care of Allah and his protection. And I never debated with anyone but that I did not mind whether Allah clarified the truth on my tongue or his tongue.� Source: Ḥilyat al-Awliyā’ 13717

And Allah knows best.

جزاكم الله خيرا كثيرا
Thank you for taking the time, it means a lot. May Allaahتعالى guide us all to the truth and bless us with steadfastness upon it.

[AmantuBillahi]

A breath of fresh air from a great Ashari scholar and Muhadith, a contemporary of Ibn Uthaymeen and Bin Baz:

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Alawi al Maliki al Hasani said, "An example (of facts that are lost in research) is that which takes place among the scholars in their research concerning the reality of Allah's Speech and the major difference that revolves around this. Some say that the Speech of Allah is inner speech (kalam nafsi), and some say that His Speech is with both letter and sound. I am of the belief that both of these groups seek the reality of Divine transcendence for Allah and that both are far from idolatry in all of its forms. the issue of Speech is real and affirmed and there is no room to deny it, for denial of t contradicts Divine Perfection - this is from one angle. From another angle, Belief in His Attributes and affirmation of that which appears in the Quran is obligatory, for no one knows Allah but Allah. The view that I hold and call to is that of affirming (the Speech of Allah) without going into details of the "howness" and quiddity. So we affirm speech for Allah and say that this is speech of Allah and that He speaks Beyond that, we give no glance the falsehood of it being inner speech or not, or whether it is with sounds or letters or not. All of this is extremism that was not articulated by the one who brought tawhid, the chosen one (Rasullah), sallahu alayhi was salam, so why should we make this addition to what he came with? Is this not the ugliest of innovations. Glory be to You (Allah), this is but a manifest slander! Indeed, the Shall speak to us on that day that we shall gather with him in front of Allah. We are calling for our discussions to always be about this reality and its likes, being far removed from delving into its quiddity, image and appearance." (Notions that must be corrected)

Something to ponder.

Abu Nu’aym reported: Al-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, said, “I never debated anyone but that I would love for him to be guided, directed, helped, and for him to be under the care of Allah and his protection. And I never debated with anyone but that I did not mind whether Allah clarified the truth on my tongue or his tongue.� Source: Ḥilyat al-Awliyā’ 13717

The contraversy between Ahl al-Kalam and the Atharis over the Speech of Allah is probably the most critical factor in distinguishing truth from falsehood. If Allah does not speak with letters or sounds then the Quran which was revealed to the Prophet(saws) and preserved throughout history is not literally the Speech of Allah and therefore created. This conflicts with the well-established creed of the Salaf who maintained that the Quran was Kalam Allah Ghayru Makhluq.

"And if anyone from the polytheists asks for your protection ˹O Prophet˺, grant it to them so they may hear the Word of Allah [Kalaam Allah], then escort them to a place of safety, for they are a people who have no knowledge." [9:6]

What caused the groups of Kalam to deviate on this issue was due to the philosophical conflict it posited with their conception of God. The qualities that make up the Arabic Quran is inconsistent with what Ash'aris can ascribe to Allah as an Attribute without it provoking Tajsim. Imam Ahmad(ra) was actually reported to have boycotted and warned against the proto-Ash'ari scholars Ibn Kullab and Harith al-Muhasibi.

Ibn Qudamah(ra) explains his objections with the Ash'ari position in this treatise:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/islamth...ecitation/amp/

This is one of the major reasons why I could never find Ash'ari Aqeedah convincing. I believe Allah placed this as a clear-cut sign for the sincere truthseeker to identify that the Madhhab is flawed.

Aqeedah at-Tahawiyya also seems to imply that Allah Speaks with letters and sounds because the author refers to the Quran we are familiar with as the uncreated Speech of Allah:

The Quran is the word of Allah. It originally came from Him, without ascribing modality to His speech. He sent it down upon His messenger as revelation. The believers accept all of that as the truth. They are certain that it is the word of Allah the Exalted in reality.

It is uncreated, unlike the speech of creatures. Whoever hears it and imagines that it is human speech has committed unbelief. Allah has blamed him, censured him, and threatens him with Fire, wherein the Exalted said, ‘I will burn him in the Fire,’ (74:26). When Allah threatens with the Fire those who said, ‘This is only human speech,’ (74:25), we know with certainty that it is the speech of the Creator of humanity and it does not resemble the speech of humanity."

[aMuslimForLife]

The contraversy between Ahl al-Kalam and the Atharis over the Speech of Allah is probably the most critical factor in distinguishing truth from falsehood. If Allah does not speak with letters or sounds then the Quran which was revealed to the Prophet(saws) and preserved throughout history is not literally the Speech of Allah and therefore created. This conflicts with the well-established creed of the Salaf who maintained that the Quran was Kalam Allah Ghayru Makhluq.
"And if anyone from the polytheists asks for your protection ˹O Prophet˺, grant it to them so they may hear the Word of Allah [Kalaam Allah], then escort them to a place of safety, for they are a people who have no knowledge." [9:6]

What caused the groups of Kalam to deviate on this issue was due to the philosophical conflict it posited with their conception of God. The qualities that make up the Arabic Quran is inconsistent with what Ash'aris can ascribe to Allah as an Attribute without it provoking Tajsim. Imam Ahmad(ra) was actually reported to have boycotted and warned against the proto-Ash'ari scholars Ibn Kullab and Harith al-Muhasibi.

Ibn Qudamah(ra) explains his objections with the Ash'ari position in this treatise:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/islamth...ecitation/amp/

This is one of the major reasons why I could never find Ash'ari Aqeedah convincing. I believe Allah placed this as a clear-cut sign for the sincere truthseeker to identify that the Madhhab is flawed.

Aqeedah at-Tahawiyya also seems to imply that Allah Speaks with letters and sounds because the author refers to the Quran we are familiar with as the uncreated Speech of Allah:

Well, I don't agree for a lot of reasons.

Imam Tahawi is quite clear, "The Quran is the Speech of Allah that emanated from HIm without how in its expression." (Aqida Tahawi). This relates to the Attribute of Allah, and we do not know the reality of Allah's Speech. Allah says, Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are….and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge. (7:33) Allah has forbidden us to delve into these things related to Him, this Quranic verse from Allah is Clear.

We don't know how Allah's Speaks. The Quran was revealed and I believe that the Quran is the literal Speech of Allah, but, I still don't know how Allah Speaks.

The Quran is 100% true.

Let me explain.

1) Allah says, "And when they came across a valley of ants, an ant warned, “O ants! Go quickly into your homes so Solomon and his armies do not crush you, unknowingly. So Solomon smiled in amusement at her words, and prayed, “My Lord! Inspire me to ˹always˺ be thankful for Your favours which You have blessed me and my parents with, and to do good deeds that please you. Admit me, by Your mercy, into ˹the company of˺ Your righteous servants.�� (Quran 27:18-19)

I believe the ant literally said, “O ants! Go quickly into your homes so Solomon and his armies do not crush you, unknowingly.� Because the Quran is 100% true. But I don't believe that Ants speak with letters nor sound. Nor do I believe Ants speak Arabic, simply because the Quran is literally in Arabic. Because I know Ants communicate with each other by releasing chemicals. And this Ant communicating to other ants, and Solomon (alayhi salam) heard the Ant.

2) Al-Bukhari (3593) and Muslim (2921) narrated from the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “The Jews will fight you and you will prevail over them, then a rock will say: ‘O Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; kill him.’�

I have never heard a rock speak, and don't know how rocks speak, yet, I believe, a rock will literally say, "‘O Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; kill him.’�

And Allah knows best.

[AmantuBillahi]

Well, I don't agree for a lot of reasons.

Imam Tahawi is quite clear, "The Quran is the Speech of Allah that emanated from HIm without how in its expression." (Aqida Tahawi). This relates to the Attribute of Allah, and we do not know the reality of Allah's Speech. Allah says, Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are….and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge. (7:33) Allah has forbidden us to delve into these things related to Him, this Quranic verse from Allah is Clear.

We don't know how Allah's Speaks. The Quran was revealed and I believe that the Quran is the literal Speech of Allah, but, I still don't know how Allah Speaks.

The Quran is 100% true.

Let me explain.

1) Allah says, "And when they came across a valley of ants, an ant warned, “O ants! Go quickly into your homes so Solomon and his armies do not crush you, unknowingly. So Solomon smiled in amusement at her words, and prayed, “My Lord! Inspire me to ˹always˺ be thankful for Your favours which You have blessed me and my parents with, and to do good deeds that please you. Admit me, by Your mercy, into ˹the company of˺ Your righteous servants.�� (Quran 27:18-19)

I believe the ant literally said, “O ants! Go quickly into your homes so Solomon and his armies do not crush you, unknowingly.� Because the Quran is 100% true. But I don't believe that Ants speak with letters nor sound. Nor do I believe Ants speak Arabic, simply because the Quran is literally in Arabic. Because I know Ants communicate with each other by releasing chemicals. And this Ant communicating to other ants, and Solomon (alayhi salam) heard the Ant.

2) Al-Bukhari (3593) and Muslim (2921) narrated from the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “The Jews will fight you and you will prevail over them, then a rock will say: ‘O Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; kill him.’�

I have never heard a rock speak, and don't know how rocks speak, yet, I believe, a rock will literally say, "‘O Muslim, here is a Jew behind me; kill him.’�

And Allah knows best.

I think there is a slight misunderstanding between us. If you believe that the Quran is the literal Speech of Allah (i.e. Allah Spoke the Words), then we are in agreement with one another. The Ash'aris do not believe that the Quran is literally Kalam Allah because it is finite and divisible. What they claim is that the meanings were transferred from Allah's Kalam Nafsi and the Quran which was sent down is not the Attribute of Kalam.

Imam Tahawi affirms the view that our present Quran is the uncreated Speech of Allah. The Quran that was revealed to the Prophet(saws) and preserved by his followers(ra) consists of letters and sounds. In order to confirm the Quran of the Prophet(saws) as being Kalam Allah it would require believing that Allah Speaks with letters and sounds.

What the Imam meant by negating "Kayf" or "how" is with regards to the particulars of how the Attributes function. We know that His Speech consists of letters and sounds because the words in the Quran are the outcome of His Speech. However, what we don't know are the specific details concerning how the Speech or any Attribute operate in light of his unique nature (i.e. human's have mouth, lips, tongue, vocal cords, etc).

[aMuslimForLife]

I think there is a slight misunderstanding between us. If you believe that the Quran is the literal Speech of Allah (i.e. Allah Spoke the Words), then we are in agreement with one another. The Ash'aris do not believe that the Quran is literally Kalam Allah because it is finite and divisible. What they claim is that the meanings were transferred from Allah's Kalam Nafsi and the Quran which was sent down is not the Attribute of Kalam.

Imam Tahawi affirms the view that our present Quran is the uncreated Speech of Allah. The Quran that was revealed to the Prophet(saws) and preserved by his followers(ra) consists of letters and sounds. In order to confirm the Quran of the Prophet(saws) as being Kalam Allah it would require believing that Allah Speaks with letters and sounds.

What the Imam meant by negating "Kayf" or "how" is with regards to the particulars of how the Attributes function. We know that His Speech consists of letters and sounds because the words in the Quran are the outcome of His Speech. However, what we don't know are the specific details concerning how the Speech or any Attribute operate in light of his unique nature (i.e. human's have mouth, lips, tongue, vocal cords, etc).

I do not believe what Salafis believe. I don’t know how Allah Speaks. And I don’t accept your interpretation of Imam Tahawi’s statement.’ ' He didn’t say what you said. There are other possible explanations. In regards to particulars regarding Allah’s Speech and the Quran, I only affirm what is in the Quran and Sunnah, as Allah and His Messenger intended it.

I believe the Quran is the Speech of Allah, and it is uncreated. When I say the Quran is literal, I mean only in the context that it cannot be other than Allah’s Speech. Like, I believe the ant literally said, “O ants! Go quickly into your homes so Solomon and his armies do not crush you, unknowingly,� because it cannot be other than the Ant’s Speech even though I know Ants don’t communicate with letters or sounds. I don’t know how Allah’s Speak. I don’t how the transition from the Attribute of Allah, ie His Speech to what the Prophet, sallahu alayhi wa salam, revealed as the Quran works. Allah and His Messenger, sallahu alayhi wa salam, never explained how that worked, so why I should I delve into those particulars?

-
-In order to confirm the Quran of the Prophet(saws) as being Kalam Allah it would require believing that Allah Speaks with letters and sounds. '

For somebody with your mindset perhaps. But I don’t have your mindset, I don’t think like you do. You and I don’t have the same religious experiences. Somethings are difficult to explain while other things are impossible to explain.

For example, How do you explain the color red to a blind person?

If one is honest, it is impossible to explain the color red to a blind person. Why? Because it is an experience, that requires a person to a functioning eye that can perceive colors. You have never experienced the Speech of Allah ' directly, from Allah, so how can you know for certain if it is like this or like that? Have you experienced anything from the unseen like Angels? (If you make enough dhikr, you could according to an authentic Hadith) How do they communicate? Do they speak with letters and sounds too? I’ve studied the debates regarding the Speech of Allah and its relationship to the Quran, there are too many unknowns to say who is more accurate. Because of that, I prefer to stick to the Quran and Sunnah, and stop where they stopped. The Prophet, sallahu alayhi salam, didn’t discuss, the companions, the Tabieen and the Tabi Tabieen didn’t discuss it. '

And Allah knows best.

[aMuslimForLife]

جزاكم الله خيرا كثيرا
Thank you for taking the time, it means a lot. May Allaahتعالى guide us all to the truth and bless us with steadfastness upon it.

Wa iyyakum.. Ameen. May Allah guide us All indeed... without Him we are helpless.. Success comes from Allah alone. May Allah grant us tawfiq... Ameen.

[AmantuBillahi]

I do not believe what Salafis believe. I don’t know how Allah Speaks. And I don’t accept your interpretation of Imam Tahawi’s statement.’ ' He didn’t say what you said. There are other possible explanations. In regards to particulars regarding Allah’s Speech and the Quran, I only affirm what is in the Quran and Sunnah, as Allah and His Messenger intended it.

What I stated is consistent with an Athari Sharh of the text. However, I would imagine that the Ash'aris/Maturidis would opt for interpretting "Bila Kayfiyyah" as a negation of A'radh and Hawadith. From this angle one could potentially infer that Imam Tahawi was actually negating letters and sounds. Although I would strongly disagree with this due to the emphasis he places on believing it to be Allah's literal Speech.

I believe the Quran is the Speech of Allah, and it is uncreated. When I say the Quran is literal, I mean only in the context that it cannot be other than Allah’s Speech. Like, I believe the ant literally said, “O ants! Go quickly into your homes so Solomon and his armies do not crush you, unknowingly,� because it cannot be other than the Ant’s Speech even though I know Ants don’t communicate with letters or sounds. I don’t know how Allah’s Speak. I don’t how the transition from the Attribute of Allah, ie His Speech to what the Prophet, sallahu alayhi wa salam, revealed as the Quran works. Allah and His Messenger, sallahu alayhi wa salam, never explained how that worked, so why I should I delve into those particulars?

Perhaps you could elaborate on a few questions for me to understand better:

1. Do you affirm the Speech of Allah as an Attribute?
2. Do you believe the Attributes of Allah are created or uncreated?

What separates between the speech of the ants and the Speech of Allah is that Allah informed us about the communication of the ants through His literal Speech in the Arabic language. This comparison is invalid because ants don't speak human languages while Allah the Most High communicated with His creation in their own languages. If Allah Spoke the Arabic Quran then the Kalam of Allah is comprised by the letters and words that Alllah chose to communicate in.

For somebody with your mindset perhaps. But I don’t have your mindset, I don’t think like you do. You and I don’t have the same religious experiences. Somethings are difficult to explain while other things are impossible to explain.

I understand. It's not really my intention to have a long-winded debate or expect you to change your views. My intention is merely to share some of the information I'm aware of and hear what others might have to say.

What separates our approaches is that my perception of orthodox theology is not dependant on maintaining cohesion between a set of theological schools. From my perspective I would naturally interpret your dismissive attitude towards what truth the Salafis might have to offer as being disingenous (although from your angle you are simply repelling what threatens your structured narrative).

[AmantuBillahi]

1. Allah has always been capable of Speaking and His Speech is uncreated.
2. The Quran is the Speech of Allah.
3. The Quran consists of letters and sounds.
4. The Speech of Allah consists of letters and sounds.

It would not make sense to affirm the Arabic Quran as literally KalamAllah Ghayru Makhluq while at the same time negating the qualities which make up the Quran's composition. If Allah's Speech does not conform with this reality then where is the Quran that contains the Kalam of Allah right now?

Anyways, what this fundamentally proves here is the inconsistency of Ilm al-Kalam with the intended theology of the religion. This is a crystal clear example which demonstrates that the foundations of the Ash'aris/Maturidis were not built upon solid orthodox foundations. Moreover, it indicates that the negation of similarities [42:11] is to be applied cohesively with the Dhahir theology instead of inciting contradictions. Laysa Ki Mithlihi Shay is not an indirect substitute for negating bodies, accidents and temporal occurences in a manner which compromises the religion's Aqeedah. Had this truly been what Allah and His Messenger(saws) intended as the pure theology, then the nature of the Quran and the contraversy surronding Allah's Speech would have naturally conformed with the consequences of this theory.

The reason why such a large group of scholars were Ash'aris was due to the schools political dominance and systematic educaational programs. This was also during a period of history when natural theology and metaphysics were placed at the intellectual forefront of society. We could reasonably assume that the intellectual influence of 'rational theology' placed pressure on the rulers and scholars to gravitate towards the trend which would seemingly provide the Ummah with greater hopes of stability and prosperity. However, what this would end up doing is replacing the pristine theology of the religion with a philosophical approach that condemned the more authentic interpretation with Kufr and Tajsim. This tension would manifest more forcefully with the imprisonment and banishing of scholars who advocated views which conflicted with what the Ash'aris deemed acceptable. Consequently, even the more orthodox trends were affected by the long-lasting political/theological circumstances and gradually compromised in certain areas of creed.

[AmantuBillahi]

Shaykh Haitham al-Haddad on the deviations surronding the Speech of Allah:

The Jahmites and the Mu’tazilites, who were among the first deviant sects to emerge, denied the attributes of All�h claiming that this was the essence of tawḥīd. Therefore, they had to deny that the Qur’�n is the actual speech of All�h. They claimed that confirming any attribute to All�h other than His eternal essence entails an approval of multiple eternals and hence confirming that the speech of All�h is one of His attributes which is different from his essence, means the same thing; the presence of multiple eternals.

The misguided sects adopted a philosophical mindset of critical examination of the grounds for fundamental beliefs. They used this principle in every aspect of the religion including theology, until they came to the conclusion that All�h Himself cannot be believed in, until one first doubts His existence and then intellectually proves it.

To prove the existence of All�h, or the Prime Mover as the philosophers say, they devised the well-known Kalam Cosmological Proof for the Existence of God. This was their version of the cosmological theory of atomism as proposed by some the ancient Greek philosophers. This proof for the existence of God became widely accepted by not only the Jahmites, but also the Mu’tazilites, and later on the Ash’arites and M�turīdiyyah. It was upon this fundamental understanding and premise that all these groups interpreted the rest of the religion; including the beautiful names and attributes of All�h. This became a crucial point at which they left the universally held beliefs of the Early Muslims (salaf) and adopted a completely different approach to understanding Isl�m. As it was rooted in Greek philosophy, they were termed as “mutakallimūn�, the scholars of speculative theology.

By adopting such an approach they were faced with the following problem: if this was the most sound way God’s existence could be proved, it must hold that the argument is correct at every level. If the premises of the argument were true, then affirming attributes such as speech to God would be problematic as it would imply rendering the Creator a locus (maḥal) for originations (ḥaw�dith), which are considered finite occurrences, and according to the premise of argument it follows that a locus for infinite occurrences be also originated (ḥadīth). This would therefore mean that created things, in this case speech, subsists within His Divine Essence or that He Himself is created! Thus, they concluded, speech when attributed to god must be understood differently. It is not true speech but something else. At this point the various groups came up with their own interpretations until there were nine different understandings of what “kal�mull�h� meant, and subsequently what the status of the Qur’�n was. Some denied the attribute outright, others explained it figuratively, and others still neither affirmed nor denied it. As a result none of them, save Ahl al-Sunnah, believe that the Qur’�n is the Word of All�h, in both meaning and wording. These different views can be summarised into three:

The Jahmites would say that the Qur’�n is a book created by All�h and He called it “kal�mullah�. They outright denied that All�h Speaks.

The Mu’tazilites view was similar except that they said that All�h created the Qur’�n within Jibrīl who then expressed it in words. They therefore maintained the notion of revelation but nevertheless negated that All�h spoke it.

The Ash’arites, taking their stance from the Kull�biyyah [1], said that the Qur’�n is the Kal�m of All�h in terms of its meaning. It is when this “meaning� is expressed into Arabic (al-natham al-‘arabi) that it becomes the Qur’�n. Before that it was expressed in Syriac and became the Injīl, and before that it was expressed in Hebrew and became the Torah. They meant by this that the Kal�m of All�h is in fact inaudible as it is an internal speech (kal�m nafsī), similar to thoughts in one’s mind, except that it is eternal. Therefore, the Qur’�n in their view is merely an expression of All�h’s Speech (kal�mullah).[2]

First came the view of the Mu’tazilites and Jahmites. When the Ash‘arites and those that followed them (the M�turīdiyyah), observed the contention between the Mu’tazilites with their claim that All�h does not speak and Ahl al-Sunnah, they strove to reconcile between the two views. They essentially attempted to find the middle-ground as they too perceived a conflict was present between logic (‘aql) and the orthodox belief in All�h Speaking. However, as noted by Ibn Taymiyyah, they based their novel understanding on the Kal�m of All�h on same logical premise as the Mu’tazilites, even though they were attempting to rebut them. Although they vehemently denied that the Qur’�n was a created entity, as the Mu’tazilites claimed, they also maintained that the Qur’�n was not the spoken word of All�h, Exalted is He. Instead they said that kal�m linguistically refers to meaning (ma’n�) and not letters and words; speech is merely the idea of the spoken before it is uttered. This was something explicitly said by Ibn Kull�b during the era of Im�m Aḥmad, and he was subsequently refuted by both Ahl al-Sunnah and the Mu’tazilites.

Kal�m of All�h, therefore, is an internal attribute of All�h, eternally subsisting within Himself and not spoken or heard by any; and thus the Qur’�n, as they claimed, is not the words of All�h but rather the words of either Jibrīl (‘alay hisal�m) or the Prophet (Ṣall�hu ‘alayhi wa salam) who understood the internal Kal�m of All�h. It is internal and part of All�h’s Divine Essence (dh�t) as one singular eternal entity and therefore the Qur’�n which is an expression of that attribute is not created- this is how the Ash‘arites affirmed Kal�m of All�h and disassociated themselves from the Mu’tazilites. It is internal and was never uttered as speech and therefore the Qur’�n cannot be the words of All�h- and so this is how they departed from the understanding of Ahl Sunnah.

At the heart of the debate amongst the Ash‘arites was a reconciliation between their fundamental understanding of tawḥīd of All�h and what human beings understand by the concept of speech. They believed that tawḥīd relates to the Divine Essence of All�h being one as an entity, and not two, three, four or five; and that as one independent entity He was also indivisible, without parts or limbs. If they affirmed what is commonly understood by speech as the ability to express one’s will by articulate sound it would imply likening All�h to the creation as speech is only ever realised with a tongue, lips, vocal cords and lungs. Moreover, it would imply that All�h has parts, as speech is not eternal (qadīm) but only exists at the moment when spoken and ends with the last utterance. Their conclusion was ultimately an attempt to redefine the word kal�m as relating not to sound, letters and words but only the idea, will, or thought behind them. Ibn Fawrak (d. 406H), a prominent early Ash‘ari, says: ‘If someone says that All�h says or All�h speaks, then what is meant by that is not the origination of a word or speech but rather origination of something heard and understood from a statement that is eternal’. [3]

When comparing the views of the two camps: the Mu’tazilites and Jahmites with the Ash‘arites, it may seem as though the two are divergent and distinct. However, upon closer analysis, there is a shared understanding on one particular fundamental. Both factions believe in the impossibility of temporally generated or originated events (ḥulūl al-ḥaw�dith) subsisting within the Divine Essence as such events, according to them, necessitate that the Divine Essence itself is generated or originated.

Attributing speech to All�h in its true sense of the word would therefore imply that All�h, Exalted is He, speaks, and decides when to speak and when not to speak. Such temporal attributes that are exercised upon will are an impossibility for God, as only created matter is temporal. If God really did speak it would mean their infamous Kal�m Cosmological Argument for the existence of God would be compromised. This shared understanding was highlighted by Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH) when he said: ‘And they [the Ash‘arites] concurred with the Jahmites and Mu’tazilites fundamentally in their view that the Kal�m of All�h is not linked to His Will or Power or subsisting within Him as a temporal matter (ikhtiy�riyyah). Therefore He did not rise above His Throne after creating the Heavens and the Earth, nor will He approach the plane of resurrection on the Day of Judgment; He did not call out to Mūs� when He called out, nor does He become angry with the sinner or pleased with the worshipper, and He does not become elated by the repentance of the guilty’.[4]

An appreciation of the root cause and underlying premise clarifies why the Ash‘arites opted to redefine the word kal�m in order to maintain and validate their view on Tawḥīd and God’s existence.

The view of the Ash’arites concerning the Kal�m of All�h, which is still held until today within the broad spectrum of Sunni Isl�m, can be understood through the example of a mute person who wishes to convey or express a meaning but is unable to do so through the use of words. Anyone who knows this person well can understand through the context what the mute person is trying to communicate and therefore may tell you: ‘So-and-so is saying this’ –however it is not the direct speech of the mute person but what the communicator has understood from it and has conveyed to you. If the communicator speaks English then the speech will be in English and if he speaks Arabic the speech is in Arabic. It is just the representation of the actual meaning.

Similarly they say that All�h did not directly speak the Qur’�n, however He inspired its meaning to Jibrīl who conveyed it using his own words. Such a belief is utterly reprehensible as it implies a great deal of imperfection to All�h, Exalted is He. Denying that All�h Speaks impacts directly on who we view the Qur’�n. If All�h does not speak with real speech it can only mean that the Qur’�n is created.


https://www.islam21c.com/theology/al...allah-part-23/

[AmantuBillahi]

I understand. It's not really my intention to have a long-winded debate or expect you to change your views. My intention is merely to share some of the information I'm aware of and hear what others might have to say.

aMuslimForLife

I just wanted to clarify what I said in bold. The problem was I sent this message before reviewing it and was too busy to properly edit the last paragraph. What I said here bold isn't completely accurate and comes off shady/deceptive due to the "merely."

Generally speaking, when I make posts like the one in #512 it is with the intention of giving Naseeha and Da'wah. I believe that the fundamental views I hold in Aqeedah are for the most part sound and consistent with the reality of the religion. Sharing this information when the situation calls for it is praiseworthy and the rest is upon the other person to accept or reject. I don't expect that you will change your views so easily (despite how much I might disagree), but I personally feel satisified with having established what I consider sufficent evidences.

May Allah guide us to that which is correct.

[aMuslimForLife]

Need time to edit it... And Ummah forums, only give you a few seconds to edit.

[AmantuBillahi]

Need time to edit it... And Ummah forums, only give you a few seconds to edit.

It's partially a problem with the edit function and partially a problem with my own shortcomings. Although there is not much I can do at this point in time, I would like to apologize and retract from some of my previous posts including several which were made on this thread. My understanding has become slightly more broader since last year and I should have remained patient or articulated myself more appropriately at times.

[yama nemati]

You know scholars of the past would kick ppl out of their gatherings of hey asked too many questions about aqeeda and said some of the things some ppl say. You know you can’t just discuss these things and say all kinds of stuff until you study atleast 4-5 aqeeda books or else you can confuse other ppl and also confuse yourself, just my advice on this cause I seen some ppl posting things that imam Malik used to say was bidda even to say and wouldn’t allow it

[Muslim First]

Your average Muslim doesn't know what an Athari, Ashari or Maturidi is. I think these discussions are fruitless tbh just affirm whatever attributes were mentioned by Allah and don't try to explain them is the safest view. In regards to madhab vs non I agree that madhabs have been apart of the Ummah for the last 1000 years and Salafis have made their own where they disregard Usul and try to pick the strongest opinions of all 4 even though it's basically a pseudo Shafi'i/Hanbali mixture. May Allah guide us all to the straight path.. Ameen.

[aMuslimForLife]

aMuslimForLife

I just wanted to clarify what I said in bold. The problem was I sent this message before reviewing it and was too busy to properly edit the last paragraph. What I said here bold isn't completely accurate and comes off shady/deceptive due to the "merely."

Generally speaking, when I make posts like the one in #512 it is with the intention of giving Naseeha and Da'wah. I believe that the fundamental views I hold in Aqeedah are for the most part sound and consistent with the reality of the religion. Sharing this information when the situation calls for it is praiseworthy and the rest is upon the other person to accept or reject. I don't expect that you will change your views so easily (despite how much I might disagree), but I personally feel satisified with having established what I consider sufficent evidences.

May Allah guide us to that which is correct.

One of the shortcomings of the Salafi Dawah, is that they call it a Dawah to Muslims. Their very name is an insult to all Muslims. It is indirect takfir, or direct, depending on which strand of Salafism you follow. Dawah is to non-Muslims. Dawah means an invitation to Islam. To Muslims it is called Enjoining the Right and Forbidding the wrong.