Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

attribute of Allah

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • attribute of Allah

    I had read on a salafi site....that Allah sees "with" his eyes...is this right to say?...i have listen a scholar say that Allah doesn't need eyes to see?.........plz someone explain

  • #2
    [

    Comment


    • #3
      Merge Thread: https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/um...h#post12825689

      Comment


      • #4
        Saying that he sees with his eyes is a bidah and depending on what the person means by that it could be tajseem (anthropomorphism). Nobody from the salaf said such a thing. His seeing is an attribute and he sees without a modality. Plus the eyes mentioned in the quran are not a body part so the statement doesn't make any sense both logically and scripturally, its a seperate attribute and we don't know the meaning of it. The salaf approach on verses and hadith mentioning yad (hand), wajh (face) etc, is to leave the meaning to Allah. As Sufyan ibn Uyaynah said: "everything that Allaah described Himself with in His Book then it’s recitation is it’s explanation" they usually didn't do tafsir of them, they just negated any resemblance of Allah to his creation. They negated that it refers to limbs, body parts that have weight, height, width, size etc. Allah is above such limits. But they also interpreted such words sometimes and that is also undeniable, for example when Allah says in the Quran that "Everything (that exists) will perish except His (Allah’s) own Face" scholars interpret this to mean that everything will be destroyed except his existance ie himself. And thats enough to debunk anthropomorphism. Hope it helps.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dinopal View Post
          Saying that he sees with his eyes is a bidah and depending on what the person means by that it could be tajseem (anthropomorphism). Nobody from the salaf said such a thing. His seeing is an attribute and he sees without a modality. Plus the eyes mentioned in the quran are not a body part so the statement doesn't make any sense both logically and scripturally, its a seperate attribute and we don't know the meaning of it. The salaf approach on verses and hadith mentioning yad (hand), wajh (face) etc, is to leave the meaning to Allah. As Sufyan ibn Uyaynah said: "everything that Allaah described Himself with in His Book then it’s recitation is it’s explanation" they usually didn't do tafsir of them, they just negated any resemblance of Allah to his creation. They negated that it refers to limbs, body parts that have weight, height, width, size etc. Allah is above such limits. But they also interpreted such words sometimes and that is also undeniable, for example when Allah says in the Quran that "Everything (that exists) will perish except His (Allah’s) own Face" scholars interpret this to mean that everything will be destroyed except his existance ie himself. And thats enough to debunk anthropomorphism. Hope it helps.
          Are u athari akhi?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by dinopal View Post
            Saying that he sees with his eyes is a bidah and depending on what the person means by that it could be tajseem (anthropomorphism). Nobody from the salaf said such a thing. His seeing is an attribute and he sees without a modality. Plus the eyes mentioned in the quran are not a body part so the statement doesn't make any sense both logically and scripturally, its a seperate attribute and we don't know the meaning of it. The salaf approach on verses and hadith mentioning yad (hand), wajh (face) etc, is to leave the meaning to Allah. As Sufyan ibn Uyaynah said: "everything that Allaah described Himself with in His Book then it’s recitation is it’s explanation" they usually didn't do tafsir of them, they just negated any resemblance of Allah to his creation. They negated that it refers to limbs, body parts that have weight, height, width, size etc. Allah is above such limits. But they also interpreted such words sometimes and that is also undeniable, for example when Allah says in the Quran that "Everything (that exists) will perish except His (Allah’s) own Face" scholars interpret this to mean that everything will be destroyed except his existance ie himself. And thats enough to debunk anthropomorphism. Hope it helps.
            This is one of the silliest things I've ever read.

            How can do you translate and interpret words if you don't know what they mean?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

              This is one of the silliest things I've ever read.

              How can do you translate and interpret words if you don't know what they mean?
              You have to love how they put the English translation for each word and still they claim to not know the "meaning". This is a new, never-heard-before convention in linguistics; where a person says something in so many different ways and claims that it has no intelligible meaning.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

                You have to love how they put the English translation for each word and still they claim to not know the "meaning". This is a new, never-heard-before convention in linguistics; where a person says something in so many different ways and claims that it has no intelligible meaning.
                Well translating it IMO is not good, and many scholars very against translating it into Persian such as Abu Hanifa. Tell me the meaning of yad then, lets hear it. You do negate that its a limb don't you? That leaves you with possible metaphorical meanings. Tafwid is the safer option, saying we don't know the meaning while at the same time doing tanzih and saying it's not a limb. I love how neo salafis claim yad, wajh saq etc are known but fail to present a definition for it. And then we have neo salafi scholars saying "We don't confirm or deny that its a limb because a limb is a word from philosophy". Yani no problem but if you can't use other words to describe what it is then you really have no clue what it means. Same can't be said about other attributes at all, such as seeing and hearing. Very easy to define them. It's really a semantical issue and most laymen salafis will agree that yad isn't a limb, so they're doing tafwid of the ma'na without even knowing it. Doesn't really matter what you call it, tafwid of the ma'na or kayfiyyah.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                  This is one of the silliest things I've ever read.

                  How can do you translate and interpret words if you don't know what they mean?
                  We know what they mean in the language, although words have metaphorical meanings that can be lost when translated. Thats why many scholars such as Abu Hanifa didn't allow translating it into Persian.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TabsheerAnsari View Post

                    Are u athari akhi?
                    I'm an ashari who prefers tafwid (leaving the meaning of seemingly anthropomorphic verses to Alllah instead of interpreting them).
                    Allah says in the Quran: "He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive (Muhkam), they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical (Mutashabih); then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding."
                    So the methodology is to say that we believe in all of it, all of it is from our Lord, while affirming that Allah is unlike anything we can imagine. Giving the literal meaning is also regarded as interpretation, and the salaf didn't do this.
                    Last edited by dinopal; 6 days ago.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by dinopal View Post

                      We know what they mean in the language, although words have metaphorical meanings that can be lost when translated. Thats why many scholars such as Abu Hanifa didn't allow translating it into Persian.
                      More meaningless nonsense.

                      You translated words which you claimed not to know the meaning of.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                        More meaningless nonsense.

                        You translated words which you claimed not to know the meaning of.
                        I wish the forum had automated responses for the same things brought up again and again...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dinopal View Post

                          I'm an ashari who prefers tafwid (leaving the meaning of seemingly anthropomorphic verses to Alllah instead of interpreting them).
                          Allah says in the Quran: "He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive (Muhkam), they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical (Mutashabih); then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding."
                          So the methodology is to say that we believe in all of it, all of it is from our Lord, while affirming that Allah is unlike anything we can imagine. Giving the literal meaning is also regarded as interpretation, and the salaf didn't do this.
                          First the verses are "seemingly anthropomorphic" and they require "leaving the meaning".

                          Then, they are "allegorical" which requires knowing for certain that there is a "figurative" interpretation which, depending on how the verse is read, is known only by Allah AND those firmly rooted in knowledge.

                          Then, the "literal meaning" also indicates "interpretation".

                          How can all of this be known even though the "meaning" is "unknown" but it is known what it is not...?

                          Just stop. It's clear you are suffering from the confusion of the wanna-be philosophers...

                          Comment

                          Collapse

                          Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                          Working...
                          X