As-Sawa'iq Al Uluuhiya fee Radd 'Alal Wahhabiyya

[SuldaanGuled]

Istiwa doesn't have an apparent meaning and that's the whole point. It has 15+ meanings, and many examples of this are in the quran itself. The fact that salafis used "to sit", or "settle" and chose the most comparable meaning to what humans would relate to when it comes to a throne shows the clear anthropomorphic inclination.

Did you ever read the explanation of the hadith of the slave girl? I suggest you do, Imam nawawi answers your question beautifully. That's the problem when we take hadith and ayaat and interpret based on our own faulty understanding, we come to false conclusions

Yes i've have and have also read other commentaries by other scholars as well. Do you accept his explanation because it supports what you're already convinced to be true ?

I asked a few questions so far but yet to receive an answer yet why ?

There is no doubt in the seeing of Allah. But we will see him in a way which he knows

For us to see Allah in the hereafter His presence has to be there for us to see but if there's nothing of Him to see how can you see Him ? You can't claim we can see Allah but at the same time not accept that there can be no presence of Him for us to see.

 

[SuldaanGuled]

I shall respond soon to some of the allegations of Mr Guled. Some of the features on my phone doesn't allow a well informed response.

It's not allegation but i'm merely drawing conclusions here and there, trying to understand the ashari view of Allah's existence. I understand the salafi view and so far the major issues between the two revolve around interpretation of Allah's attributes and His existence.

 

[xisaabiye]

Yes i've have and have also read other commentaries by other scholars as well. Do you accept his explanation because it supports what you're already convinced to be true ?

I asked a few questions so far but yet to receive an answer yet why ?




For us to see Allah in the hereafter His presence has to be there for us to see but if there's nothing of Him to see how can you see Him ? You can't claim we can see Allah but at the same time not accept that there can be no presence of Him for us to see.

I refuse to answer your question because like Imam malik said about the how in istiwa, it's not ma3quul, and the question of itself is bid3a. Your premise is faulty, you're using your limited intellect to grasp this, and that's the problem with salafis. For you, seeing means something has to have a form, shape, thus be confined in a sense. Allah is above all of this "laysa kamithlihi shay'a". We will have ru'iyaa of Allah as is mentioned, and that's it..Full stop. The quran or mutaawatir hadith doesn't say how or what it means etc.

I accept imam nawawi and the rightly guided ulama. There is no understanding of the sa7i7atayn(muslim & bukhaari) without An nawawi and Ibn Hajar, even your salafi scholar Albaani says this. You said earlier in this thread that you believe what you believe regarding istiwa because you were taught that in dugsi. Therefore it's you who has been convinced at a young age to believe this. Had you been born in the last generation where dugsi only taught ashari aqeedah would you say the same thing? Mind you, salafism didnt spread globally until uncle sam tapped saudi oil

 

[Ash'arite]

Why else would he say that istiwa is not uknown ie known if he didn't affirm the apparent meaning of it ? What about the hadith where the Prophet peace be upon him asks the slave girl where Allah is ?

As i stated earlier the existence of Allah can't be an abstract one because believing so negates His existence. So i do agree with the salafi view when it comes to this issue, now saying that it's important to clarify that "place" simply refers to location where the actual Essence of Allah is. The Essence of Allah can't be everywhere, or even mixed with His creation, It's separate from His creation.

I'm assuming that you believe Allah Most High exists beyond time, space, location and ‘physical’ direction; He is where He has always been. No if i were to ask you where is that ? what would you answer be ?


Regardless what you're convinced of, logically speaking Allah has to be "somewhere" call it a "place", "location" etc so it's a matter of logical necessity that a person has to affirm this otherwise you'll be left with a belief in an abstract existence of Allah. There is no avoiding this tbh.

Furthermore the similarity of "place" "location" to the way we understand it to be is in name only. The problem i see that you've is that you can't think of a "place" without likening it to the way we understand it ie a place that doesn't have the attributes of this world. Which is why in your mind you believe it to be anthropomorphic , this is a logical flaw in understanding from you part.

It's like saying we can't affirm seeing and hearing to Allah because doing so would mean that we've likened Him to His creation. Again the major flaw here is that one is understanding or trying to interpret these attributes of Allah using the attributes of His creation. Which is why they reject the apparent meaning because doing so according to them would mean that they will be doing tashbih.

I believe that if you stopped interpreting this things based on how you understand them from this world would be of great benefit ruunti.




I would like to hear your answer to the above question

Mahadsanid walaal

I'll break it down into segments:

I see that the issue arises mainly from your understanding. Also, almost all of your answers have an explicitly literalist undertone.

Fisrtly, contextualise the statement of Imam Malik. When he said:

الاستوى معلوم

"The Ascension is known."


The explanation from the scholars of Theology, is:

أن الاستواء معلوم الظاهر بحسب ما تدل عليه الأوضاع اللغوية، ولكن هذا الظاهر غير مراد قطعا

"The Ascension is known linguistically. However the apparent meaning is certainly not intended."


Makes sense? In other words he is saying we know what Ascension means in the linguistical understanding but that cannot translate itself literally. I hope this issue is done and dusted.


Secondly, why are you interpreting the Narration? I find it amusing that you didn't quote the commentaries of scholars of the Traditions that would explain that narration.

Dont worry, here it is:


1. وقال القاضي أبو بكر بن العربي في شرح سنن الترمذي : ” أين الله؟ والمراد بالسؤال بها عنه تعالى المكانة فإن المكان يستحيل عليه.اهـ

The Supreme Judge Abu Bakr ibn al 'Arabi said: "The narration of Where is God", the intented meaning was the position of Grandeur. As for literal space that is impossible." Commentary of At Tirmidhi.


Do not be surprised by Ibn ' Arabi's hypothesis, look at what Al Qurtubi says next:

2. وقال الحافظ أبو العباس أحمد بن عمر بن إبراهيم القرطبي في كتابه المفهم لما أشكل من تلخيص كتاب مسلم ما نصه :” وقيل في تأويل هذا الحديث: إن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سألها بأين عن الرتبة المعنوية التي هي راجعة إلى جلاله تعالى وعظمته التي بها باين كلَّ مَن نُسبت إليه الإلهية وهذا كما يقال: أين الثريا من الثرى؟! والبصر من العمى؟! أي بعُدَ ما بينهما واختصت الثريا والبصر بالشرف والرفعة على هذا يكون قولها في السماء أي في غاية العلو والرفعة وهذا كما يقال: فلان في السماء ومناط الثريا” اهـ .

Al Qurtubi (Spanish theologian) says: "The Prophet (SAW) asked her 'Where' relative to a metaphorical position of Highness and Grandeur....
(I only translated the crux).

An Nawawi says the same thing in his commentary. I need not quote it here.


What is more damning though, is a question I want to ask. Do you even know the grading of the Hadith and it's position in relation to another variant of the same narration? You probably don't.

If you haven't studied the Sciences of Hadith, let me clarify something for you. If there is one narration that has more than one chain of narrators. One chain being weak and the other being very strong (mutawatir), which one do you give precedence in establishing a principle or ruling? Ofcourse, the wordings and the implications of the strong chain is giving precedence. Meaning, the other narration is pretty much sidelined.

Here is the bad news for the Salafists: The original (chain) narration which is Mutawatir and very strong doesn't contain the word "in the Heavens".

See for yourself:

فروي بهذا اللفظ كما هنا وبلفظ ” من ربك ؟ ” قالت : الله ربي

The same Hadith was also narrated with the wording: "Who is your Lord", and she answered: "My Lord is Allah".

That is the more AUTHENTIC wording of the narration.

Also, read what Ibn Hajar has to say about the Hadith:

-الحافظ ابن حجر العسقلاني قال في ” التلخيص الحبير ” (3 / 223) ما نصه : ” وفي اللفظ مخالفة كثيرة ” اه‍

Ibn Hajr: "There is much dispute into the wordings." Talkhees al Habeer.


Also another question, dear brother:

The scholars have said: "The reason why Imam Muslim didn't categorise the Hadith of the slave girl in the Book of Faith (Bab ul Iman) was because he didn't consider it a point of Theology."

What is your view on that? Why didn't he categorise the Hadith in the Book of Faith, if it is used as an evidence for Theology?

The answer to your last point is, very simple:

بل كان قبل خلق الزمان والمكان، وهو الآن على ما عليه كان " اهـ

"He is where He was before He created time and space."


I've already answered this question in detail before, maybe you didn't understand it?

Time and space is created, and since God is the Only Creator, He created these entities. Where was He before time and space? That's where He is now. The problem with anthropomorphism is that they demand you to point North, South, East or West. Problem with that is it contravenes the Nature of God. As He created North, South, East and West.

Please regurgitate what I've said. Most of this I'm sure has already been pointed out by the Xisaabiye.

 

[SuldaanGuled]

I refuse to answer your question because like Imam malik said about the how in istiwa, it's not ma3quul, and the question of itself is bid3a. Your premise is faulty, you're using your limited intellect to grasp this, and that's the problem with salafis. For you, seeing means something has to have a form, shape, thus be confined in a sense. Allah is above all of this "laysa kamithlihi shay'a". We will have ru'iyaa of Allah as is mentioned, and that's it..Full stop. The quran or mutaawatir hadith doesn't say how or what it means etc.

I accept imam nawawi and the rightly guided ulama. There is no understanding of the sa7i7atayn(muslim & bukhaari) without An nawawi and Ibn Hajar, even your salafi scholar Albaani says this. You said earlier in this thread that you believe what you believe regarding istiwa because you were taught that in dugsi. Therefore it's you who has been convinced at a young age to believe this. Had you been born in the last generation where dugsi only taught ashari aqeedah would you say the same thing? Mind you, salafism didnt spread globally until uncle sam tapped saudi oil

Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Abu Hurayrah (radi Allahu anhu) that some people said: “O Messenger of Allah, will we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?” The Messenger of Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “Do you doubt that you see the moon on the night when it is full?” They said, “No, O Messenger of Allah.” He (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said, ‘Do you doubt that you see the sun when there is no cloud?” They said, “No, O Messenger of Allah.” He (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said, “You will see Him likewise…

Ask yourself this walaal why would the Prophet (peace be upon him) affirm to the people who asked him the question that they will indeed see Allah in the hereafter just like the see the moon & sun ? In this hadith we learn that seeing Allah is with our own eyes. How can you see Allah if He there is nothing of Him to see ?

It's common sense that for us to see something it has to have a form otherwise it would be not possible for us to see it. Due to your inability to conceive of a form that isn't like what we know( ie isn't limited) leads you to liken the form of Allah to those of His creation. This is what is causing you to reject the apparent meaning because you think it leads to tashbih.

Contrary to what you're saying i recognize the limitations of my aql which is why i can think of a form that transcends our material experience a form that is befitting to Allah only. Our material world isn't all that exists and as such i don't take my aql as the standard or yard stick and measure everything using it. While you on the other hand utilise your aql to do the complete opposite of me ie you reject or affirm things based on your aql alone. I'm a fallible being why would i give authority to my aql over issues it isn't suited for.

Affirming a form to Allah according to you would mean that He is limited, confined etc why because your definition of what a form is, is based on the attributes of the creation. You then take this definition as if it's all encompassing and then try to understand the form of Allah using it. This is your mistake.

Sxb i wasn't born here in the west i learnt quran using the old school way ie lawh iyo qalin all of my teachers were traditional sufis in fact i've never studied under any salafi sheikh in my entire life.


Mashallah it brings back good memories.

Mashallah deh sxb

 

[xisaabiye]

Ask yourself this walaal why would the Prophet (peace be upon him) affirm to the people who asked him the question that they will indeed see Allah in the hereafter just like the see the moon & sun ? In this hadith we learn that seeing Allah is with our own eyes. How can you see Allah if He there is nothing of Him to see ?

It's common sense that for us to see something it has to have a form otherwise it would be not possible for us to see it. Due to your inability to conceive of a form that isn't like what we know( ie isn't limited) leads you to liken the form of Allah to those of His creation. This is what is causing you to reject the apparent meaning because you think it leads to tashbih.

Contrary to what you're saying i recognize the limitations of my aql which is why i can think of a form that transcends our material experience a form that is befitting to Allah only. Our material world isn't all that exists and as such i don't take my aql as the standard or yard stick and measure everything using it. While you on the other hand utilise your aql to do the complete opposite of me ie you reject or affirm things based on your aql alone. I'm a fallible being why would i give authority to my aql over issues it isn't suited for.

Affirming a form to Allah according to you would mean that He is limited, confined etc why because your definition of what a form is, is based on the attributes of the creation. You then take this definition as if it's all encompassing and then try to understand the form of Allah using it. This is your mistake.

Sxb i wasn't born here in the west i learnt quran using the old school way ie lawh iyo qalin all of my teachers were traditional sufis in fact i've never studied under any salafi sheikh in my entire life.


Mashallah it brings back good memories.

Mashallah deh sxb

"....It's common sense that for us to see something it has to have a form otherwise it would be not possible for us to see it..."

Am i reading this correctly? Are you attributing "form" to Allah? In What hadith sharh or tafseer is "form" attributed to Allah? And btw the scholars agreed that it is kufr to attribute form and place to Allah.

Also I'm not rejecting anything. I simply believe in the verses and hadith as THEY ARE. I don't start inserting things like "literal meaning" or frivolous translations that have never ever been done in consensus of the ulama, asidefron 5 to 7 scholars in 1400 years. That's actually the sad part. You can only find a handful of scholars in 1400 years of Islam that agree with what you're saying.

 

[SuldaanGuled]

I'll break it down into segments:

I see that the issue arises mainly from your understanding. Also, almost all of your answers have an explicitly literalist undertone.

Fisrtly, contextualise the statement of Imam Malik. When he said:

الاستوى معلوم

"The Ascension is known."


The explanation from the scholars of Theology, is:

أن الاستواء معلوم الظاهر بحسب ما تدل عليه الأوضاع اللغوية، ولكن هذا الظاهر غير مراد قطعا

"The Ascension is known linguistically. However the apparent meaning is certainly not intended."


Makes sense? In other words he is saying we know what Ascension means in the linguistical understanding but that cannot translate itself literally. I hope this issue is done and dusted.


Secondly, why are you interpreting the Narration? I find it amusing that you didn't quote the commentaries of scholars of the Traditions that would explain that narration.

Dont worry, here it is:


1. وقال القاضي أبو بكر بن العربي في شرح سنن الترمذي : ” أين الله؟ والمراد بالسؤال بها عنه تعالى المكانة فإن المكان يستحيل عليه.اهـ

The Supreme Judge Abu Bakr ibn al 'Arabi said: "The narration of Where is God", the intented meaning was the position of Grandeur. As for literal space that is impossible." Commentary of At Tirmidhi.


Do not be surprised by Ibn ' Arabi's hypothesis, look at what Al Qurtubi says next:

2. وقال الحافظ أبو العباس أحمد بن عمر بن إبراهيم القرطبي في كتابه المفهم لما أشكل من تلخيص كتاب مسلم ما نصه :” وقيل في تأويل هذا الحديث: إن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سألها بأين عن الرتبة المعنوية التي هي راجعة إلى جلاله تعالى وعظمته التي بها باين كلَّ مَن نُسبت إليه الإلهية وهذا كما يقال: أين الثريا من الثرى؟! والبصر من العمى؟! أي بعُدَ ما بينهما واختصت الثريا والبصر بالشرف والرفعة على هذا يكون قولها في السماء أي في غاية العلو والرفعة وهذا كما يقال: فلان في السماء ومناط الثريا” اهـ .

Al Qurtubi (Spanish theologian) says: "The Prophet (SAW) asked her 'Where' relative to a metaphorical position of Highness and Grandeur....
(I only translated the crux).

An Nawawi says the same thing in his commentary. I need not quote it here.


What is more damning though, is a question I want to ask. Do you even know the grading of the Hadith and it's position in relation to another variant of the same narration? You probably don't.

If you haven't studied the Sciences of Hadith, let me clarify something for you. If there is one narration that has more than one chain of narrators. One chain being weak and the other being very strong (mutawatir), which one do you give precedence in establishing a principle or ruling? Ofcourse, the wordings and the implications of the strong chain is giving precedence. Meaning, the other narration is pretty much sidelined.

Here is the bad news for the Salafists: The original (chain) narration which is Mutawatir and very strong doesn't contain the word "in the Heavens".

See for yourself:

فروي بهذا اللفظ كما هنا وبلفظ ” من ربك ؟ ” قالت : الله ربي

The same Hadith was also narrated with the wording: "Who is your Lord", and she answered: "My Lord is Allah".

That is the more AUTHENTIC wording of the narration.

Also, read what Ibn Hajar has to say about the Hadith:

-الحافظ ابن حجر العسقلاني قال في ” التلخيص الحبير ” (3 / 223) ما نصه : ” وفي اللفظ مخالفة كثيرة ” اه‍

Ibn Hajr: "There is much dispute into the wordings." Talkhees al Habeer.


Also another question, dear brother:

The scholars have said: "The reason why Imam Muslim didn't categorise the Hadith of the slave girl in the Book of Faith (Bab ul Iman) was because he didn't consider it a point of Theology."

What is your view on that? Why didn't he categorise the Hadith in the Book of Faith, if it is used as an evidence for Theology?

The answer to your last point is, very simple:

بل كان قبل خلق الزمان والمكان، وهو الآن على ما عليه كان " اهـ

"He is where He was before He created time and space."


I've already answered this question in detail before, maybe you didn't understand it?

Time and space is created, and since God is the Only Creator, He created these entities. Where was He before time and space? That's where He is now. The problem with anthropomorphism is that they demand you to point North, South, East or West. Problem with that is it contravenes the Nature of God. As He created North, South, East and West.

Please regurgitate what I've said. Most of this I'm sure has already been pointed out by the Xisaabiye.

If Ascension is known linguistically that would mean it has a definition ie a meaning why then is the apparent meaning not intended ??


Which scholars are you referring to ?

"He is where He was before He created time and space."


I've already answered this question in detail before, maybe you didn't understand it?

Time and space is created, and since God is the Only Creator, He created these entities. Where was He before time and space? That's where He is now. The problem with anthropomorphism is that they demand you to point North, South, East or West. Problem with that is it contravenes the Nature of God. As He created North, South, East and West.

You haven't answered the question i posed at all, the word where is used in reference to a place/ location etc which proves my point that i was trying to put across all along in this thread. Furthermore the discussion is about the Essence of Allah and as you know it can't be everywhere

If you didn't believe Allah is "somewhere" you would've never stated that He is where He was before time and space were created, now the dilemma is that you won't affirm a place or location to Allah because according to you this leads to confining Allah, likening Him to His creation etc.

That's why i said there's no avoiding this issue either you believe that Allah is "somewhere" and has a "physical" existence or His existence is an abstract one.

 

[SuldaanGuled]

"....It's common sense that for us to see something it has to have a form otherwise it would be not possible for us to see it..."

Am i reading this correctly? Are you attributing "form" to Allah? In What hadith sharh or tafseer is "form" attributed to Allah? And btw the scholars agreed that it is kufr to attribute form and place to Allah.

Also I'm not rejecting anything. I simply believe in the verses and hadith as THEY ARE. I don't start inserting things like "literal meaning" or frivolous translations that have never ever been done in consensus of the ulama, asidefron 5 to 7 scholars in 1400 years. That's actually the sad part. You can only find a handful of scholars in 1400 years of Islam that agree with what you're saying.

There are quite a number of hadith that prove that Allah has a form/shape

Al-Bukhaari (6227) and Muslim (2841) narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah created Adam in His image, and he was sixty cubits tall. When he created him he said, ‘Go and greet that group of angels who are sitting and listen to how they greet you, for that will be your greeting and the greeting of your descendents.’ So he said, ‘Al-salaamu ‘alaykum (peace be upon you),’ and they said, ‘Al-salaamu ‘alayka wa rahmat-Allaah (Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allaah.’ So they added (the words) ‘wa rahmat-Allaah.’ Everyone who enters Paradise will be in the form of Adam, but mankind continued to grow shorter until now.”

According to the lengthy hadeeth about intercession, it says, “… then the Compeller (al-Jabbaar) will come to then in an image different than the image in which they saw Him the first time…” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 7440; Muslim, 182.

Al-Tirmidhi (3234) narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “My Lord came to me in the most beautiful image and said, ‘O Muhammad.’ I said, ‘Here I am at Your service, my Lord.’ He said, ‘What are the chiefs (angels) on high disputing about…’”

How will you be able to see Allah is there's nothing of Him to see ?

It kufr according to who ? we've hadeth telling us about Allah's image/form who should we believe ?

Everything that exists must inevitably have a form or image. It is impossible for something that exists by itself not to have a form or image.

 

[Khalid Hussein]

If the Sufi took back the Masjid al-Haram, it will be a Sufi grave Worshipping place.

Did you know that the people of Muhammad ibn Abdulwahhab were grave worshipping sufis.

 

[Khalid Hussein]

If Ascension is known linguistically that would mean it has a definition ie a meaning why then is the apparent meaning not intended ??


Which scholars are you referring to ?


You haven't answered the question i posed at all, the word where is used in reference to a place/ location etc which proves my point that i was trying to put across all along in this thread. Furthermore the discussion is about the Essence of Allah and as you know it can't be everywhere

If you didn't believe Allah is "somewhere" you would've never stated that He is where He was before time and space were created, now the dilemma is that you won't affirm a place or location to Allah because according to you this leads to confining Allah, likening Him to His creation etc.

That's why i said there's no avoiding this issue either you believe that Allah is "somewhere" and has a "physical" existence or His existence is an abstract one.

Allah can't be Everywhere, does that mean Allah is in the Toliet? Allah is everywhere by his Knowledge.

 

[Young Popeye]

If the Sufi took back the Masjid al-Haram, it will be a Sufi grave Worshipping place.

Did you know that the people of Muhammad ibn Abdulwahhab were grave worshipping sufis.

The holy cities belong to the Sharifs not some ignorant bedouins descended from the kafir Abdulwahhab. I wonder who likes to call sufis grave worshipers

 

[SuldaanGuled]

Allah can't be Everywhere, does that mean Allah is in the Toliet? Allah is everywhere by his Knowledge.

Walaal i think that you didn't understand what i wrote

I clearly stated that i was referring to the Essence of Allah in the discussion. His Essence can't be everywhere as that would lead to shirk

Allah can't be Everywhere,

The word can't in that statement negates all other possibilities except for one ie Allah's Essence is with Him above His throne so i don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the Essence can be everywhere unless you thought i said "can"

Sax Allah is everywhere by His knowledge but not by His Essence

 

[Khalid Hussein]

The holy cities belong to the Sharifs not some ignorant bedouins descended from the kafir Abdulwahhab. I wonder who likes to call sufis grave worshipers

Do you call this Dhikr

 

[Khalid Hussein]

Walaal i think that you didn't understand what i wrote

I clearly stated that i was referring to the Essence of Allah in the discussion. His Essence can't be everywhere as that would lead to shirk



The word can't in that statement negates all other possibilities except for one ie Allah's Essence is with Him above His throne so i don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the Essence can be everywhere unless you thought i said "can"

Sax Allah is everywhere by His knowledge but not by His Essence

I wasn't reffering to you I was Agreeing with you

 

[Inquisitive_]

These types of conversations are very dangerous to engage in, I advice the brothers from both sides to disengage from this with simply Allah knows best. None of us are going to be asked these questions in our graves.

This very topic resulted in 4 different congregational prayers happening at Mecca at one point each accusing the other of Kufr which is far worse on top of dividing the Ummah which is equally as bad.

This topic is only relevant to 0.001% of the Muslim's whom engage in deep study and even then the way it's being conducted right now is shameless.

 

[Khalid Hussein]

The holy cities belong to the Sharifs not some ignorant bedouins descended from the kafir Abdulwahhab. I wonder who likes to call sufis grave worshipers

See the Kufr and Biddah that has no basis you have added in this deen, you take your wali's like Jesus Christ for the Christians. You know how crazy Christan are with Jesus peace be upon him.

Believe in those who went against the Prophet going above the Heavens in the Israa Wal Mi3raj and you say it was in his sleep. Kufr why did surat ul Israa come if the Israa wal Mi3raj was in the Prophet sleep .

 

[xisaabiye]

If Ascension is known linguistically that would mean it has a definition ie a meaning why then is the apparent meaning not intended ??


Which scholars are you referring to ?


You haven't answered the question i posed at all, the word where is used in reference to a place/ location etc which proves my point that i was trying to put across all along in this thread. Furthermore the discussion is about the Essence of Allah and as you know it can't be everywhere

If you didn't believe Allah is "somewhere" you would've never stated that He is where He was before time and space were created, now the dilemma is that you won't affirm a place or location to Allah because according to you this leads to confining Allah, likening Him to His creation etc.

That's why i said there's no avoiding this issue either you believe that Allah is "somewhere" and has a "physical" existence or His existence is an abstract one.

So you believe Allah is somewhere and has a physical existence???? Bruh, if that isn't tashbih I don't know what is. You're bringing examples that have fault premises and can't be applied to Allah, you stated in order for Allah to exist he has to be "somewhere". Your problem is you can't distinguish Al khaliq and Makhluuq. Allah solely is Al Khaliq, and every other thing is Makhluuq include time and space, so the question of where can't be applied to Allah

Let me ask you this. Do you believe Allah physically is above the heavens, and physically comes down at the last 3rd of the night? This is major kufr according to almost every aalim. I can quote a long list from Imam Ali(ra) to abu hanifa, to Iz ibn abdusalaa, to Imam suyuti to Imam subki etc. They all state believing Allah is place is kufr and for that reason the ulama of the 4 madaahib jailed ibn taymiya and completely banned his teachings. There's consensus on these issues from the 4 schools, and this has been the case from then till now

 

[xisaabiye]

These types of conversations are very dangerous to engage in, I advice the brothers from both sides to disengage from this with simply Allah knows best. None of us are going to be asked these questions in our graves.

This very topic resulted in 4 different congregational prayers happening at Mecca at one point each accusing the other of Kufr which is far worse on top of dividing the Ummah which is equally as bad.

This topic is only relevant to 0.001% of the Muslim's whom engage in deep study and even then the way it's being conducted right now is shameless.

I agree with you to a certain extent. The 4 different prayers was an issue of fiqh which there's no problem to have differences in, but this is aqeedah sxb. We can't have So called sunni Muslims believing in a Sky God and spreading this false information, especially when the majority of major ulama deemed this belief tantamount to kufr

 

[Khalid Hussein]

I agree with you to a certain extent. The 4 different prayers was an issue of fiqh which there's no problem to have differences in, but this is aqeedah sxb. We can't have So called sunni Muslims believing in a Sky God and spreading this false information, especially when the majority of major ulama deemed this belief tantamount to kufr

I remember a Hadith my Real teacher taught me. About the Prophet and the slave girl

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Where is Allah?" She said: "Above the heavens." He asked, "Who am I?" She said, "The Messenger of Allah." So he (Rasulullah) said to her master: "Set her free, for she is a believer."

This Hadith is Sahih, She (slave girl) knows Allah is above his all his Creation. That means the highest of the Highest creation the Arsh Allah is far above it. Allah is everywhere by the knowledge he already knows what going to happen to you. So what the slave girls said does make her a Kafir, No because the Prophet said for she is a Believer. So what you believe Allah exist without a Place or Allah is everywhere is wrong.

 

[Khalid Hussein]

The Hadith is Sahih, by Imam Muslim and Abu Dawood.

Ful; Hadith
Mu'awiyah as-Sahmi reported: "I had some sheep which I kept between Uhud and Juwaniyyah with a slave-girl to look after them. One day, I went out to check on my sheep and discovered that a wolf had devoured one of them. Since I am just a human, (I became angry) and struck the girl. Later on, I came to the Prophet and reported to him the incident. He terrified me with the gravity of my action. I said, 'Messenger of Allah'! Shall I free her (as an expiation of my sin.) He said 'Call her over'. When I did, he asked her, 'Where is Allah?' She said, 'Above the heavens'. Then he asked her, 'Who am I?' She said, 'The Messenger of Allah '. Thereupon, the Messenger of Allah ordered me, 'Free her. She is a believer'