If someone said 200 years ago I can speak to someone from one side of the world to the other, people would think his crazy by using their intellect at that time. But now we have knowledge on how we can speak with phones it makes sense.
Salaf had two approaches in dealing with the Sifat of Nuzul. Tafwid or Ta'wil and the example is below. 👇 Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Khallal, who died in Hijra year 311, and who took his fiqh from Imam Ahmad’s students, relates in his Kitab al-Sunna through his chain of narrators from Hanbal ibn Ishaq al-Shaybani, the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that Imam Ahmad was asked about the hadiths mentioning, "Allah’s descending," "seeing Allah," and "placing His foot on hell"; and the like, and Ahmad replied: "We believe in them and consider them true, without modality and without ‘meaning’ (bi la kayfa wa la ma‘na)." [Dhamm al Tawil by Ibn Qudamah] Imam Malik was asked about the “descent” of Allah and he said, “His, the majestic’s, command descends every night, and as for Allah ‘azza wa jall, then he is eternal, he does not move or displace, glorified be He, and there is no god but He!” [Sharh Sahih Muslim volume 6, pg 37]
Yeah the former example simply doesn't sit will with sane people. "wiThOuT mOdAliTy aNd wiThOuT mEaniNg" means absolutely nothing when you're using language to communicate and the words have intrinsic and self-evident definitions. May The Most High forgive them for the confusion they may have helped spread.
No, the only people who have helped the confusion spread is the hard nosed and ignorant Mujassima. Who the Psudo salafi manhaj of today follow. The scholars always knew well what the salaf meant by "no modality". When people take those who are ignorant, it is a fitah for the ummah
I don’t think comparing it to Christians saying “it’s a mystery”, aka Appealing to Mystery, is the right comparison. There is knowledge and an explanation of how Allah descends, it’s just that knowledge or explanation we don’t have.
Another problem with taking the hadith literal is the fact that Allah enters creation which is exactly what chrstians believe as well this sole Hadith is enough to expose the false salafi beliefs with regards to these things anyone with sound intellect will reject these absurdities for Allah
Hi, I just want to say thanks for your effort to combat Salafiyyah madness. In social media, Ahlusunnah has the weakest voice especially in dawah scene. The Salafi dominates and gives dawah but when regarding to aqeedah and understanding of primary sources of Islam like Quran and certain Hadiths, I heavily oppose them. They are disease to the ummah and very divisive in nature of their existence.
That’s crazy bro you even don’t know what is above you and your saying the earth is always night at any giving time but your making example of the created to the creator Allah subhanallah
ذلك هي: عن يحيى بن يحيى قال: كنا عند مالك بن أنس فجاء رجل فقال: يا أبا عبد الله، {الرحمن على العرش استوى} [طه: 5] فكيف استوى؟ قال: فأطرق مالك برأسه حتى علاه الرحضاء ثم قال: الاستواء غير مجهول، والكيف غير معقول، والإيمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة، وما أراك إلا مبتدعا. فأمر به أن يخرج
I am late, but we can have a chat on this. It isn't illogical to say that Allah descends, while still being above the throne. If I had a 3d Model of a huge 10 story building, and I stood on a stool. I can remain placed on the stool, without moving from the stool, and STILL descend to the 3rd story or the 4th story, because I encompass the 3d model. Now of course, this analogy is not 100% perfect, but this analogy proves that it isn't illogical to descend to a specific place from something that you encompass. I encompass the 3D model, I don't need to enter it to descend to the 3rd story, I don't need to leave my stool to descend. I can remain on my stool, and STILL descend in some way. Allah's actions may have similar conclusions as us, but the way those actions are performed are unlike ours and befits his divine majesty- similar to how the actions of humans and animals befit what they are themselves. So if Allah descends every night, he does it in a sequence that is unlike ours. Because if Allah's actions are unlike anything, then by definition the sequence of those actions are also going to be unlike anything.
@@frostyigloo Let's say you are a human who has infinite size, or immeasurable size hypothetically. You stand outside of a 10 story house, and from your eyes, you encompass the 10 story house around with what you are. If you wish to descend to the 5th story of the house, you don't need to move from your place in order to descend to the 5th story of the house since you encompass it. You can do the descending without moving from a particular place.
@@jenson_2 oh, so since the person encompasses the building, he can be at the top storey and at some other storey at the same moment? But the storeys of the building are in succession while the heavens are inside of each other. This can be resolved if I say me as a 3-d person can be at two places at the same moment of a 2-d painting. But here, descending doesn't happen since the person is at two places at the same time but is not descending. I hope I understood you correctly
@@frostyigloo You can remain in one spot, but descend (squat down or simply just move your head downwards) to the lowest story of the building. This is like being in a chair, but descending in order to pick something up while still being in the same location; the chair. When you encompass something, you don't have to get inside it to descend to it. If I were so large that I encompassed a building, I would descend in some way to the lowest story of a building without moving from my spot. Much like being in a chair and bending to pick something up, but I didn't move from my chair.
The brother here is making a wrong comparison with the Christian belief of not to question...As for Salafis Ahlul Hadeeth we say we believe and submit to what Allah and his Rasool sallal lahu alaihi wa sallam said. We take it literally. We don't do tashbee, thamteel, ...we don't say how, why, resemble to creation etc...
yeah his intellect is corrupted by ashari jahmiyah greek philosophy which makes it reject clear evidence from Quran and sunnah. Allah did not say that he is one in three firstly in the Quran and its not mentioned in their own bible thats only their claim. As for Allah's descending its mentioned in an authentic hadith. Allah's descending trancends and its not the descending of the creation thats why this ashari is intelectually corrupted, he likened Allah's descending to the humans descending. firstly Allah's descending or any of His actions are restricted or under time, Allah created time. secondly Allah descend in way that befits His majesty meaning its not like the creation how he descends. so this ashari likened Allah to his creation in regards to descending then he rejected this attribute of Allah by using his impure intellect of aristotle philosophy.
We don't use intellect in understanding the Aqeedah of the Muslims. We don't use our reason in Aqeedah Eemaan. We submit to what Allah revealed literally. There is no option for us, no choice. We believe and submit...please learn the true Aqeedah of the Muslims, it found in the Quran and ahadeeth a d the books of the Salaf as-Salih.
christians dont use their intellect as well thats why the comparison is accurate taking it literally has implications and you cannot just say "we take it literally but dont know how" thats just insulting the human mind Salafis need to stop doing this and turn back to the Quranic method described in 3:7
Ah, the pseudosalafis always bring this point up. Here's a quick read, search for: "Is Alif-Lām-Mīm proof that you don't need to understand the Qur'an?" it's on the Nizam site and should clear up your misconceptions. When you finish reading it, inshaaAllah, then come back and engage. Otherwise it's a futile endeavor.
Using Imam Ibn Qudamah (RA) argument goes against you because pseudo-Salafis are known to interpret the verses the verses and ahadith based on their desires while Imam Ibn Qudamah and vast majority of HanbaliAthari scholars preferred to stay silent on its explanation. They never gave it a meaning. Hopefully, you return to the path of the Salaf.
If Allah's attributes are eternal and not him, then why is Allah confined by this nature eternally? If Allah has infinite attributes then why can he not have malevolence as an attribute? Why can't Allah be illogical, is he constrained by laws of logic? What's wrong with having 3 persons in 1 being? Does Allah have essential attributes and relative attributes-Relative to other possible worlds, worlds where his nature manifests differently, e.g., less merciful? I'm agnostic, so please answer my questions for me to consider Islam
1) Allah is eternal, His attributes are what makes who He is. 2) Malevolence is relative and not absolute. One cannot say God intends or wishes ‘evil’ if the presence of evil is not known without good, as good is required to know what evil is. Thus if, pre-eternally, the universe did not exist, which means neither good nor evil existed, God cannot have attributes confined to either one. Instead, the correct answer is that God has the pre-eternal attribute of Will. He creates good and bad as He is all-willing, meaning He may will into existence an evil thing as well as a good thing. This is the reason for evil and good existing in the world. 3) There is a misunderstanding in the laws of the intellect. They are not created laws, no one put them into existence. Instead, there is reality as it is, and that reality is something God created the intellect to be able to grasp and judge between. The ‘laws of logic’ are a classification of how our intellect grasps reality as it is. Thus when we say “1+1=2” it is because the intellect grasps one whole thing, being a part of reality, and puts another whole to it, and it results in 2 wholes, thus we say that it falls under what is ‘rationally necessary’- not because logic decides that law, but because that’s the classification of how we grasp reality. The intellect will grasp that “1+1=5” as a rational impossibility, because it grasps that there are 3 things missing in reality. Thus to try to change the laws of the intellect, is to try to change reality, and trying to change reality is a denial of reality. If a person denies reality, just slap him and he will realize that his pain is a real thing. There is no denying reality. Now, when we say Allah is in line with the laws of logic, it’s because we prove Allah through the laws of logic which again, are simply how we grasp reality. We grasp that every action that is already done requires a doer, otherwise the action cannot have been done. This is a reality we grasp, a logical necessity. When we prove the universe is created, it means the action of creation has already been done, and requires a creator. This is reality grasped through the intellect. If Allah can be ‘illogical’ it contradicts reality as we know it, and we are a people of reason, we don’t deny reality. So the question itself is problematic and flawed because it assumes the laws of logic are created and Allah has to abide by them which would be some kind of limitation on Allah, when this is not the case. Instead, they are reality in categories; possible, impossible, and necessary. Allah and His attributes and actions all fall under these three, and not just Allah but ALL real things. 4) 3 persons in 1 being, with regard to God specifically, is a rational impossibility because of the co-dependence of each. Each of the 3 persons is dependent on the other for the whole to exist. That 1 being is incomplete if the 3 persons don’t exist, so the questions are as follows: -Who set the limit of 3 persons, and why not 4, 5, 6….? If you say God, then the contradiction of circular reasoning applies. If you say anyone besides God, then if there is someone superior to God such that He can choose ‘who’s God is, then the impossibility of an infinite regress applies. And if you say no one, you affirm a possible action (3, not 6 or 4, when each is equally possible to make a whole) being done without a doer, and this is the impossibility of something from nothing -Do each of these 3 have their own independent wills? If you say yes, then whose will is dominant in the case of a contradicting will? If you say any one over the other, then you’ve made that one superior in power and authority as He is capable of enacting his will over the others’. If you say they do have their own will but they don’t contradict each other, we say who imposes that their wills are in agreement, and if they were, are they truly independent? And if you say they agree with each other, then they all in their coinciding Wills decide to create the universe, then who of the 3 enacts that creation? If they all do, then it must be split between them, since more than one cannot do 100% of the same action. And it being split between them requires a choice and will to decide who creates what, that can either be agreed upon or disagreed upon assuming they are independently able to choose as they will, which goes back to the contradiction above. And if you say they don’t have independent wills, then one part has a will over another part, and that other part must submit to the other’s will, in which case they’re not all considered ‘god’ if god is to have a free will. -Splitting in parts is an attribute of physical entities. So long as God is beyond time and space, he is beyond physicality and physical limitations and attributes of existing in ‘parts’. -If one argues this is like attributes, we argue no it is not. Our reasoning is that even those who say God is 3 persons agree that each person has attributes of his own, meaning that they acknowledge an attribute is not the same as what they’re considering as ‘persons’, otherwise you’d add the attributes to the persons and say God is 50 in one person for example. No intellectual argues this because the difference between an attribute and an entity is known. The attributes of Allah are neither separate from Him nor are they Him in and of themselves, just as your sight is an attribute that is neither you, nor is it separate to you. It is your attribute as a human. Allah has attributes as a God that befit Him. 5) His attributes are not relative, and the example you asked about refers to the links of these attributes rather than the attribute itself. Meaning, Allah’s mercy is an attribute of His that is eternal and 1, but its ‘link’ can be much or little based on His will and choice. To better understand this, we say as attributes, us humans we have 1 attribute of sight, yet that doesn’t mean we can see only 1 time. Rather our sight has many ‘links’ to it. With Allah it’s the same thing as a concept, just different in actuality meaning Allah is eternal and we aren’t, etc. So Allah is eternally all-merciful and this will never change, but the ‘links’ of His mercy differ based on His will as He deems fit for any individual. If he wants to have mercy on him, how much mercy he wants to, that’s all His will to choose as He pleases and no one can hold Him accountable for His decision. Hope this answers the questions. It is difficult to type this long on here, and comments sections isn’t necessarily the place to learn these things or go back and forth in. If you’re genuinely interested in considering Islam, I suggest you take an Islamic philosophy class that teaches traditional Islamic theology with a philosophical lens and approach, and you’ll have all these questions and doubts answered no doubt 🙏🏻
1. Allah is not in need of you, whether you consider Islam or not. 2. Allah doesn’t JUST exist, he has attributes which are a part of him, they are not seperate from him, attributes that are unique to him alone, for example only he is capable of creating something from nothing. Therefore having the title of THE CREATOR and the attribute of creation, you can’t be called a creator unless you actually create something. There for he has titles and attributes. 3. You don’t get to ascribe attributes to Allah, Allah tells us what some of his attributes are and malevolence is not one he has ascribed to himself, he is free from lowly attributes. He can’t be illogical because that’s a human flaw a human characteristic, and we don’t say Allah swt is logical we say he is the All wise and All knowing, and he addresses us according to our intellect and understanding, and we understand through logic, the truth has to somewhat make sense to us for us to believe in it. What good would it be if we didn’t understand our creator. Or following an inconsistent “truth”, then everybody would be justified in worshiping what they want. 4.What’s wrong with having 3 in one? Because it simply has too many inconsistencies and contradicts itself, a false concept made up by man. 5. And does Allah swt have attributes relatives to other worlds? Unnecessary question or concept to discuss. We can’t speak on speculation and this question has no relevance to us, other worlds and what might be going on there and how Allah is there? Unnecessary. Focus on the foundation. There is a creator, who created this universe and brought everything into existence. He himself is not created (if you say he is also created, you’ll end up with an infinite regress where nothing actually ends up being created) he always existed and will always exist. He created us for a purpose and sent us prophets and messengers and books guiding us on how to fulfill this purpose, he rewards those who choose to follow the guidance and has warned against not following his guidance. And if you’re agonistic, first deal with that. You don’t know if Allah exists or not, deal with that, either he does or doesn’t, don’t jump to relevant or essential attributes.
_Why can't Allah be illogical, is he constrained by laws of logic?_ This question is akin to asking why the north pole can't be on the equator, is it constrained by our compass? To put simply; the law of logic is a tool that help us to arrive on truth. (On the other hand, an omniscient being does not require such thing in order to know anything.) So to say Allah is logical is equivalent to say that Allah is _the truth_ . And indeed, in Islam, it is one of his essential attribute: "Al-Haqq".
@@_aa4540 do not say the attributes are part of Him, because it implies God has parts. A necessary existence cannot consists of parts. Rather -- in Ash'arite theology -- the attributes are _neither Him nor other than Him_ .
He is not doing tashbih at all, he is only applying your principle (affirming the apparent meaning of nuzul/desent) to demonstrate why such principle is wrong. If affirming the apparent meaning is tashbih to you, why are you sticking to such approach to know Allah? Regarding asha'aris, they don't affirm literal descent to Allah (glory to Him), you can't accuse them of tashbih brother.
I don’t think Allah azzawajal is descending, maybe His Angels ! He knows every single leaves falling from the trees but He can’t hear our Dua’as from his throne? What about the rest of the times He is not listening our dua’as?
SubhnaaAllah. Alhamdulillah for being in the path of the Asha’ira.
Alhamdulillah.
Alhamdulillah.
you can also apply this to how Allah says that he is closer to us than our jugular vein. Allah is Al-Wasi so his presence encompasses everything.
If someone said 200 years ago I can speak to someone from one side of the world to the other, people would think his crazy by using their intellect at that time. But now we have knowledge on how we can speak with phones it makes sense.
A very clear n digestible explanation. Jzk Khair.
Salaf had two approaches in dealing with the Sifat of Nuzul. Tafwid or Ta'wil and the example is below. 👇
Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Khallal, who died in Hijra year 311, and who took his fiqh from Imam Ahmad’s students, relates in his Kitab al-Sunna through his chain of narrators from Hanbal ibn Ishaq al-Shaybani, the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that Imam Ahmad was asked about the hadiths mentioning, "Allah’s descending," "seeing Allah," and "placing His foot on hell"; and the like, and Ahmad replied: "We believe in them and consider them true, without modality and without ‘meaning’ (bi la kayfa wa la ma‘na)." [Dhamm al Tawil by Ibn Qudamah]
Imam Malik was asked about the “descent” of Allah and he said, “His, the majestic’s, command descends every night, and as for Allah ‘azza wa jall, then he is eternal, he does not move or displace, glorified be He, and there is no god but He!” [Sharh Sahih Muslim volume 6, pg 37]
Yeah the former example simply doesn't sit will with sane people.
"wiThOuT mOdAliTy aNd wiThOuT mEaniNg" means absolutely nothing when you're using language to communicate and the words have intrinsic and self-evident definitions.
May The Most High forgive them for the confusion they may have helped spread.
No, the only people who have helped the confusion spread is the hard nosed and ignorant Mujassima. Who the Psudo salafi manhaj of today follow.
The scholars always knew well what the salaf meant by "no modality". When people take those who are ignorant, it is a fitah for the ummah
Make this channel famous
I don’t think comparing it to Christians saying “it’s a mystery”, aka Appealing to Mystery, is the right comparison. There is knowledge and an explanation of how Allah descends, it’s just that knowledge or explanation we don’t have.
Alhamdulillah perfect reply. May Allah keeps us upon the aqidah of the jamaah.
Another problem with taking the hadith literal is the fact that Allah enters creation
which is exactly what chrstians believe as well
this sole Hadith is enough to expose the false salafi beliefs with regards to these things
anyone with sound intellect will reject these absurdities for Allah
Hi, I just want to say thanks for your effort to combat Salafiyyah madness. In social media, Ahlusunnah has the weakest voice especially in dawah scene. The Salafi dominates and gives dawah but when regarding to aqeedah and understanding of primary sources of Islam like Quran and certain Hadiths, I heavily oppose them. They are disease to the ummah and very divisive in nature of their existence.
Jazakh Allah for this very clear and concise response. Alhamdullilah.
Jazakallah ustadz
Thank you Brother for sharing with us. Appreciate your effort. May Allah increase your Eeman and Taqwa.
The level of misunderstandings of the salafis is shocking. May Allah give them understanding.
Amazing brother ❤
Good work.
Jazakhallah Khair
Great video, thank you ❤
MashaAllah, excellent response.
SubhanAllah
Amazing… brilliant..👍👍👍
That’s crazy bro you even don’t know what is above you and your saying the earth is always night at any giving time but your making example of the created to the creator Allah subhanallah
Mash-Allah ❤
ذلك هي: عن يحيى بن يحيى قال: كنا عند مالك بن أنس فجاء رجل فقال: يا أبا عبد الله، {الرحمن على العرش استوى} [طه: 5] فكيف استوى؟ قال: فأطرق مالك برأسه حتى علاه الرحضاء ثم قال: الاستواء غير مجهول، والكيف غير معقول، والإيمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة، وما أراك إلا مبتدعا. فأمر به أن يخرج
Best response to people who believe Allah descends every last third of the night.
So is Allah everywhere? No
I am late, but we can have a chat on this.
It isn't illogical to say that Allah descends, while still being above the throne.
If I had a 3d Model of a huge 10 story building, and I stood on a stool. I can remain placed on the stool, without moving from the stool, and STILL descend to the 3rd story or the 4th story, because I encompass the 3d model. Now of course, this analogy is not 100% perfect, but this analogy proves that it isn't illogical to descend to a specific place from something that you encompass. I encompass the 3D model, I don't need to enter it to descend to the 3rd story, I don't need to leave my stool to descend. I can remain on my stool, and STILL descend in some way.
Allah's actions may have similar conclusions as us, but the way those actions are performed are unlike ours and befits his divine majesty- similar to how the actions of humans and animals befit what they are themselves.
So if Allah descends every night, he does it in a sequence that is unlike ours. Because if Allah's actions are unlike anything, then by definition the sequence of those actions are also going to be unlike anything.
@@jenson_2 Can you elaborate on your analogy? It doesn't seem to make any sense. Would be better if you elaborate on your analogy
@@frostyigloo
Let's say you are a human who has infinite size, or immeasurable size hypothetically.
You stand outside of a 10 story house, and from your eyes, you encompass the 10 story house around with what you are.
If you wish to descend to the 5th story of the house, you don't need to move from your place in order to descend to the 5th story of the house since you encompass it. You can do the descending without moving from a particular place.
@@jenson_2 oh, so since the person encompasses the building, he can be at the top storey and at some other storey at the same moment? But the storeys of the building are in succession while the heavens are inside of each other. This can be resolved if I say me as a 3-d person can be at two places at the same moment of a 2-d painting. But here, descending doesn't happen since the person is at two places at the same time but is not descending. I hope I understood you correctly
@@frostyigloo
You can remain in one spot, but descend (squat down or simply just move your head downwards) to the lowest story of the building.
This is like being in a chair, but descending in order to pick something up while still being in the same location; the chair.
When you encompass something, you don't have to get inside it to descend to it. If I were so large that I encompassed a building, I would descend in some way to the lowest story of a building without moving from my spot. Much like being in a chair and bending to pick something up, but I didn't move from my chair.
The brother here is making a wrong comparison with the Christian belief of not to question...As for Salafis Ahlul Hadeeth we say we believe and submit to what Allah and his Rasool sallal lahu alaihi wa sallam said. We take it literally. We don't do tashbee, thamteel, ...we don't say how, why, resemble to creation etc...
yeah his intellect is corrupted by ashari jahmiyah greek philosophy which makes it reject clear evidence from Quran and sunnah.
Allah did not say that he is one in three firstly in the Quran and its not mentioned in their own bible thats only their claim. As for Allah's descending its mentioned in an authentic hadith.
Allah's descending trancends and its not the descending of the creation thats why this ashari is intelectually corrupted, he likened Allah's descending to the humans descending.
firstly Allah's descending or any of His actions are restricted or under time, Allah created time.
secondly Allah descend in way that befits His majesty meaning its not like the creation how he descends.
so this ashari likened Allah to his creation in regards to descending then he rejected this attribute of Allah by using his impure intellect of aristotle philosophy.
When you take the يد of Allah literally you are literally resembling Allah to the creation, which is tashbeeh. What you said is contradictory
Thank you popular muslims are crazy its like trinity what they believe i agree
Wisdom
We don't use intellect in understanding the Aqeedah of the Muslims. We don't use our reason in Aqeedah Eemaan. We submit to what Allah revealed literally. There is no option for us, no choice. We believe and submit...please learn the true Aqeedah of the Muslims, it found in the Quran and ahadeeth a d the books of the Salaf as-Salih.
christians dont use their intellect as well
thats why the comparison is accurate
taking it literally has implications and you cannot just say "we take it literally but dont know how"
thats just insulting the human mind
Salafis need to stop doing this and turn back to the Quranic method described in 3:7
Christian/hindu aqeedah. We affirm what can be affirmed and leave what is impossible and is against Allahs attributes.
🤔can u use your intellect to explain what Alaf lam min mean?
Ah, the pseudosalafis always bring this point up. Here's a quick read, search for: "Is Alif-Lām-Mīm proof that you don't need to understand the Qur'an?" it's on the Nizam site and should clear up your misconceptions.
When you finish reading it, inshaaAllah, then come back and engage. Otherwise it's a futile endeavor.
Using Imam Ibn Qudamah (RA) argument goes against you because pseudo-Salafis are known to interpret the verses the verses and ahadith based on their desires while Imam Ibn Qudamah and vast majority of HanbaliAthari scholars preferred to stay silent on its explanation. They never gave it a meaning. Hopefully, you return to the path of the Salaf.
If Allah's attributes are eternal and not him, then why is Allah confined by this nature eternally? If Allah has infinite attributes then why can he not have malevolence as an attribute? Why can't Allah be illogical, is he constrained by laws of logic? What's wrong with having 3 persons in 1 being? Does Allah have essential attributes and relative attributes-Relative to other possible worlds, worlds where his nature manifests differently, e.g., less merciful? I'm agnostic, so please answer my questions for me to consider Islam
1) Allah is eternal, His attributes are what makes who He is.
2) Malevolence is relative and not absolute. One cannot say God intends or wishes ‘evil’ if the presence of evil is not known without good, as good is required to know what evil is. Thus if, pre-eternally, the universe did not exist, which means neither good nor evil existed, God cannot have attributes confined to either one. Instead, the correct answer is that God has the pre-eternal attribute of Will. He creates good and bad as He is all-willing, meaning He may will into existence an evil thing as well as a good thing. This is the reason for evil and good existing in the world.
3) There is a misunderstanding in the laws of the intellect. They are not created laws, no one put them into existence. Instead, there is reality as it is, and that reality is something God created the intellect to be able to grasp and judge between. The ‘laws of logic’ are a classification of how our intellect grasps reality as it is. Thus when we say “1+1=2” it is because the intellect grasps one whole thing, being a part of reality, and puts another whole to it, and it results in 2 wholes, thus we say that it falls under what is ‘rationally necessary’- not because logic decides that law, but because that’s the classification of how we grasp reality. The intellect will grasp that “1+1=5” as a rational impossibility, because it grasps that there are 3 things missing in reality.
Thus to try to change the laws of the intellect, is to try to change reality, and trying to change reality is a denial of reality. If a person denies reality, just slap him and he will realize that his pain is a real thing. There is no denying reality.
Now, when we say Allah is in line with the laws of logic, it’s because we prove Allah through the laws of logic which again, are simply how we grasp reality. We grasp that every action that is already done requires a doer, otherwise the action cannot have been done. This is a reality we grasp, a logical necessity. When we prove the universe is created, it means the action of creation has already been done, and requires a creator. This is reality grasped through the intellect.
If Allah can be ‘illogical’ it contradicts reality as we know it, and we are a people of reason, we don’t deny reality.
So the question itself is problematic and flawed because it assumes the laws of logic are created and Allah has to abide by them which would be some kind of limitation on Allah, when this is not the case. Instead, they are reality in categories; possible, impossible, and necessary. Allah and His attributes and actions all fall under these three, and not just Allah but ALL real things.
4) 3 persons in 1 being, with regard to God specifically, is a rational impossibility because of the co-dependence of each. Each of the 3 persons is dependent on the other for the whole to exist. That 1 being is incomplete if the 3 persons don’t exist, so the questions are as follows:
-Who set the limit of 3 persons, and why not 4, 5, 6….? If you say God, then the contradiction of circular reasoning applies. If you say anyone besides God, then if there is someone superior to God such that He can choose ‘who’s God is, then the impossibility of an infinite regress applies. And if you say no one, you affirm a possible action (3, not 6 or 4, when each is equally possible to make a whole) being done without a doer, and this is the impossibility of something from nothing
-Do each of these 3 have their own independent wills? If you say yes, then whose will is dominant in the case of a contradicting will? If you say any one over the other, then you’ve made that one superior in power and authority as He is capable of enacting his will over the others’. If you say they do have their own will but they don’t contradict each other, we say who imposes that their wills are in agreement, and if they were, are they truly independent? And if you say they agree with each other, then they all in their coinciding Wills decide to create the universe, then who of the 3 enacts that creation? If they all do, then it must be split between them, since more than one cannot do 100% of the same action. And it being split between them requires a choice and will to decide who creates what, that can either be agreed upon or disagreed upon assuming they are independently able to choose as they will, which goes back to the contradiction above. And if you say they don’t have independent wills, then one part has a will over another part, and that other part must submit to the other’s will, in which case they’re not all considered ‘god’ if god is to have a free will.
-Splitting in parts is an attribute of physical entities. So long as God is beyond time and space, he is beyond physicality and physical limitations and attributes of existing in ‘parts’.
-If one argues this is like attributes, we argue no it is not. Our reasoning is that even those who say God is 3 persons agree that each person has attributes of his own, meaning that they acknowledge an attribute is not the same as what they’re considering as ‘persons’, otherwise you’d add the attributes to the persons and say God is 50 in one person for example. No intellectual argues this because the difference between an attribute and an entity is known. The attributes of Allah are neither separate from Him nor are they Him in and of themselves, just as your sight is an attribute that is neither you, nor is it separate to you. It is your attribute as a human. Allah has attributes as a God that befit Him.
5) His attributes are not relative, and the example you asked about refers to the links of these attributes rather than the attribute itself.
Meaning, Allah’s mercy is an attribute of His that is eternal and 1, but its ‘link’ can be much or little based on His will and choice.
To better understand this, we say as attributes, us humans we have 1 attribute of sight, yet that doesn’t mean we can see only 1 time. Rather our sight has many ‘links’ to it.
With Allah it’s the same thing as a concept, just different in actuality meaning Allah is eternal and we aren’t, etc. So Allah is eternally all-merciful and this will never change, but the ‘links’ of His mercy differ based on His will as He deems fit for any individual. If he wants to have mercy on him, how much mercy he wants to, that’s all His will to choose as He pleases and no one can hold Him accountable for His decision.
Hope this answers the questions. It is difficult to type this long on here, and comments sections isn’t necessarily the place to learn these things or go back and forth in. If you’re genuinely interested in considering Islam, I suggest you take an Islamic philosophy class that teaches traditional Islamic theology with a philosophical lens and approach, and you’ll have all these questions and doubts answered no doubt 🙏🏻
1. Allah is not in need of you, whether you consider Islam or not.
2. Allah doesn’t JUST exist, he has attributes which are a part of him, they are not seperate from him, attributes that are unique to him alone, for example only he is capable of creating something from nothing. Therefore having the title of THE CREATOR and the attribute of creation, you can’t be called a creator unless you actually create something. There for he has titles and attributes.
3. You don’t get to ascribe attributes to Allah, Allah tells us what some of his attributes are and malevolence is not one he has ascribed to himself, he is free from lowly attributes. He can’t be illogical because that’s a human flaw a human characteristic, and we don’t say Allah swt is logical we say he is the All wise and All knowing, and he addresses us according to our intellect and understanding, and we understand through logic, the truth has to somewhat make sense to us for us to believe in it. What good would it be if we didn’t understand our creator. Or following an inconsistent “truth”, then everybody would be justified in worshiping what they want.
4.What’s wrong with having 3 in one? Because it simply has too many inconsistencies and contradicts itself, a false concept made up by man.
5. And does Allah swt have attributes relatives to other worlds? Unnecessary question or concept to discuss. We can’t speak on speculation and this question has no relevance to us, other worlds and what might be going on there and how Allah is there? Unnecessary.
Focus on the foundation. There is a creator, who created this universe and brought everything into existence. He himself is not created (if you say he is also created, you’ll end up with an infinite regress where nothing actually ends up being created) he always existed and will always exist. He created us for a purpose and sent us prophets and messengers and books guiding us on how to fulfill this purpose, he rewards those who choose to follow the guidance and has warned against not following his guidance. And if you’re agonistic, first deal with that. You don’t know if Allah exists or not, deal with that, either he does or doesn’t, don’t jump to relevant or essential attributes.
_Why can't Allah be illogical, is he constrained by laws of logic?_
This question is akin to asking why the north pole can't be on the equator, is it constrained by our compass?
To put simply; the law of logic is a tool that help us to arrive on truth. (On the other hand, an omniscient being does not require such thing in order to know anything.) So to say Allah is logical is equivalent to say that Allah is _the truth_ . And indeed, in Islam, it is one of his essential attribute: "Al-Haqq".
@@_aa4540 do not say the attributes are part of Him, because it implies God has parts. A necessary existence cannot consists of parts. Rather -- in Ash'arite theology -- the attributes are _neither Him nor other than Him_ .
You are mushabih that's why you can't comprehend that there is no contradiction between the two texts
He is not doing tashbih at all, he is only applying your principle (affirming the apparent meaning of nuzul/desent) to demonstrate why such principle is wrong. If affirming the apparent meaning is tashbih to you, why are you sticking to such approach to know Allah?
Regarding asha'aris, they don't affirm literal descent to Allah (glory to Him), you can't accuse them of tashbih brother.
If it is the angel then how do you answer the time difference. The time difference will be there. Jazakalahul KHAIRAN
I don’t think Allah azzawajal is descending, maybe His Angels ! He knows every single leaves falling from the trees but He can’t hear our
Dua’as from his throne? What about the rest of the times He is not listening our dua’as?