Riyad Us-Saliheen 419 refutes Asharis. In the phrase "the book is with Him above the throne," are you guys suggesting that the book holds a status equal to Allah? The only way "with Him" could be interpreted this way is if both the book and Allah are literally above the throne. It’s hard to believe you mean the book is "with Him" in terms of status, majesty, and power.
@@africandawahrevival I heard Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saying, "When Allah created the creatures, He wrote in the Book, which is with Him over His Throne: 'Verily, My Mercy prevailed over My Wrath" [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]. Another narration is: Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "(Allah wrote) 'My Mercy dominated My Wrath". Still another narration is: Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "(Allah wrote) 'My Mercy surpasses My Wrath". وعن أبي هريرة، رضي الله عنه ، قال: قال رسول الله ، صلى الله عليه وسلم لما خلق الله الخلق، كتب في كتاب، فهو عنده فوق العرش: إن رحمتي تغلب غضبي". ((متفق عليه))
What do you mean "literally above the throne"? This is I think one of the main issues between so called salafis and Asharias, using such terms like "literally, or real throne, or hand" Do you mean literal throne, as if god is sitting it a place and that place is above the throne? And btw how this hadith is in anyway an argument against the Ashari position ": قال رسول الله ، صلى الله عليه وسلم لما خلق الله الخلق، كتب في كتاب، فهو عنده فوق العرش: إن رحمتي تغلب غضبي". This is i think one of the main issues with so called Salafis, they want to understand the Arabic fusha العربيه الفصحى different than how it was understood. The Arabic fusha relies heavily on using metaphor to express meaning, this is actually one of the main themes that allows it to express complex meanings, this is how it was spoken and understood at the prophet time. In Arabic to understand the meaning you look at the entire sentence and not on the apparent meaning of each word. Looking at the hadith that you mentioned and for anyone who speaks and understands Arabic if you take this hadith as a whole and try to understand it based on how Arabic was understood, what is the apparent message of the hadith, I think anyone who understands Arabic and is honest with themselves would conclude that the message of the hadith is to show how merciful is god rather than it was about telling us that god was on the throne when created the Quran.
If the ashari view is that God's will is equally "absolute" to His other attributes then your point stands but i dont think thats the ashari view. When atharis say God cant be unjust they mean He wont do Injustice, because thats what he said in his eternal, uncreated word. When asharis say God cant be unjust they simply mean whatever God does is just. Even hypothetically throwing believers in hell. According to al ghazali. Clearly not the same thing. Not an expert but I'd love to know if im getting it wrong
@@AnAdmi So, what you are saying is that, according to salafis, if not for what God "said in His eternal, uncreated word", He could have been unjust? My point is that, for the Ashari argument, it is merely hypothetical and details could resolve it, but for your position depending on your answer to the above question it is much more problematic.
Thats like saying if God could create something He cant lift. So no, according to atharis, God CANT be unjust because He said he isn't unjust in His ETERNAL, UNCHANGED/NON-CONTINGENT word. Which cant be separated from His essence. So no "hypotheticals" fly here. While according to asharis God's will is what determines/dictates how His other attributes are perceived/manifest. His will is His own and we cant know it unless it manifests So, 1. If Allah's will is so absolute that even His promises are "theoretically" changeable 2. Then the Quran, as a manifestation of those promises and commands, might be seen as created rather than an eternal attribute This is very important because unlike you said, "details" cant solve it. It just is the fact that is all MERELY God's will so no other set label can be "trusted" to mean what we think it means. (Because Allah can will it otherwise). Thus "believers" getting what "non-believers" deserve is not a contradiction in ashari view, in fact its an actual possibility (Because anything is) As per my limited knowledge, i must say. Correct me if i got something wrong in your opinion.
@@AnAdmi I fail to see your point really, if you understand the hypotheticals in the case of what Ibn Taymiyah said, how don't you understand that of the Asharis, and in reality we don't believe God will change His will. That's what I pointed out in the video, unless you reject Ibn Taymiyah's argument on this and subscribe to the Mu'tazili view, then we can discuss that (btw, in another part of IT writings he made a kind of Mu'tazili argument on this topic, which led to some scholars calling his position contradictory, but others attempted to resolve it)
Idk the source neither the context of this specific quote, my point is abiut the general ashari and athari term. Maybe i failed to get my point across. Asharis consider the will absolutely superior to any other attribute since they all stem from it. This means that anything that happened / is written is the Quran can be otherwise, (like believers, getting hell) because Allah can will it otherwise and His will is supreme. Atharis consider all the attributes as they are revealed, because they are all within His eternal essence. This means that anything that happened / is written in the Quran will be exactly as it is (like believers getting heaven) because Allah has said it in his eternal word. The distinction between kalam nafsi and kalam lafzi in the ashari pov is a good example of how any act of God is "technically" not what it seems to be because Allah's will isnt "based", or rather an ashari would say, "confined" on/by any hiqmah. The Quran in this case. Athari view does have the hypothetical in this case. idk what you meant by that.
@@AnAdmi God's will being superior doesn't mean God contradicting Himself, If God said believers will get heaven, then that is what will happen in reality (btw, I have a good video on this titled DCT + Coherentism, search it up with my channel name) The view of God's will being absolute can be defended separately from the case of the hypotheticals in question, which I showed Ibn Taymiyah making a similar argument, which if you don't understand could sound even worse as I should in the video. You need to focus on the argument of praiseworthiness that I brought, that's what's relevant here, not what atharis think per se. I believe God can send all His creation to hell, but God will not do that, this is because without God's grace no creature can escape hell, the case of God sending believers to hell will therefore believers to hell is not problematic until you add "for punishment", which would mean that they are being punished for believing God, I don't think the Asharis will say that.
Have you seen the last video where he talks about hikma and talks about aqeedah of ibn taymiah and ibn al Qaim? Also quotations don't matter when the audience know what the aqeedah on both sides is. Jake either assumed the audience is ignorant or just wanted to make it easy for people new to this.
@@aashirali2172 salafis dont follow ibn taimiyyah blindly, we learn from the salaf.. plural. Unlike the absurdities of ashari aqeedah which is held by almost all of their biggest clerics. Quotations are essential because too many asharis doesn't know their own position in aqeedah. And many others are hiding their absurd aqeedah. This is a fact.
@@housse51 "we learn from the salaf" Yes the salaf has always believed God is temporal and in space and punishment in hell will not be eternal right? "Too many Asharis don't know their own position" And all the salafis know the ashari position that's why they're salafis? Are you even listening to yourself? 😂Those who don't know the ashari position don't even call themselves Ashari. And you do understand there can be something called nuance. People can agree with one part while disagreeing with the other. Al Razi was an Ashari and so was Al Ghazali. Do you think they both literally had the same position on every matter? "Many are hiding their aqeedah" From who? And how do you know that? If they're doing that how do you know they're Ashari? And what about the ashari position are they hiding when all the books on the matter are out there? And have you considered that if they're not talking about something they maybe have a different position on the matter and maybe disagree with some Ashari scholar?
@@aashirali2172 no athari believe god is bound or limited by time or space, another ignorance by another ashari. Punishment of hell will not be eternal is the position of ibn taimiyya and it is rejected, even by the majority of atharis of today. Why because of the daleel. Not some random guy in greek like plato that ar razi called as imaam. Salafis actually learn and prioritize their aqeeda, unlike asharis. Therefore many asharis talk nonsense which turned out not inline with their own aqeedah, the aqeedah of.their own imaam , much like chistians. Therefore in this sense, when we discuss matters of aqeedah with asharis we should ask for proof, just like with christians. Many asharis are hiding aspects of their their aqeedah, yes, from the general masses. This is from their own writings and it manifests clearly in debates.
@@saliminadampha5309 Lol, I took it from a scholar on Ibn Taymiyah, now, how did you know he didn't write such? Do you have proof or have you studied the topic?
@@africandawahrevival How can you judge someone from what you have read from some unknown person book? read Ibn Taymiyyas book that's my advice as Bro. what you're doing is either Backbiting or slandering or both. And either are a major Sin. He Ibn is so knowledgeable for such statements please.
@saliminadampha5309 Your comments just shows that you haven't studied the matter at all, I advise you to instead go study, rather than speaking about what you don't know. I gave you the book, instead of going to check it, then show that I was wrong, you are here giving advices lol 😂.
@@mohammedhanif6780 We have no problem with God creating pain and suffering, it is injustice that we deny of God. Take for instance, two animals (like Schopenhauer said), one of which is engaged in the eating of the other, from both of their POV good and evil is happening at the same time, and yet God is the creator of all, you cannot ascribe both good and evil to God, so we say God is justified and doesn't earn/kasb deeds from what He creates, creatures are the ones who acquire deeds. So, God transcends the relative judgement of both animals. The atheist ofcourse wouldn't accept this, for him, unless God creates us in heaven, God would be charge with evil, and don't even bring eternal hell to him, that's indefensible, but we Asharis defend all of it, while preserving God's justice, the other Aqeedah position on this a weaker in one way or the other, IMO the Asharis tackled all the objections head on 😎.
@@africandawahrevival well the Asharis said God is definitionally just and does what he wills. So if he did something that all humans unanimously considered evil, he would still be just.
@@mohammedhanif6780 In actuality this is impossible, so there is no point talking about such, in fact it was talking about theories that would never actually happen that led to the saying addressed in my video. Also, if all of them consider it as evil, maybe they are all atheists, so I wouldn't be surprised, they would be wrong tho. Also, the Asharis say that God does what He wills(as clearly stated in the Qur'an), but they never said that God contradicts Himself, they never said God will make the good bad and the bad good, nor did they say that God will reward evil, if you press them properly they wouldn't even see those as possible even. I made a video about Divine command theory + coherentism, you can check it out later.
Also I may add that evil can only exist temporarily and relatively. Think of its core its putting things where they don't belong. So you could put things where they don't belong but in God's plan it will be exactly where it supposed to be. God will never allow us to ruin his art in a sense. He will use it and make something better out of it. Hence evil has no ontological value meaning at God's category like non existence it needs to be created and can only be there relatively.
@@mohammedhanif6780first we define what is right/good and what is wrong/evil Since the only source of law is the Divine command, so what Allah commands us to do is good and what He prohibits us from doing is evil. Based on that, it's impossible that these concepts could apply to God.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
You got 1k followers. when i followed you it was like around 700 something. keep making videos.
@@gamerkutingman7861 Thanks bro, you are the only one that noticed. 👍😎
Riyad Us-Saliheen 419 refutes Asharis. In the phrase "the book is with Him above the throne," are you guys suggesting that the book holds a status equal to Allah? The only way "with Him" could be interpreted this way is if both the book and Allah are literally above the throne. It’s hard to believe you mean the book is "with Him" in terms of status, majesty, and power.
@@AhmedYusha 419 😂
@@africandawahrevival I heard Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saying, "When Allah created the creatures, He wrote in the Book, which is with Him over His Throne: 'Verily, My Mercy prevailed over My Wrath"
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
Another narration is: Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "(Allah wrote) 'My Mercy dominated My Wrath".
Still another narration is: Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "(Allah wrote) 'My Mercy surpasses My Wrath".
وعن أبي هريرة، رضي الله عنه ، قال: قال رسول الله ، صلى الله عليه وسلم لما خلق الله الخلق، كتب في كتاب، فهو عنده فوق العرش: إن رحمتي تغلب غضبي".
((متفق عليه))
@@AhmedYusha This is the same daleel Ibn Taymiyah used to say that hell is temporary.
@@africandawahrevival We're not talking about Ibn Taymiyyah. Are we?
What do you mean "literally above the throne"? This is I think one of the main issues between so called salafis and Asharias, using such terms like "literally, or real throne, or hand"
Do you mean literal throne, as if god is sitting it a place and that place is above the throne?
And btw how this hadith is in anyway an argument against the Ashari position ": قال رسول الله ، صلى الله عليه وسلم لما خلق الله الخلق، كتب في كتاب، فهو عنده فوق العرش: إن رحمتي تغلب غضبي".
This is i think one of the main issues with so called Salafis, they want to understand the Arabic fusha العربيه الفصحى different than how it was understood. The Arabic fusha relies heavily on using metaphor to express meaning, this is actually one of the main themes that allows it to express complex meanings, this is how it was spoken and understood at the prophet time. In Arabic to understand the meaning you look at the entire sentence and not on the apparent meaning of each word.
Looking at the hadith that you mentioned and for anyone who speaks and understands Arabic if you take this hadith as a whole and try to understand it based on how Arabic was understood, what is the apparent message of the hadith, I think anyone who understands Arabic and is honest with themselves would conclude that the message of the hadith is to show how merciful is god rather than it was about telling us that god was on the throne when created the Quran.
can we just agree to not agree at all for a peace..let the mahshar sort us out for our own stand. dont cross the limit.
If the ashari view is that God's will is equally "absolute" to His other attributes then your point stands but i dont think thats the ashari view.
When atharis say God cant be unjust they mean He wont do Injustice, because thats what he said in his eternal, uncreated word.
When asharis say God cant be unjust they simply mean whatever God does is just. Even hypothetically throwing believers in hell. According to al ghazali.
Clearly not the same thing.
Not an expert but I'd love to know if im getting it wrong
@@AnAdmi So, what you are saying is that, according to salafis, if not for what God "said in His eternal, uncreated word", He could have been unjust?
My point is that, for the Ashari argument, it is merely hypothetical and details could resolve it, but for your position depending on your answer to the above question it is much more problematic.
Thats like saying if God could create something He cant lift.
So no, according to atharis, God CANT be unjust because He said he isn't unjust in His ETERNAL, UNCHANGED/NON-CONTINGENT word. Which cant be separated from His essence. So no "hypotheticals" fly here.
While according to asharis God's will is what determines/dictates how His other attributes are perceived/manifest. His will is His own and we cant know it unless it manifests
So,
1. If Allah's will is so absolute that even His promises are "theoretically" changeable
2. Then the Quran, as a manifestation of those promises and commands, might be seen as created rather than an eternal attribute
This is very important because unlike you said, "details" cant solve it. It just is the fact that is all MERELY God's will so no other set label can be "trusted" to mean what we think it means. (Because Allah can will it otherwise). Thus "believers" getting what "non-believers" deserve is not a contradiction in ashari view, in fact its an actual possibility (Because anything is)
As per my limited knowledge, i must say. Correct me if i got something wrong in your opinion.
@@AnAdmi I fail to see your point really, if you understand the hypotheticals in the case of what Ibn Taymiyah said, how don't you understand that of the Asharis, and in reality we don't believe God will change His will. That's what I pointed out in the video, unless you reject Ibn Taymiyah's argument on this and subscribe to the Mu'tazili view, then we can discuss that (btw, in another part of IT writings he made a kind of Mu'tazili argument on this topic, which led to some scholars calling his position contradictory, but others attempted to resolve it)
Idk the source neither the context of this specific quote, my point is abiut the general ashari and athari term. Maybe i failed to get my point across.
Asharis consider the will absolutely superior to any other attribute since they all stem from it. This means that anything that happened / is written is the Quran can be otherwise, (like believers, getting hell) because Allah can will it otherwise and His will is supreme.
Atharis consider all the attributes as they are revealed, because they are all within His eternal essence. This means that anything that happened / is written in the Quran will be exactly as it is (like believers getting heaven) because Allah has said it in his eternal word.
The distinction between kalam nafsi and kalam lafzi in the ashari pov is a good example of how any act of God is "technically" not what it seems to be because Allah's will isnt "based", or rather an ashari would say, "confined" on/by any hiqmah. The Quran in this case.
Athari view does have the hypothetical in this case. idk what you meant by that.
@@AnAdmi God's will being superior doesn't mean God contradicting Himself, If God said believers will get heaven, then that is what will happen in reality (btw, I have a good video on this titled DCT + Coherentism, search it up with my channel name)
The view of God's will being absolute can be defended separately from the case of the hypotheticals in question, which I showed Ibn Taymiyah making a similar argument, which if you don't understand could sound even worse as I should in the video. You need to focus on the argument of praiseworthiness that I brought, that's what's relevant here, not what atharis think per se.
I believe God can send all His creation to hell, but God will not do that, this is because without God's grace no creature can escape hell, the case of God sending believers to hell will therefore believers to hell is not problematic until you add "for punishment", which would mean that they are being punished for believing God, I don't think the Asharis will say that.
Sorry to say but jake actually brought quotations from different sides, you are the one who rant.
who ranted* learn English before you engage in aqeedah discussions monkey 🐒
Have you seen the last video where he talks about hikma and talks about aqeedah of ibn taymiah and ibn al Qaim? Also quotations don't matter when the audience know what the aqeedah on both sides is. Jake either assumed the audience is ignorant or just wanted to make it easy for people new to this.
@@aashirali2172 salafis dont follow ibn taimiyyah blindly, we learn from the salaf.. plural. Unlike the absurdities of ashari aqeedah which is held by almost all of their biggest clerics.
Quotations are essential because too many asharis doesn't know their own position in aqeedah. And many others are hiding their absurd aqeedah. This is a fact.
@@housse51 "we learn from the salaf"
Yes the salaf has always believed God is temporal and in space and punishment in hell will not be eternal right?
"Too many Asharis don't know their own position"
And all the salafis know the ashari position that's why they're salafis? Are you even listening to yourself? 😂Those who don't know the ashari position don't even call themselves Ashari. And you do understand there can be something called nuance. People can agree with one part while disagreeing with the other. Al Razi was an Ashari and so was Al Ghazali. Do you think they both literally had the same position on every matter?
"Many are hiding their aqeedah"
From who? And how do you know that? If they're doing that how do you know they're Ashari? And what about the ashari position are they hiding when all the books on the matter are out there? And have you considered that if they're not talking about something they maybe have a different position on the matter and maybe disagree with some Ashari scholar?
@@aashirali2172 no athari believe god is bound or limited by time or space, another ignorance by another ashari.
Punishment of hell will not be eternal is the position of ibn taimiyya and it is rejected, even by the majority of atharis of today. Why because of the daleel. Not some random guy in greek like plato that ar razi called as imaam.
Salafis actually learn and prioritize their aqeeda, unlike asharis. Therefore many asharis talk nonsense which turned out not inline with their own aqeedah, the aqeedah of.their own imaam , much like chistians. Therefore in this sense, when we discuss matters of aqeedah with asharis we should ask for proof, just like with christians.
Many asharis are hiding aspects of their their aqeedah, yes, from the general masses. This is from their own writings and it manifests clearly in debates.
How could you just took something from someone without verification? Ibn Taymiyya can't write such statement.
@@saliminadampha5309 Lol, I took it from a scholar on Ibn Taymiyah, now, how did you know he didn't write such? Do you have proof or have you studied the topic?
@@africandawahrevival Where did you get it from? be straight forward? why using Lol?
@@saliminadampha5309 I got it from Farid Sulayman's book on Ibn Taymiyah and divine attributes, the Adl/justice section towards the end.
@@africandawahrevival How can you judge someone from what you have read from some unknown person book? read Ibn Taymiyyas book that's my advice as Bro. what you're doing is either Backbiting or slandering or both. And either are a major Sin. He Ibn is so knowledgeable for such statements please.
@saliminadampha5309 Your comments just shows that you haven't studied the matter at all, I advise you to instead go study, rather than speaking about what you don't know. I gave you the book, instead of going to check it, then show that I was wrong, you are here giving advices lol 😂.
LOL
How do you the respond to the argument that because of unnecessary suffering that God is a moral monster and actually evil?
@@mohammedhanif6780 We have no problem with God creating pain and suffering, it is injustice that we deny of God. Take for instance, two animals (like Schopenhauer said), one of which is engaged in the eating of the other, from both of their POV good and evil is happening at the same time, and yet God is the creator of all, you cannot ascribe both good and evil to God, so we say God is justified and doesn't earn/kasb deeds from what He creates, creatures are the ones who acquire deeds. So, God transcends the relative judgement of both animals. The atheist ofcourse wouldn't accept this, for him, unless God creates us in heaven, God would be charge with evil, and don't even bring eternal hell to him, that's indefensible, but we Asharis defend all of it, while preserving God's justice, the other Aqeedah position on this a weaker in one way or the other, IMO the Asharis tackled all the objections head on 😎.
@@africandawahrevival well the Asharis said God is definitionally just and does what he wills. So if he did something that all humans unanimously considered evil, he would still be just.
@@mohammedhanif6780 In actuality this is impossible, so there is no point talking about such, in fact it was talking about theories that would never actually happen that led to the saying addressed in my video. Also, if all of them consider it as evil, maybe they are all atheists, so I wouldn't be surprised, they would be wrong tho.
Also, the Asharis say that God does what He wills(as clearly stated in the Qur'an), but they never said that God contradicts Himself, they never said God will make the good bad and the bad good, nor did they say that God will reward evil, if you press them properly they wouldn't even see those as possible even. I made a video about Divine command theory + coherentism, you can check it out later.
Also I may add that evil can only exist temporarily and relatively. Think of its core its putting things where they don't belong. So you could put things where they don't belong but in God's plan it will be exactly where it supposed to be. God will never allow us to ruin his art in a sense. He will use it and make something better out of it. Hence evil has no ontological value meaning at God's category like non existence it needs to be created and can only be there relatively.
@@mohammedhanif6780first we define what is right/good and what is wrong/evil Since the only source of law is the Divine command, so what Allah commands us to do is good and what He prohibits us from doing is evil. Based on that, it's impossible that these concepts could apply to God.