Answering Daniel Majazi-tjou (As he does not seem to accept the Attributes of Allāh upon their Haqiqah).
Daniel has been refuted for his views previously by our elder Mashayikh Shaykh Abu Khadeejah and Shaykh Abu Iyaad. See here:
This series of articles is a refutation of part of his recent debate with Sam Shamoun and Jay Dyer, wherein he was not able to answer simple claims made by the Christians (which were effectively additions to a Jahmee argument previously espoused centuries before), and also similarly allowed Ash'ari claims regarding Attributes of Allāh to be portrayed as being legitimate.
The second issue:
The Salaf affirmed this Attribute of the Two Hands of Allāh, our Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, affirmed this Attribute, all the Prophets affirmed this Attribute even the Jews and Christians affirmed it yet Daniel says:
"So, it doesn't matter if you take the Hand of God to be metaphorical, if you take it to be bi la kayf, meaning, without modality...
it can be a metaphor for His Power, it can be interpreted in many different ways...you can have an Ash'ari postion and interpret it as a metaphor or you can have a Salafi Athari position and interpret it differently..."
Both things cannot be true at the same time; the Hand of Allāh cannot be literal 'bi la kayf' (i.e., without asking how in reality), as well as not being a literal Hand and being the Power of Allāh, as these are both contradictory statements that cannot come together; so which one is it? Which position is the correct one? And which position do you take? As you were very hesitant to state which Aqīdah you were upon in the debate.
Shaikh Rabī, may Allāh preserve him, mentioned that Mūsa used this Attribute as a proof against Ādam, that Allāh distinguished him from others when He created him with His Hand and the Angels were made to prostrate to him. And this is what can be extrapolated from the hadīth when it mentions ‘Allāh created you with His Hand’ - al-Bukhārī #7515 Muslim #2652.
"And this is the belief of Mūsa, Ādam, all the Prophets and the belief of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, and his noble companions. This is the belief even in the Tawrah and the Injīl. The Jews didn’t distort this Attribute nor the Christians (in the affirmation of Allāh having Hands) and if they had, Allāh would of exposed their deviation (in this) like he exposed many of their distortions in their religion." End of Quote (He mentioned in his Explanation of the book 'The Creed of the Salaf & the People of Hadīth' of Imām al-Sābūni d. 449 AH, pg. 58-59).
Shaykh Uthaymīn, may Allāh have mercy upon him, said in his 'Sharh Aqīdah al-Wāsitiyyah' 1/304-8 (Dār ibn al-Jawzi):
"Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah have opposed the people of negation (Ta'tīl) — such as the Mu'tazilah, the Jahmiyyah, the Ash'aris, and those like them — in affirming the Hand (Yad) for Allāh, the Most High. They (the negators) said: It is not possible to affirm a real Hand for Allāh; rather, what is meant by "Hand" is something abstract, such as power, or they said that "Hand" means a blessing because in the Arabic language, the word "Hand" can be used to denote power or a blessing.
In the authentic hadīth of the lengthy narration of Nawwās bin Sam’ān: “Allāh will reveal to 'Īsa: 'I have sent forth My servants whom no one will be able to fight.'” (Muslim #2937) The meaning here is that no one will have the power to fight them, and they are Gog and Magog.
As for "Hand" meaning "blessing," this usage is abundant. An example of this is the statement of the Quraysh leader to Abu Bakr: “Had it not been for a favour (yad) you had over me which I have not yet repaid, I would have answered you.” (al-Bukhāri #2731, 2732) The meaning here is a blessing.
Another example is the statement of al-Mutanabbi:
“How many a blessing you have in the darkness of the night,
That tells of the falsehood of the Manichean doctrine.”
The Manicheans were a sect of Zoroastrians who believed that darkness creates evil, and light creates good. Al-Mutanabbi is saying that you give in the night so many bounties, proving that the Manicheans are false, for your night brings good.
Thus, they claim that what is meant by the Hand of Allāh is His blessing, not a real Hand; because if you affirm a real Hand for Allāh, it would necessitate anthropomorphism — that Allāh would be a body, and all bodies are similar. Consequently, this would lead to what Allāh has prohibited in His saying: “So do not make for Allāh any likeness” [al-Nahl: 74].
We (O one who affirms a real Hand) are more adherent to the evidence than you (one who denies or interprets away)! We say: Glorified is He who is far removed from Attributes of the created, parts, and objectives! You will not find such rhetoric in the Qur'ān or the Sunnah.
Our response to this is from several perspectives:
Firstly: Interpreting "Hand" as power or blessing contradicts the apparent meaning of the word. And whatever contradicts the apparent meaning of the text is rejected unless there is evidence.
Secondly: This interpretation contradicts the consensus of the Salaf (pious predecessors), for they were all unanimous in understanding that what is meant by "Hand" is a real Hand.
If someone says to you: Where is the consensus of the Salaf? Show me one word from Abu Bakr, or 'Umar, or 'Uthmān, or 'Alī where they say that what is meant by the Hand of Allah is a real hand!
I would reply: You show me one word from Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthmān, 'Alī, or any other companions and the Imāms after them where they say that what is meant by the Hand is power or blessing.
He will not be able to provide that.
So, if there was any understanding contrary to the apparent meaning of the word, they would have expressed it, and it would have been transmitted from them. Since they did not express it, it is known that they took the apparent meaning of the word and agreed upon it.
This is a great benefit: If nothing was transmitted from the Companions that contradicts the apparent meaning of the Qur'ān and Sunnah, then they only said what is in line with it; for the Qur'ān was revealed in their language, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) addressed them in their language, so they must have understood the Qur'ān and Sunnah according to their apparent meanings. If nothing was transmitted from them that contradicts this, then this is their understanding.
Thirdly: It is absolutely impossible that what is meant by "Hand" in the verse “for what I created with My Two Hands” [Sad: 75] is power or blessing; because this would necessitate that the blessing is only two blessings, and the blessings of Allah are countless! It would also necessitate that power is two powers, and power is a singular meaning that cannot be divided! This construction prevents, to the utmost extent, the interpretation of "Hand" as power or blessing.
Suppose that it could be interpreted in the verse: “Rather, both His Hands are extended” [al-Ma'idah: 64] as blessings metaphorically. But it is impossible for the verse “for what I created with My Two Hands” to ever be interpreted as a blessing.
As for power, it is impossible that what is meant by the "Two Hands" in both verses — “Rather, both His Hands are extended” and “for what I created with My Two Hands” — is power, because power is not divided into two.
Fourthly: If what was meant by "Hand" was power, then Ādam would have no superiority over Iblīs, and not even over donkeys and dogs, for they were all created by the Power of Allāh. If what was meant by "Hand" was power, then the argument against Iblīs would not be valid, as Iblīs could say: “And I, O Lord, was also created by Your power, so what is his superiority over me?!”
Fifthly: It should be said that this "Hand" which Allāh affirmed for Himself has come in various contexts where it is impossible to interpret it as a blessing or power. Mention has been made of fingers, grasping, spreading, the palm, and the right hand, and all of this cannot be attributed to power because power is not described in these terms.
Thus, it becomes clear that the statement of these distorters, who claim that what is meant by "Hand" is power, is false from several perspectives.
It has already been mentioned that the Attributes of Allāh, the Mighty and Majestic, are matters of the unseen, and the intellect has no role in this. Therefore, it is obligatory for us to maintain them upon their apparent meaning without delving into interpretation." End of Quote.
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said in his book 'Majmū al-Fatāwa' 6/365-6:
"The term 'Two Hands' in its dual form is not used in the sense of blessing (ni’mah) or power (qudrah) because, according to the language of the people, the singular is used in reference to the plural, as in the verse: ‘Indeed, mankind is in loss’ [al-‘Asr: 2], and the plural is used for the singular, as in the verse: ‘Those to whom the people said, “Indeed, the people...”’ [Āli ‘Imran: 173], and the plural is used for the dual, as in the verse: ‘So your hearts have inclined’ [at-Tahrim: 4]. However, using the singular for the dual or the dual for the singular has no basis, because these terms are numerical and are explicit in their meaning and cannot be used figuratively. It is not permissible to say, 'I have a man,' meaning two men, nor to say, 'I have two men,' meaning the species, because the singular denotes the species, and the species encompasses a generality. Likewise, the plural form implies the species, and the species is fulfilled with the presence of a single instance. Therefore, the statement: ‘For what I created with My Two Hands’ [Sad: 75], cannot be intended to mean 'power,' because power is a singular attribute, and it is not permissible to express the singular with the dual form. It also cannot refer to blessing (ni’mah), because the blessings of Allāh are countless, and it is not permissible to express the countless favors using the dual form. And you will not find in the speech of the Arabs or non-Arabs, by the will of Allāh, that a person of eloquence says, 'I did this with my two hands,' or 'So-and-so did this with his two hands,' except that he means it literally with his two hands. It is not permissible that it refers to someone who has no hands, or has hands but the action was performed without them. With this clear distinction, one can differentiate between metaphorical and literal usage, and it becomes evident that the verses do not accept metaphorical interpretation at all from the perspective of the language itself." End of Quote.
We leave the reader with the statement of Imām Mālik on the Attribute of Istiwā (Allāh rising above the throne in a manner befitting His Majesty), which can be used for any and every Attribute of Allāh by substituting it in the statement, showcasing the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah regarding the Attributes of Allāh:
"[Al-Istiwā] is known, its how-ness is unknown, believing in it is obligatory, and asking about it is an innovation."
This shows the level of these youtube and social media personalities that have masqueraded themselves as people of knowledge for too long, yet do not even understand the basics!
More to follow...
Comments