Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Follower of Ahlulbayt

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Follower of Ahlulbayt

  1. What is Zaydi belief with respect to the divine attributes? Are the divine attributes identical to the essence of Allah, or distinct from it? Also, do Zaydis believe that Allah creates the actions of creatures, or not?
  2. Just because we disagree with them theologically and we may believe they got some things horribly wrong, it doesn't mean they can't have tremendous insights that we can benefit from on other things e.g. arguments for the existence of God and deriving divine attributes from these arguments.
  3. If we were to be just, then we should not just quote the Qur'anic verses which seem to agree with your position that the Prophet and Imams know all things. As it is clear from other numerous Qur'anic verses, that the Prophet did not have knowledge in certain matters. For example, quoting from this article:
  4. If you say God doesn't need to receive sound waves, then things don't need to make sounds in order for God to hear them. But then you contradict yourself in your next answer, when you admit that you think God's hearing is receptive i.e. God receives the sound. I didn't ask if God was personal, I asked if God's hearing requires that a creature first makes a sound and then God hears the sound that the creature made. No back peddling, just you misunderstanding. Again. My position from the start has been: God's attributes are identical to God, but they are not synonymous. Yes, God could have said He knows what the lady was saying, but then the meaning would have been different. Again the difference in meaning only arises because these properties are distinct in us and thus our conception of them is distinct. Knowing and hearing are different for us, for example, I know what you are discussing with me, but I do not hear what you are discussing with me. I would say that for us, hearing is a type of way to gain knowledge, but knowing something is not limited to hearing it. Therefore, in us, knowing is distinct from hearing. For us to gain knowledge of the sounds an audible thing makes, we must hear it as we must receive the sound waves. So God used the term 'heard' in the verse because for us to gain knowledge of the sounds of audible things — in the case of the verse, the sound of a lady speaking- we hear the sound. If God said He knew what the lady was saying, then from our point of view knowing does not necessarily mean hearing and so knowing doesn't have to be related to sounds. God would just be saying He knows the contents of what the lady was saying, like I know what you are saying to me in this discussion, although I do not hear the sounds you are making. Yes, all the attributes are identical in God, God's hearing is His seeing, which is His knowledge, which is His power, which are all identical to Him. But they are not synonyms. They are our different finite points of view in signifying one and the same thing. The reason I interpreted the verse as God having knowledge, is because for us having knowledge of the sounds audible things make comes from a distinct attribute, hearing. The attribute in us of hearing is thus related to our knowing, as it is the way for us to have knowledge of the sounds an audible thing makes. The attribute of power and seeing in us has nothing to do with sounds.
  5. His words are not hujjah, nor are representative of Twelver creed. I can bring you 50 other scholars who say the opposite. As I already mentioned, Shyakh al-Mufid literally says that there is no consensus on the extent of the Imams knowledge besides knowledge of Islamic rulings. Don't make me laugh more, you are really embarrassing yourself now. A weak hadith means it is part of Twelver dogma. How comedic is that. A weak hadith is not even consider in fiqh, let alone aqeedah.
  6. Yep nothing surprising there from Cherub. Whatever he says about Twelver creed should automatically be checked first.
  7. Who said the chapter headings of al Kafi represent Twelver creed? The Imams? Is this a consensus and necessary belief that all Twelver scholars have said that the chapter headings of al Kafi represent the necessary beliefs of Twelver creed? The chapter headings simply summarize the general topic that the ahadith in the chapter will pertain to. Those ahadith could be weak or inauthentic. If the chapter only contains narrations which are weak and narrated by ghulat, how can the chapter heading be considered creed? Yep, weak hadith.
  8. It seems like this guy has nothing better to do than to constantly misrepresent Twelver creed. Refer to this thread, where brother @Ibn al-Hussain who is well versed in Twelver theology as he has been studying in the seminaries in Qum for many years now, explains that the belief that "the Imams know everything" is not what Shi'as believe: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235063650-were-the-prophets-marriages-to-aisha-hafsa-a-colossal-mistake/?do=findComment&comment=3238340 See here as well: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235063650-were-the-prophets-marriages-to-aisha-hafsa-a-colossal-mistake/?do=findComment&comment=3238355 Shaykh al-Mufid actually says that the only consensus among us is that the Imams have knowledge of all the rulings, but beyond that, there is a difference of opinion. So Mr. Cherub here is lying about Twelver doctrine.
  9. In the narrations of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (a) and from reason, which you lack. I previously presented one to you before. In us, they are distinct. But just because they are distinct in us, where did you get the belief that in God they must also be distinct? You don't understand what the univocal use of language is. Your position is univocal. That because the attributes are distinct in us, they must be distinct in God. My position is just because they are distinct in us, does not follow that they are distinct in God.
  10. You said I believe the "terms" are identical. I do not believe the terms are identical. I believe the terms have different meanings. The attributes are identical. Additionally, you clearly were implying in the post that you think that the terms have different meanings, while I do not. Everyone can see how deceitful you were.
  11. No where in scripture does it say that, in God, His power is distinct from his knowledge. The asl is not that these attributes are distinct in God. This is only the case for those who believe God has attributes exactly like how we have attributes (those who hold to univocal use of language.) But why should we go with univocal use? God tells us He is not like creation, and we should expect that He is different to us in many ways as He is uncaused, and we are caused. So again, where did you get the belief that in God, His knowledge and power are distinct things which inhere in Him. Go on. Don't run away from the question again.
  12. Yes, you are a deceiver, because you made it seem like I believed that these attributes are synonymous. The attributes are identical to each other, in God, but they are not synonymous. You did not say this in your post. Instead, you said that I think these "terms" are identical, which implies that I think these terms have no difference in meaning. Which is false, again, they have different meanings. But in God, they are the same. So yes, you are a deceiver. I am not back peddling at all. You did not catch me in anything.
  13. Is your explanation that God received sound waves or that in order for God to hear, the person must first make a sound? So creation affects God and God hears in a receptive way? If God simply said “I know what she said”, the meaning is changed according to my view, because again, the terms 'hears', 'knows' and 'sees' are not synonymous. This is your problem. You think that when I say "A man hears" and "God hears", the term hears is being used univocally, in the same sense. Therefore when scripture mentions God hears, that must mean God has a distinct attribute called hearing, which receives sounds, which is different attribute to knowledge and seeing, because all these properties are distinct in us. But as I have already explained, this is not my view. God hears, but doesn't need to receive sound waves and so does not even need anything to exist in order to hear. My position is that God has an attribute (faculty, as you put it) of hearing, but His hearing is far more excellent than ours. His hearing just is His knowledge, which just His is essence. Our hearing is limited insofar as we need things to make sounds so that sound waves reach us. So, for us to gain knowledge of sounds, we need a distinct attribute of hearing because we are limited. God does have the perfect of hearing, but His hearing is not limited in such a way like ours. This is not a far fetched interpretation. It should be expected that God's attributes are radically different to ours. Given that God is uncaused, and we are caused, it should be expected that God is different to us in many ways.
  14. So when you look up at the sky, is God above it? A number of problems with your response: You misunderstood my position. My position is not that these terms are identical. Did you not read the part where I explicitly explained why these terms are not synonymous? You probably read it, but because you are a deceiver, you still want to misrepresent my position and act like I think they just mean the same things. Yes, power and knowledge are distinct in us and thus our conception of these terms are different. But that was not my question. My question was: Where did you get the belief that, in God, power and knowledge are distinct? Nope, this is standard Shi'i theology. For example, Shaykh Muzaffer says in his book which is commonly used in the hawza,: But let me for the sake of argument say that all of us Shia who hold this belief got it from Aquinas lol. So what? Don't commit the genetic fallacy. Why don't you actually address the arguments of Aquinas or the other philosophers who proved that God's attributes of essence must be identical to God? Why are you scared to see your theology crumble?
  15. Do you believe God is above us, such that if I look towards the sky, God will be there if I keep going up? Also, in a previous discussion you said God's power and knowledge are distinct. Where did you get this from? Th Qur'an or Sunnah? The salaf? Ibn Taymiyyah?
  16. Even the philosophers, the ones who prove that God's attributes are all identical to God, had to list out attributes separately (for example if you read Ed Feser's five proofs, he mentions in one premise that God is omnipotent, but in another premise he mentions God is fully good, and in another premise he mentions another attribute etc.). The reason this is done is because these terms are not synonymous. Now you might ask, how do these terms have different meanings, yet are all identical in God? We have to go a couple steps back to a few points: our knowledge of God is through creatures. Our understanding of terms like knowledge and power and life are derived from creatures. Thus, all these terms fall short in truly representing God. This is because, all these attributes are different in creatures and we conceive of them as different properties. Also, although these properties may be actualities in creatures, they are limited as they are not purely actual. So, these different terms are just our limited point of view in signifying one and the same wholly perfect purely actual simple divine essence, under different aspects. Thus, they are not synonymous. Maybe my explanation here was unclear, this may be a better one: No, because the terms hears and sees are not synonymous. Although, God does hear with what He sees, and He sees with what He Hears i.e. His essence. His hearing is His seeing, which are both identical to His knowledge, which are all just identical to Him. Even though they are all identical to God, they each say something different about God according to our limited point of view in signifying one and the same wholly perfect purely actual simple divine essence Hearing and seeing according to our point of view are different. Our knowledge of God comes from the limited actualities of creatures. Hearing for us relates to audible things, and seeing relates to visual things. This is because, for us to hear, another creature makes a sound, and then the sound waves travel to our ears. For us to see, light needs to be reflected off an object, and then travel to our eyes. Now, God really does have the actualities/perfections of hearing and seeing, he just has them in a more excellent way than we do. Thus, hearing and seeing are not synonymous, so saying God hears and sees is not just saying God hears and hears, or God sees and sees. But again, in God, His hearing is the same His sight, and they are both different ways to signify His knowledge (which is identical to God), and God does not need to receive anything like sound waves. I don't interpret it as sound waves travelling to God or God receiving sound. I would interpret hearing in this verse as God having knowledge of the caller, and uses the term 'heard' because that is how we have knowledge of audible things. I do not think we can just replace the terms 'heard' in the verse with the term 'saw', because again, these are not synonyms. Some are extrinsic and some are intrinsic. From my understanding, extrinsic properties are referred to as attributes of action or Cambridge properties, and intrinsic properties are referred to as attributes of essence. If creation is involved, or a relation with creation rather, then it is extrinsic. For example, God being the Sustainer, or Punisher, or Forgiving, all are extrinsic properties. Shaykh al-Mufid mentions other ways to determine which are intrinsic, and which are extrinsic. This is Ayatullah Ja'far Subhani's explanation:
  17. I would disagree that we cannot make any positive affirmation of God. In this regard, I lean more towards Aquinas' position than Maimonides and others.
  18. Yes, notice, Aquinas says "This would be easy to understand..." meaning according to the view of these who hold we cannot make any positive predications of God, and all of God's attributes are referring to what God causes or what God is not, it would be easy to understand how the different terms we apply to God are not synonymous. But in article 2, after mentioning these two views, he refutes them and says: Just for the sake of clarity, let me explain what is going on. In article 2, Aquinas mentions how those who hold to a negative theology like Maimonides would explain the different predications we make of God. Maimonides for example would say that God being living and seeing and powerful don't actually signify the divine substance. Rather, they signify what God is not, or what God causes. So God being living for example, according to Maimonides, would just mean something like God is not like inanimate or dead things we see in creatures. And God being good or hearing would be interpreted to mean that God causes goodness and hearing in creatures. Aquinas rejects this and says that we can make positive descriptions of God. So now when we come to article 4, Aquinas is saying that for people like Maimonides, it is easy to understand why the different terms applied to God are not synonymous, because they are not even referring to God. But, given that his view was just refuted above, and Aquinas proved that some terms do signify God, are these terms synonymous or not?
  19. I think you have misunderstood Aquinas. He is not stating what his position here is. Rather, in the next sentence he explains his poistion:
  20. I would agree with shaykh al-Mufid that to say God creates with power and power is meaningless repetition. I am not sure if Mufid is referring to our point of view or God's point of view
  21. They are not distinct in God, but they are distinct in our experience and conception of them i.e. in creatures they are distinct.
  22. The problem is you have not understood my position. My position is not that the different terms we use to refer to God are all just synonyms. See here for example where Aquinas, who holds that all of God's attributes are identical to God, still does not hold that the different terms are synonymous.
  23. I've even seen Salafis do ta'wil of this hadith. See here. Quoting the Salafi in the video: "it is very important to understand the Arabic culture and the Arabic language....the Arabs used to believe the left hand is not blessed, only the right hand is blessed. So when Allah said he has two right hands, he means both of them are blessed". If the hadith were authentic (this specific one you have quoted is not authentic, because I remember someone mentioned in a post that the version of Qurb al-Isnad we have today is unreliable), I would interpret the hadith in similar way where both of His hands are right does not literally mean right. Rather, it means blessed or lack of deficiency or honoured or something along these lines. The only thing would disagree with is interpreting hand to mean a literal hand. See here for interpretations on what Allah's two hands can mean.
  24. Again, you are being ambiguous. I believe hearing, seeing, hands, face, eyes are all affirmed in a certain sense. As in, they are all terms which have been used in the Qur'an. The reason why I do not accept the apparent meaning of the verses which mention hand, eyes, face is because these would be attributes that necessarily introduce real distinctions and mutability in God (even if one implements the analogical use of language.) So again, the intellect is used as the determining factor which makes me reject the apparent meaning of these verses. If you are asking me for scriptural evidence for why I do not accept accept the apparent meaning of these verses (although I think rational evidence is sufficient), then I would refer to the verse "there is nothing like unto Him" and multiple ahadith in the Shi'i hadith corpus which denies Allah is mutable, in a place and made of parts, which are creaturely properties which must be negated from God. There are multiple possible meanings for each of these attributes. You can refer to any Shi'i, Ash'ari, Maturidi, Mu'tazili, Ibadi commentary of these verses to find these interpretations. Again, like the apparent meaning, all of these other meanings are speculative. I personally do not consider myself in a position to identify that one meaning is more probable than another, unless there is an explicit hadith which clarifies the intended meaning.
  25. It depends on what you mean by the Qur'an "affirms" God has a face, two eyes, hands. If you mean that God has used these terms in the Qur'an, then yes I agree and no Muslim disagrees with this. God has used terms like face, hands, eye etc. But, if you mean that the Qur'an has intended the apparent meaning of these verses, then no I disagree as this is your understanding of the verses, but other meanings are possible that could possibly be the intended meaning. Again, the apparent meaning of these verses would necessarily introduce real distinctions and mutability in God, so they cannot be accepted. I have already explained what a Cambridge property is in a previous discussion, and it is not what you have explained here. "God is constantly in a state of speaking" sounds more like a Salafi/Taymiyyan doctrine, where God has eternally been speaking, which would entail an infinite regress of events.
×
×
  • Create New...