Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Follower of Ahlulbayt

Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Follower of Ahlulbayt

  1. 56 minutes ago, Gaius I. Caesar said:

    Forgive me for being narrow minded but why would I ever watch a video of this bishop on the nature of Allah when the Christian doctrine says Isa (عليه السلام) was Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in the flesh or a human form of Him? 

    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.

  2. 29 minutes ago, randomly curious said:

    According to the Infallibles (asws) if a Narration contradicts the Holy Qur'an, then throw it on the wall. And the Narrations you've quoted are crystal clear being contradictory with the verses of the Holy Qur'an. And why the Narrations i posted are authentic? Because Imam (asws) said this,

    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:


    One of the opposing evidences used by supporters of this perspective is the following verse in which God addresses the Prophet:

    ﴿وَمِمَّنۡ حَوۡلَكُم مِّنَ ٱلۡأَعۡرَابِ مُنَـٰفِقُونَ‌ۖ وَمِنۡ أَهۡلِ ٱلۡمَدِينَةِ‌ۖ مَرَدُواْ عَلَى ٱلنِّفَاقِ لَا تَعۡلَمُهُمۡ‌ۖ نَحۡنُ نَعۡلَمُهُمۡ‌ۚ سَنُعَذِّبُہُم مَّرَّتَيۡنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ عَذَابٍ عَظِيمٍ۬﴾

    Among the Bedouin around you there are hypocrites, and among the people of Madinah, who are headstrong in hypocrisy. Thou knowest them not; We know them and We shall punish them twice. Then they shall be relegated to a great punishment. (9:101)

    If the Prophet did not know some of the hypocrites around him, then how could he have knowledge of the entire world, administer the universe and possess complete existential guardianship over it?

    Another evidence used is the verse:

    ﴿قُل لَّآ أَقُولُ لَكُمۡ عِندِى خَزَآٮِٕنُ ٱللَّهِ وَلَآ أَعۡلَمُ ٱلۡغَيۡبَ وَلَآ أَقُولُ لَكُمۡ إِنِّى مَلَكٌ‌ۖ إِنۡ أَتَّبِعُ إِلَّا مَا يُوحَىٰٓ إِلَىَّ‌ۚ قُلۡ هَلۡ يَسۡتَوِى ٱلۡأَعۡمَىٰ وَٱلۡبَصِيرُ‌ۚ أَفَلَا تَتَفَكَّرُونَ﴾

    Say, “I do not say unto you that with me are the treasuries of God; nor do I know the unseen; nor do I say unto you that I am an angel. I follow only that which is revealed unto me.” Say, “Are the blind and the seer equal? Will you not, then, reflect?” (6:50)

    Is this verse compatible with the view that the Ahl al-Bayt have absolute knowledge of the unseen?!

    And another evidence is:

    ﴿قُل لَّآ أَمۡلِكُ لِنَفۡسِى نَفۡعً۬ا وَلَا ضَرًّا إِلَّا مَا شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ‌ۚ وَلَوۡ كُنتُ أَعۡلَمُ ٱلۡغَيۡبَ لَٱسۡتَڪۡثَرۡتُ مِنَ ٱلۡخَيۡرِ وَمَا مَسَّنِىَ ٱلسُّوٓءُ‌ۚ إِنۡ أَنَا۟ إِلَّا نَذِيرٌ۬ وَبَشِيرٌ۬ لِّقَوۡمٍ۬ يُؤۡمِنُونَ﴾

    Say, “I have no power over what benefit or harm may come to me, save as God wills. Had I knowledge of the unseen, I would have acquired much good, and no evil would have touched me. I am naught save a warner and a bearer of glad tidings unto a people who believe.” (7:188)

    In this verse, is there a restriction of independence from God? For the Prophet negates his knowledge of the unseen, with the explanation that if he had known the unseen, he would have acquired much good and no evil would have touched him. Is the Prophet’s lack of being touched by evil dependent on knowledge of the unseen, in a manner independent from God, or does knowledge of the unseen, even if it be dependent on God, achieve this protection also?

    Another evidence is:

    ﴿وَيَـٰقَوۡمِ لَآ أَسۡـَٔلُڪُمۡ عَلَيۡهِ مَالاً‌ۖ إِنۡ أَجۡرِىَ إِلَّا عَلَى ٱللَّهِ‌ۚ وَمَآ أَنَا۟ بِطَارِدِ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓاْ‌ۚ إِنَّهُم مُّلَـٰقُواْ رَبِّہِمۡ وَلَـٰكِنِّىٓ أَرَٮٰكُمۡ قَوۡمً۬ا تَجۡهَلُونَ (٢٩) وَيَـٰقَوۡمِ مَن يَنصُرُنِى مِنَ ٱللَّهِ إِن طَرَدتُّہُمۡ‌ۚ أَفَلَا تَذَڪَّرُونَ (٣٠) وَلَآ أَقُولُ لَكُمۡ عِندِى خَزَآٮِٕنُ ٱللَّهِ وَلَآ أَعۡلَمُ ٱلۡغَيۡبَ وَلَآ أَقُولُ إِنِّى مَلَكٌ۬ وَلَآ أَقُولُ لِلَّذِينَ تَزۡدَرِىٓ أَعۡيُنُكُمۡ لَن يُؤۡتِيَہُمُ ٱللَّهُ خَيۡرًا‌ۖ ٱللَّهُ أَعۡلَمُ بِمَا فِىٓ أَنفُسِهِمۡ‌ۖ إِنِّىٓ إِذً۬ا لَّمِنَ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ﴾

    O my people! I ask not of you any wealth in return for it; my reward lies only with God. And I shall not drive away those who believe; truly they shall meet their Lord. But I see that you are an ignorant people. (29) O my people! Who would help me against God, were I to drive them away? Will you not remember? (30) I say not unto you that with me are the treasuries of God; nor do I know the Unseen. And I say not that I am an angel; nor do I say of those who are despicable in your eyes, ‘God will not give them any good’—God knows best what is in their souls—for then I would indeed be among the wrongdoers. (31) (11:29-31)

    Is this language from Prophet Noah (peace be upon him) consistent with someone who has existential guardianship upon the world as well as absolute knowledge?

    And the following verse:

    ﴿قُلۡ مَا كُنتُ بِدۡعً۬ا مِّنَ ٱلرُّسُلِ وَمَآ أَدۡرِى مَا يُفۡعَلُ بِى وَلَا بِكُمۡ‌ۖ إِنۡ أَتَّبِعُ إِلَّا مَا يُوحَىٰٓ إِلَىَّ وَمَآ أَنَا۟ إِلَّا نَذِيرٌ۬ مُّبِينٌ۬ (٩) قُلۡ أَرَءَيۡتُمۡ إِن كَانَ مِنۡ عِندِ ٱللَّهِ وَكَفَرۡتُم بِهِۦ وَشَہِدَ شَاهِدٌ۬ مِّنۢ بَنِىٓ إِسۡرَٲٓءِيلَ عَلَىٰ مِثۡلِهِۦ فَـَٔامَنَ وَٱسۡتَكۡبَرۡتُمۡ‌ۖ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يَہۡدِى ٱلۡقَوۡمَ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ﴾

    Say, “I am no innovation among the messengers, and I know not what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which has been revealed unto me, and I am naught but a clear warner.” (9) Say, “Have you considered if it is from God and you disbelieve in it, though a witness from the Children of Israel bore witness to the like thereof, then believed in it, while you waxed arrogant? Surely God guides not wrongdoing people.” (10) (46:9-10)

    Is this type of discourse consistent with someone who knows all the knowledge of the unseen? Rather, the Prophet (upon him and his household be peace) claims here that he is no different to the rest of the messengers, that he is nothing but a warner and a bearer of glad tidings and that he does not have knowledge of what will occur. So how can we say that he has knowledge of destiny and fate, of calamities and affliction, of what is and of what will be, until the Day of Judgement? Are these concepts consistent with the spirit of these noble verses?!

    And God, the Exalted, said:

    ﴿تِلۡكَ مِنۡ أَنۢبَآءِ ٱلۡغَيۡبِ نُوحِيہَآ إِلَيۡكَ‌ۖ مَا كُنتَ تَعۡلَمُهَآ أَنتَ وَلَا قَوۡمُكَ مِن قَبۡلِ هَـٰذَا‌ۖ فَٱصۡبِرۡ‌ۖ إِنَّ ٱلۡعَـٰقِبَةَ لِلۡمُتَّقِينَ﴾

    These are among the accounts of the Unseen that We reveal unto thee. Thou knewest not of them, neither thou nor thy people, beforehand. So be patient. Truly the end belongs to the reverent. (11:49)


  3. 3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:



    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.

    3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

    our God is a personal God Who interacts with His Creation.

    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.

    3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

    Back peddling. Again.

    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.

    3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

    Now here’s what I find interesting. You specifically interpreted God’s hearing of the woman’s saying as His knowledge of what she said. You said that is from His perspective, but from our perspective, mentioning hearing was for our comprehension. That still doesn’t make sense, because we can also comprehend the idea of God knowing what someone said without Him having to say “I heard what she said”.

    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.

    3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

     Why did you specifically interpret it as God knows what she said, and not God sees what she said, or God powers (?) what she said, or God wills what she said? According to you, from His perspective, all these attributes are identical, one and the same. But you specifically interpreted as knowledge. I would like an explanation for this.

    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.

  4. 9 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    This is the explanation of the chapter I quoted, by Ja’far al-Shirazi. According to him, the Imams have knowledge of كل شىء “everything”

    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. 

    10 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    Whether the particular narration is authentic or weak is immaterial. The belief that nothing is hidden from the knowledge of your Imams is part of Twelver dogma.

    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.


  5. 1 minute ago, Cherub786 said:

    The chapter headings of Kitab al-Hujjah in al-Kafi represent the official creed of the Twelvers. Kulayni then quotes narrations to back up that creed. One of those chapter headings is:

    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?

    5 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    And in this chapter is the following narration attributed to Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq: “I certainly know what is the heavens and what is in the earth. I know what is in paradise and what is the fire. I know what was and what will be.”


    Yep, weak hadith.

  6. 37 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    But the Twelver doctrine that the Imams are omniscient (have knowledge of literally everything) and that they do not die except voluntarily, doesn’t jive well with the above stated fact.

    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:


    See here as well:


    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. 

  7. 1 minute ago, Cherub786 said:

    Where does it say they are identical?

    In the narrations of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (a) and from reason, which you lack. I previously presented one to you before.

    2 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    If things are mentioned with separate meanings, it is the default to assume they are distinct not identical.

    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?

    3 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    Ironically, it is an example of univocal thinking to imagine that in order to affirm that God’s attributes are “radically different” from human attributes, His attributes must necessarily be identical.

    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. 

  8. 1 minute ago, Cherub786 said:

    And did I use the word “identical” or “synonymous”?

    Once again you are affirming “identical” and denying “synonymous”. Yet when I described your position as saying “identical” you assumed (read my mind) I meant “synonymous” and then unjustly accused me of deception.

    I think the audience can decide whether I’m guilty of deception in this matter, or whether you are guilty of making a false accusation, and then when that accusation was exposed, pride disallows you from admitting and forces you to compound your blunder with another.

    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.

  9. 10 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    Such a belief is the default, the asl when these Attributes are affirmed for God, as they are affirmed in the Scriptures. The one who makes a claim that is contrary to the default is not necessarily wrong, but the burden of proof is on him to justify such a claim. So it’s futile for you to ask me why I believe in something that is the default. I am in my right to ask you on what basis do you believe these Attributes are identical to each other and to God’s Essence.

    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.

  10. 11 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    Look how you are back peddling now that you have just realized that you’re trapped. It was you who made the distinction between identical and synonymous, affirming that God’s Attributes and Essence are identical but not synonymous. The following are your words:

    You said "identical" at least five times, then accuse me of deception when I say you believe the Attributes are identical to each other! And so when I describe your position as believing God’s Attributes are identical (not synonymous) to each other and to His Essence, you have suddenly accused me of being a deceiver. Where is the deception?

    To me, identical and synonymous are identical and synonymous (no pun intended), but even going by your bit of sophistry for now to differentiate these terms, you still affirmed identical while denying synonymous. Then when you realized it will make no difference, you’re still caught, you start accusing me of deception so you can wiggle out of the net!

    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. 

  11. 1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

    Your explanation is strange, because if God simply said “I know what she said” the meaning is not changed according to you and it can still be understood from our human perspective. By saying “I have heard what she said” it appears that God is deliberately creating confusion and controversy as people will naturally understand from this that God has an actual faculty of hearing and not simply that God has knowledge of all that is audible. Needless to say, your theology is often confronted with the dilemma of having to force a far fetched explanation on the Text which doesn’t flow from it naturally.

    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. 


    God is deliberately creating confusion and controversy as people will naturally understand from this that God has an actual faculty of hearing and not simply that God has knowledge of all that is audible. Needless to say, your theology is often confronted with the dilemma of having to force a far fetched explanation on the Text which doesn’t flow from it naturally.

    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. 


  12. 8 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:


    So when you look up at the sky, is God above it?

    9 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    Firstly, I get it from language, power and knowledge are distinct things. These terms have definitions that are separate from each other.

    So when Allah جل جلاله says “I know what is in your heart” He obviously does not intend to say “I am powerful what is in your heart”, and when He says “I am the Possessor of Quwwah (Power, Strength)” He does not intend with these Words “I am the Possessor of Knowledge”.

    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? 


    Well, I guess you’ve already answered that: the Christian Thomas Aquinas.

    Nope, this is standard Shi'i theology. For example, Shaykh Muzaffer says in his book which is commonly used in the hawza,:


    Although these attributes hold different meanings and notions, their realities and existence are the same. If these attributes were different in existence—and then they were supposedly eternal and necessary in existence just like His essence—then the Necessary Self-Existent would be plural and the actual Divine Unity would be blunted. Of course, this is in violation of the doctrine of monotheism.

    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? 

  13. 4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

     to believe He is omnipresent is a disgusting heresy.

    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? 

  14. 1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

    Why has the Quran listed these attributes separately when they are identical?

    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:


    we know God through creatures, and we know God's perfections as they are divided up in many and various ways in the perfections of creatures. We describe God through those perfections which are each imperfect realizations of God’s perfections, imperfect each in their own way. Those different perfections are not described by synonyms even though they derive from a perfectly simple being. The different points of view are not useless because they each represent the single reality in a different imperfect but complementary way.

    23 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

    Is it correct to say “Allah hears what is visual (the color of my skin) and sees what is audible (the sound of my voice)?”

    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. 

    On 9/14/2020 at 1:37 PM, Cherub786 said:

    What does the Quran mean when it says “Allah has already heard the saying of her that disputes with you” (58:1)

    Can it also be said Allah saw the “saying of her that disputes with you” with no difference in meaning?

    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. 

    On 9/14/2020 at 1:37 PM, Cherub786 said:

    Are all God’s properties extrinsic, or are some intrinsic?

    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. 

    On 9/14/2020 at 1:37 PM, Cherub786 said:

    How do you determine which properties are extrinsic and which are intrinsic?

    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. 

    On 9/14/2020 at 1:37 PM, Cherub786 said:

    The Quran says Allah spoke to Moses particularly or directly (4:164). What does it mean?

    Why was Moses singled out for direct speech with God?

    This is Ayatullah Ja'far Subhani's explanation:


    As we have seen in the verse cited above [42:51], the Qur'an establishes the fact that God speaks to His slaves according to three modes of self-disclosure. It is impossible for the speech of God to reach man except by the following three modes: (a) ‘unless [it be] by revelation’—in other words, by divine inspiration; (b)‘or from behind a veil’—in other words, that man can hear God’s speech, but cannot see Him (God’s speech to Moses took this form); (c) ‘or [that] He sendeth a Messenger’—in other words, an angel is sent by God to man to convey the inspiration. In this verse, the speech of God has been explained as having been brought into being by God, either directly without intermediary, or indirectly through the intermediary of an angel. According to the first mode—divine inspiration—God sometimes casts His words directly into the heart of the Prophet, and sometimes He causes His words to enter the heart after having first been heard by the ear. In all three modes of speech, however, the words of God are brought into being. The speech of God is therefore to be considered as one of the attributes of Divine Activity.


  15. 28 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    As I understand, the Mu’tazilah affirm God’s Names but don’t believe in attributes/properties, saying that God’s Essence is synonymous or identical with properties life, power, knowledge, will, etc.

    But they do affirm multiplicity of Names, though understand the meaning of those names in a negative sense only al-Qadir (not weak), al-Alim (not ignorant), al-Hayy (not dead), and so on and so forth.

    Is this also your position?

    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.

  16. 6 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    Please confirm this:

    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:


    Therefore we must hold a different doctrine—viz. that these names signify the divine substance, and are predicated substantially of God, although they fall short of a full representation of Him

    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?

  17. 6 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    I have a question about what you quoted from Thomas Aquinas:

    If I understood correctly, the names (and properties?) of God are only distinguished in relation to the effect God has on creation. So the coming of the world into existence as an effect of God we call “creation”, name Him “Creator” and say He has the property of “creating”. How does this work for God being One Who hears and sees? In other words, what effect in this world relates to God’s hearing and God’s seeing?

    I think you have misunderstood Aquinas. He is not stating what his position here is. Rather, in the next sentence he explains his poistion:


    But even according to what was said above (Article 2), that these names signify the divine substance, although in an imperfect manner, it is also clear from what has been said (Articles 1 and 2) that they have diverse meanings.


  18. 2 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    Al-Mufid said the interpretation of “with My two hands” to mean “with My power, and My power” is incorrect, meaningless repetition. But according to you, objectively it shouldn’t be meaningless from God’s point of view, it is only meaningless from our point of view. Does this mean al-Mufid is saying it is repetition and meaningless only from our point of view, or is his statement true in the absolute sense?

    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

  19. 3 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    My question to you is regarding al-Mufid’s statement:

    He is speaking of God creating something with something else, namely, His power (Qudrah) and grace (Lutf).

    My question is, are power and grace distinct entities, and further are they distinct from God’s Self?

    If the coming into existence of God’s creation is simply an effect of His existence, where does power and grace fit into the equation as means through which creation came into existence?

    They are not distinct in God, but they are distinct in our experience and conception of them i.e. in creatures they are distinct.

  20. 4 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:


    According to al-Mufid this is meaningless because it is repetition. He says interpreting two Hands to mean power is meaningless repetition “two powers”, then how would he not regard your belief that God’s hearing, seeing and Self are all synonymous, mean the same thing, are identical, as meaningless repetition?

    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. 

  21. 58 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    I wander what you make of this Hadith:

    وَكِلْتَا يَدَيْهِ يَمِينٌ

    Both His Hands are Right-Hands” (Qurb al-Isnad p.61 Hadith #193):


    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.

  22. 20 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    So the Quran affirms God is hearing and seeing, but doesn’t affirm He has hands, eyes and face? How did you determine, from the text itself, that one set of attributes (hearing, seeing) are affirmed for God, while another (hands, eyes, face) are not? Is there a distinction in the language of the Scripture itself which clearly demonstrates that these two sets of attributes are different in terms of being affirmed for God?

    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. 

    20 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    Also, according to you, what is the intended meaning of Hands, Eyes and Face?

    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. 

    20 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

    I don’t recall, perhaps you can repeat your explanation here.


  23. 3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

    By Scripture I assume you mean the Quran, which also affirms that God has a Face, two Eyes and two Hands?

    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. 

    3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

    Do you mean God is constantly in a state of speaking and the Angels and Prophets are only spoken to at particular points in time when experience some kind of communion with Him?

    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...