fyst

Just found out right now that you have been banned. I disagree with your banning, but I don't get to make the decisions around here. Let's me just conclude by saying that since you will be unable to post here now, this discussion about the hands of Allah remains unresolved.

Sunni hadith books are reliable?!?!? Which one??? Have you even read Bukhari? It has ahadith saying that rats don't drink camel milk (Volume 4, Book 54, Number 524), that the summer and winter seasons on Earth are because of hell breathing on Earth, not because of Earth's axial tilt or its elliptical path around the Sun (Volume 4, Book 54, Number 482), that one wing of a housefly carries disease while the other carries its cure (Volume 4, Book 54, Number 537). You call this nonsense "reliable"??? Your hadith books might have been considered "reliable" several hundred years ago, when humanity was still waddling in collective ignorance, but there is nothing reliable left about even your most authentic hadith books now. Your faith, using any objective standard, has already been proven wrong; the only thing left now is for you Sunnis to accept that fact. You apparently have trouble understanding arguments even after they've been broken down into lists. If you agree with points 1 and 2 below, then, by YOUR OWN definition, Power and Strength are ALSO "hands". These were the two points I had listed earlier, try addressing them this time: 1 - A "hand" is that which one uses to give (your definition) 2 - Power/Strength is used to give. Which of these two points do you disagree with? If you don't disagree with either, then Power and Strength are also "hands" by YOUR OWN definition. Your two hands, and your power and strength are IRRELEVANT here! Try understanding this simple issue. Are your two hands or your power and strength similar to God's? No? Then DON'T bother give me silly examples about your own hands because it is irrelevant. So why not say that the Angel is closer? Why say "WE", when "we" includes Allah as well but (as you claim) Allah is NOT closer to man than his jugular vein? Why not say the Angel is closer! If God said "We are closer" but He only meant by it that He (and the angel) is causing the person to die, then why didn't He say "We cause Him to die . . . ." instead of saying "We are closer to him" when God is NOT closer to him! I did choose my words carefully. I said that if by "created" you mean that it has a beginning, then YES Allah's Speech is also "created". What part of this are you having trouble with???

The reference provided for these statements at the bottom of the page: Source: E-mail :lol: :lol: :lol: So Imam Ja`far sent an e-mail to the website's admin with these scientific facts, eh? :lol: Muslims are so naive and gullible; even those living in the West who are educated. There's no hope.

The Qur'an doesn't say that they are different, nor does it say that they are the same. I have no problem with you saying that God has two hands, the issue here is that you ignorantly assert that God's hands are NOT His Power or Strength when you have nothing to back this up with. The belief that God's hands are His Power and Strength comes from Shi'a hadith, which you are obviously not going to accept. But what evidence do you have that this belief is wrong when your OWN definition of "hand" is applicable to both "power" and "strength" as well. I'll break this down for you since you have trouble understanding your own definition: 1 - A "hand" is that which one uses to give (your definition) 2 - Power/Strength is used to give. 3 - Hence Power and Strength are "hands" as well, according to your own definition of "hand". So explain to me where YOU get the idea that God's Power and Strength are NOT His "hands", when YOUR OWN definition agrees with this. So why didn't God say that the angel is closer than the jugular vein? Why did He say "WE"??? Your argument about why God didn't say Power instead of hands in that verse is equally ridiculous. You made the nonsensical argument that since your hands are not your power then God's hands cannot be His power as well. And I simply pointed out the stupidity of that argument in my reply. Since you agree that Allah's Hands and Power are different from yours, what makes you think that His hand is NOT His power??? If you read my previous post carefully you would have realized that I explicitly mentioned that by "created" I mean it has a beginning. Allah's Speech is an action (it is His act of speaking). Do actions have a beginning or not? If they have no beginning then it means that they never began, which means that never occurred. Hence actions must have a beginning. But that does not mean that this action (that has a beginning) is a created object (since actions are not objects). Hence Allah's Speech is not a created object, but it certainly has a beginning.

I'm afraid you give our Pakistani citizens too much credit. These are the trends you should have searched for: Donkey Sex: Camel Sex: Dog Sex: Animal Sex: Rape:

Just because both are outstretched does not mean that they are the same. Where does it say that they are the same?!?!? Oh, it doesn't. You just made that up! Simple: Hand 1 is Power, Hand 2 is Strength. Try thinking about it for a few moments yourself next time. Why does Allah say that He is closer to man than his jugular vein? If He is above the sky (and hence no where near the jugular vein of man), and He simply meant His knowledge in that verse, then what's the need for saying that HE is closer than the jugular vein? That's right, another attempt of yours at using "logic" has failed miserably. Try harder next time. That is as stupid as saying that a color is a color, it is not green, blue, red or yellow. According to your definition, yes, it IS power or strength. You've defined it again by what it DOES (gives). Not according to your definition. So you are saying that your hands and your power and strength are similar to God's??? I don't care about your hands, I'm talking about God's Hands. If by "created" you mean it has a beginning, then yes, it is created. Absolutely wrong. Allah's speaking and talking has a beginning as well. Yes, it is according to YOUR definition. One can give using his hands, and one can give using his power. And since you defined giving as the SOLE distinction of "hand", then anything with which you can give with is a hand. Which includes "power". Of course it is. If a hand is that which one uses to gives, and power is used to give, then this power IS a hand as well. Your hand can exert power but is not power itself, but that's because you are not God. Your example is meaningless because we are talking about God who is NOT similar to created things.

And there is no indication that each of the two Hands is identical either. No, it isn't. That's simply you trying to apply your own "logic" here which doesn't work too well for you. Don't be delusional. The text affirms nothing of the sort. Are you deliberately being ignorant? I just explained in my previous post that I don't claim that hand means quwwah or qudrah, I'm saying that one of God's hands IS quwwah, while the other IS qudrah. I have not changed the meaning of the word as you ignorantly claim. You have only defined the Hands with what they DO (you said that they give). If you know what they ARE then tell us! What IS a "Hand"? Yes, we do know what the hands of Allah are. They are His Power and Strength. Which agrees with your own definition of Hand. The "hand" that is self-explanatory is the created hand. So you think God's Hands are created then, do you? Who said they are anything else? This doesn't make sense to you because your reasoning ability is like that of a two-year old. Does "car" mean "Ford"? But can it BE a Ford? Of course it can. Just like "hand" doesn't mean "Power", but it can BE Power. Think carefully about it for a few minutes. I know this is difficult for you, but you should at least give it a shot. Your inability to understand this elementary distinction between what a thing means and what it is just shows how profoundly ignorant you are regarding what is being discussed here.

Well, you have to learn to read carefully. I never said that Allah's hands "mean" His act of giving. Allah gives WITH His hands -- His hands do not MEAN His act of giving. Your attempt at using logic is simply atrocious. Where did I say that each of God's Hands means a different thing?!?!? That's right, I didn't! I said that each of God's Hands IS a different thing! Let me explain the difference to you since you are either unfamiliar with basic English expressions, or you are deliberately distorting what I am saying. Say I have two cars, one a Honda the other a Ford. Now the meaning of "car" is only one, and this meaning applies to both cars of mine, but each of my cars IS a different thing. Similarly, I am using only ONE meaning for "hand", but I'm claiming that each of God's Hands IS a different thing (one is quwwah, the other is qudrah). Yes, it does. Read what I've actually written this time and it will make total sense. I haven't done ta'weel at all. I'm simply using the definition of "hand" that YOU have provided. According to YOUR own definition, we know nothing about what the hands are, we only know what they do (they give). Which simply means that according to your own beliefs, these "hands" of Allah could be anything -- anything at all! -- as long as they satisfy the function you have defined for them. For all YOU know, the "hands" of God could be His two kidneys, such that God gives to others with those kidneys. Or each of God's "hands" could be half His foot, so that the two hands in union would make up His entire foot. There is NOTHING in your definition of "hand" that prevents this from being so. This is what happens when you try to define a thing not through what it IS , but rather through what it DOES (which is what you did with the definition of "hand"). When you employ such sort of functional definitions, then that definition is applicable to EVERYTHING that matches the stated function. I'm sure this will all go shooting above your head, but I've posted that anyway for the benefit of other users who may be reading this. Again, neither of the hands "mean" qudrah nor quwwah. One hand IS qudrah, while the other IS quwwah. Maybe if you read what I actually wrote instead of assuming things that I've never stated, you would be able to understand my argument better.

I never said, nor implied, that Allah's hands are His attributes of action. You need to read my post again carefully. Exactly. Let me remind you that YOU are the one who defined "hand" to mean "that with which one gives". Hence, if God gives with anything at all, it must be with His hands. Shi'as claim that God gives using His quwwah and qudrah, and YOUR meaning agrees completely with this claim. It doesn't make sense for God to give with His Power and Strength?!? Says who??? Yes, they are real! Are you saying that God's Power and Strength are unreal?!?!

Yes Allaah gives with His Hands generously. With this meaning that you have agreed to, there is absolutely no restriction on applying a metaphorical interpretation to "hands". That is, when Shi'as claim that Allah's hands are His Power and Strength, your accepted meaning for "hands" is in complete agreement with this claim (since there is nothing contradictory in saying that that with which God gives is His Power and Strength).

So, just to be perfectly clear, you are claiming that "hand" (when used with reference to Allah) is "that with which one gives", correct?

"Hand" is not the meaning of yad, it is the English translation of yad. I'm asking you to give me the meaning of "Hand" (as the term applies to Allah).

Okay, so since you are not ignorant of their meanings, then please inform us of the meaning of "hand" (yad ) as used in reference to God.