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

Seeing Allah In Paradise

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Nobody is disputing that or other translations (anymore). However, the verse can be interpreted to meant this or the next life. That's where the discussion is headed now.

The verse says never in the future tense, as pointed out to you earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The verse says never in the future tense, as pointed out to you earlier.

And the following was pointed out to all of you as well:

Your interpretation and understanding goes against Ahl al-Sunnah which is indeed true. The verses states 'You will not see Me' and NOT 'I can't (never) be seen' which would negate 'ru'yah' completely, hence 'you will not see Me' refers to Dunyâ and not Ahl al-Djannah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

And the following was pointed out to all of you as well:

There are certain things Allah cannot do. He is limited for doing such things. Maybe, limited is not a good choice of word, but Allah cannot give birth, nor He is begotten. He cannot create another Allah and so forth.

Included in this that no one can see Allah, in this life or afterlife. If we can see Him then He is Allah no more, as Allah is beyond descriptions.

When rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) visited Allah, being the honored guest he could not see Allah. If he could see Allah in afterlife, Allah would have given him death to receive the honor guest and then resurrected him, which Allah is capable.

What makes us not to see Allah in this life but to see Him in heaven, our sins. In that case rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) is sinless in his life. If we can see Allah in the afterlife, than Allah is not limited to show Himself to rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) in this life.

If anyone can see Allah, he/she might put descriptions to Allah.

To legs, two arms, one eye, two eyes, three or more eyes and so forth!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Included in this that no one can see Allah, in this life or afterlife. If we can see Him then He is Allah no more, as Allah is beyond descriptions.

When rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) visited Allah, being the honored guest he could not see Allah. If he could see Allah in afterlife, Allah would have given him death to receive the honor guest and then resurrected him, which Allah is capable.

What makes us not to see Allah in this life but to see Him in heaven, our sins. In that case rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) is sinless in his life. If we can see Allah in the afterlife, than Allah is not limited to show Himself to rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) in this life.

If anyone can see Allah, he/she might put descriptions to Allah.

To legs, two arms, one eye, two eyes, three or more eyes and so forth!

I don't understand how any of this is even relevant to the position of Ahlul Sunnah. Sunnis affirm that the believers can see Allah in the afterlife, but do not specify the how of the vision, except that the vision or the act of viewing (and any details of both) cannot negate any of Allah's attributes or tawhid. You're jumping the gun by assuming that Ahlul Sunnah, by affirming the vision of Allah in the afterlife, believe that He will be physically seen when the position clearly does not indicate anything this specific.

You still didn't respond to what the brother pointed out. You only responded out of your own assumptions. That's fine by me, but don't expect a response for your next post if it relies on assumptions like this one.

(wasalam)

In another words, Allah can do anything except limit Himself.

I agree that Allh is limited by His perfection, but I hate using the word limit with respect to Allah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1) We agree that it wasn't a sin. However, the impossibility of that type of vision could be just restricted to this life and not the next. Sayyiduna Musa's (as) actions not amounting to a sin can be interpreted to support both interpretations.

2) Other translations say "towards" in place of "to". Someone else with a better command of Arabic can give us the intricacies of this verse. Although I can logically follow that interpretation of the verse, it is hard for me to accept it because it may denying other meanings of the verse.

3) Like I said, I don't see a conflict between the Shi'i and Sunni positions. The Sunnis affirm that the believers will be able to see Allah (swt) in the hereafter, but do not specify the details of the vision with the exception that it cannot and will not negate any of Allah's attributes or tawhid. The Shi'i believe that Allah cannot be (physically) seen at all (and any references to the vision of Allah or seeing Allah must be taken metaphorically or figuratively). Either way, we all affirm the vision of Allah in a way that does not negate tawhid or any of His attributes, which is the most important thing.

4) The Sunni position keeps up with the trend of the scholars amongst the Salaf (ra) of affirming enough, but never expounding on (for fear of negating something Allah may have intended for Himself in a verse, which is a sin).

:) right.. i dont see a conflict also. I noticed the Shias on this thread tend to limit God by denying the way how God describes Himself (they say, "oh, thats merely a metaphor" astaghfirullah). and the Salafis (not Sunnis) tend to limit God by ignoring other verses where God describes Himself as being incomparable to creation ("there is nothing is like Him": Koran). No offense to Shias on this thread, but as Shia I feel that Sunnis seem to be well balanced when it comes to this issue. They keep a balance between incomparability and similarity. We modern Shias (not Shias) have a lot to learn from Sunnis.

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I don't understand how any of this is even relevant to the position of Ahlul Sunnah. Sunnis affirm that the believers can see Allah in the afterlife, but do not specify the how of the vision, except that the vision or the act of viewing (and any details of both) cannot negate any of Allah's attributes or tawhid. You're jumping the gun by assuming that Ahlul Sunnah, by affirming the vision of Allah in the afterlife, believe that He will be physically seen when the position clearly does not indicate anything this specific.

You still didn't respond to what the brother pointed out. You only responded out of your own assumptions. That's fine by me, but don't expect a response for your next post if it relies on assumptions like this one.

Isn't this what the Wahhabis believe that Allah has a body, two legs, two arms, two eyes, but his image is like nobody we know. They don't specify the how of the body, except that the body is not like anybody's body!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Isn't this what the Wahhabis believe that Allah has a body, two legs, two arms, two eyes, but his image is like nobody we know. They don't specify the how of the body, except that the body is not like anybody's body!

no its not wahabis. its just normal to say that. because on the one hand God says He has hands and so we can not deny what He says or replace His word with another word which we think is more suitable.

On the other hand, God says nothing is like Him. so we cant deny that also. We have to keep a balance between God's incomparability and God's similarity with creation.

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

no its not wahabis. its just normal to say that. because on the one hand God says He has hands and so we can not deny what He says or replace His word with another word which we think is more suitable.

On the other hand, God says nothing is like Him. so we cant deny that also. We have to keep a balance between God's incomparability and God's similarity with creation.

So He has a body which is similar to us but not comparable to us!

And, that we will see that body in heaven but not in hell.

Edited by aladdin
Link to post
Share on other sites

We modern Shias (not Shias) have a lot to learn from Sunnis.

Oh please... You have a lot to learn about the madhhab you claim to follow.

I don't understand how any of this is even relevant to the position of Ahlul Sunnah. Sunnis affirm that the believers can see Allah in the afterlife, but do not specify the how of the vision, except that the vision or the act of viewing (and any details of both) cannot negate any of Allah's attributes or tawhid. You're jumping the gun by assuming that Ahlul Sunnah, by affirming the vision of Allah in the afterlife, believe that He will be physically seen when the position clearly does not indicate anything this specific.

Actually they are more specific than you think. From Abu Hanifa's al-Fiqh al-Akbar:

12. God Most High was a Creator before He created, and a Provider before He bestowed provision. God Most High will be seen in the Hereafter, visible to the believers in Paradise with their corporeal vision. This we say without any implication of anthropomorphism, or any notion of quality or quantity, for there is not a fixed distance between Him and His creation (to permit any comparison).

So this makes it clear that it's a physical vision (i.e. with the eyes) that He will be seen with. But, they then try to skirt around the obvious implications of that by saying that somehow this doesn't mean that Allah has/is a physical body. Actually, all it really implies is that they have an inconsistent `aqeeda that makes no rational sense, where you are asked to believe something and not believe it at the same time. The reason for this is due to accepting ahadith from the Hashawiyya that quite clearly indicate that Allah literally has a body and so on, while trying to hold onto a rationalistic kalam that developed out of the earlier Mu`tazila. The two just really don't mix though, and instead what you end up with is a lot of these types of paradoxes and nonsensical tenets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:) right.. i dont see a conflict also. I noticed the Shias on this thread tend to limit God by denying the way how God describes Himself (they say, "oh, thats merely a metaphor" astaghfirullah). and the Salafis (not Sunnis) tend to limit God by ignoring other verses where God describes Himself as being incomparable to creation ("there is nothing is like Him": Koran). No offense to Shias on this thread, but as Shia I feel that Sunnis seem to be well balanced when it comes to this issue. They keep a balance between incomparability and similarity. We modern Shias (not Shias) have a lot to learn from Sunnis.

There are Shia scholars who have acknowledged the Sufi view on the issue.

The 12r Shi'ah believe that God can never be seen with the eyes, neither in this life nor in the Hereafter. Nevertheless, the highest kind of faith is not an intellectual one. The intellectual faith is 'ilm al-yaqin. A higher level of faith than that of the intellect is 'ayn al-yaqin - certitude of the heart. 'Ayn al-yaqin (lit. certitude by sight) means witnessing God with the heart, not with the eyes. Thus, though God cannot be seen with the eyes, He is 'visible' to the heart. 'Ali (A) was once asked, "Have you seen God?" He replied, "I have not worshipped a god whom I have not seen. But He is visible to the hearts, not to the eyes." The Imams (A) were asked whether the Prophet (S) saw God during his Ascension (mi'raj). Their reply was: "With the eyes? No. With the heart? Yes." In this matter only the Sufis have a viewpoint resembling the Shi'ah position

Oh please... You have a lot to learn about the madhhab you claim to follow.

Actually they are more specific than you think. From Abu Hanifa's al-Fiqh al-Akbar:

12. God Most High was a Creator before He created, and a Provider before He bestowed provision. God Most High will be seen in the Hereafter, visible to the believers in Paradise with their corporeal vision. This we say without any implication of anthropomorphism, or any notion of quality or quantity, for there is not a fixed distance between Him and His creation (to permit any comparison).

So this makes it clear that it's a physical vision (i.e. with the eyes) that He will be seen with. But, they then try to skirt around the obvious implications of that by saying that somehow this doesn't mean that Allah has/is a physical body. Actually, all it really implies is that they have an inconsistent `aqeeda that makes no rational sense, where you are asked to believe something and not believe it at the same time. The reason for this is due to accepting ahadith from the Hashawiyya that quite clearly indicate that Allah literally has a body and so on, while trying to hold onto a rationalistic kalam that developed out of the earlier Mu`tazila. The two just really don't mix though, and instead what you end up with is a lot of these types of paradoxes and nonsensical tenets.

I wouldn't trust the online translations. A lot of Sunnis these days have shifted into the Asharii or Athari creed. On the contrary, both Mutazilla and Maturidi were and are Hanafis.

Also I would like to add Abu Bakr al-Jassas al-Hanafi's tafsir:

Vision cannot be specifically implied from His statement: {Faces, on that Day, will be radiant, looking to their Lord} because “looking” has many possible meanings, such as anticipating a reward, which is narrated from a group of the salaf. Therefore, whenever that interpretation is permissible, objection to it by means of another interpretation which is not possible, is not permissible

Also regarding the hadiths that supposedly support the Vision, the same author said:

Regarding the narrations that are reported regarding the Vision, the intended meaning is knowledge, if [the reports] are indeed authentic. It is a sound knowledge in which there is no doubt. The use of “seeing” to mean “knowledge” is well known in the language

Edited by Abdaal
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Yea So I posted something and it never appeared, Will the Moderator reviewing this earlier post please make it appear?

Now Sheikh al kulayni Muhammad Bin Ja'afar Bin Muhammad Bin Aoun al Asadi, One of Kulayni's Sheikhs and father of Al Sadooq did he believe in tashbeeh and Jabr?

ÑÌÇá ÇáäÌÇÔí – ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 373)

ãÍãÏ Èä ÌÚÝÑ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä Úæä ÇáÃÓÏí ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓíä ÇáßæÝí ¡ ÓÇßä ÇáÑí . íÞÇá áå ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå ¡ ßÇä ËÞÉ ¡ ÕÍíÍ ÇáÍÏíË ¡ ÅáÇ Ãäå Ñæì Úä ÇáÖÚÝÇÁ . æßÇä íÞæá ÈÇáÌÈÑ æÇáÊÔÈíå æßÇä ÃÈæå æÌåÇ Ñæì Úäå ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì - . áå ßÊÇÈ ÇáÌÈÑ æÇáÇÓÊØÇÚÉ .ÇäÊåì

Rijal Al Najashi- P373: Muhammad Bin Ja'afar bin Muhammad bin Aoun al Asadi Abu al Hussein al kufi, Saken al Rayy, Called Muhammad bin abu abdullah, He was trustworthy, Sahih in his Hadith but he narrated from the weak, And he used to believe in Jabr and tashbeeh...He has the Book al Jabr wal Isteta'ah.

ÎáÇÕÉ ÇáÃÞæÇá – ÇáÚáÇãÉ ÇáÍáí – ÑÞã ÇáÕÝÍÉ : ( 265 )

ãÍãÏ Èä ÌÚÝÑ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä Úæä ÇáÃÓÏí ¡ ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓíä ÇáßæÝí ¡ Óßä ÇáÑí ¡ íÞÇá áå : ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå ¡ ßÇä ËÞÉ ÕÍíÍ ÇáÍÏíË ¡ ÇáÇ Çäå Ñæì Úä ÇáÖÚÝÇÁ ¡ æßÇä íÞæá ÈÇáÌÈÑ æÇáÊÔÈíå ¡ ÝÇäÇ Ýí ÍÏíËå ãä ÇáãÊæÞÝíä ¡ æßÇä ÃÈæå æÌåÇ ¡ Ñæì Úäå ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì . ÇäÊåì

Khulasat al Aqwal- P265: Muhammad Bin Ja'afar bin Muhammad bin Aoun al Asadi Abu al Hussein al kufi, Saken al Rayy, Called Muhammad bin abu abdullah, He was trustworthy, Sahih in his Hadith but he narrated from the weak, and used to believe in Jabr and tashbeeh...

So al najashi and al Helli both prove the belief of Tashbeeh to Al Asadi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

There are Shia scholars who have acknowledged the Sufi view on the issue.

The 12r Shi'ah believe that God can never be seen with the eyes, neither in this life nor in the Hereafter. Nevertheless, the highest kind of faith is not an intellectual one. The intellectual faith is 'ilm al-yaqin. A higher level of faith than that of the intellect is 'ayn al-yaqin - certitude of the heart. 'Ayn al-yaqin (lit. certitude by sight) means witnessing God with the heart, not with the eyes. Thus, though God cannot be seen with the eyes, He is 'visible' to the heart. 'Ali (A) was once asked, "Have you seen God?" He replied, "I have not worshipped a god whom I have not seen. But He is visible to the hearts, not to the eyes." The Imams (A) were asked whether the Prophet (S) saw God during his Ascension (mi'raj). Their reply was: "With the eyes? No. With the heart? Yes." In this matter only the Sufis have a viewpoint resembling the Shi'ah position

Why did you bring in Sufism? Sufism is completely meaningless.

in any case...

What does it mean to see God with the heart? (I assume you may already know this, but for the benefit of others I will answer this question)

The heart is an organ which constantly expands and contracts. It symbolizes therefore our constantly shifting perspectives between seeing God similar to creation (tashbih--which is when we are expanded), and seeing God as incomparable to creation (tanzih--which when we are contracted).

We see God similar to creation through our imaginal (khayal) faculty (which is able to see meanings or spiritual realities through forms, shapes, and bodies).

and We see God incomparable to creation through our aql (intellect) (which always distinguishes and separates meaning from form)

The heart has two eyes. It has the eye of the intellect and the eye of imagination. and it constantly shifts between these two eyes when it witnesses God. Therefore the perfect knowledge of God--which is knowledge through the heart (i.e. unveiling or kashf)--is knowledge which combines God's incomparability (tanzih) from creation and God's similarity (tashbih) with creation.

I wouldn't trust the online translations. A lot of Sunnis these days have shifted into the Asharii or Athari creed. On the contrary, both Mutazilla and Maturidi were and are Hanafis.

Now that you mentioned about Sufism. Sufis were mostly asharite theologians. and asharism is not really so bad as "Shias" think.

Oh please... You have a lot to learn about the madhhab you claim to follow.

me or me ?

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Nearly all of the classical scholars of Ahlul Sunnah were great supporters of tasawwuf. It wasn't just the Asharis, but nearly all of them. Of course, the tasawwuf that they advocated was purer than what's found today.

right. but how exactly was it purer before than today?

Link to post
Share on other sites

12. God Most High was a Creator before He created, and a Provider before He bestowed provision. God Most High will be seen in the Hereafter, visible to the believers in Paradise with their corporeal vision. This we say without any implication of anthropomorphism, or any notion of quality or quantity, for there is not a fixed distance between Him and His creation (to permit any comparison).

So this makes it clear that it's a physical vision (i.e. with the eyes) that He will be seen with.

Picking and choosing a gross mistranslation and represent it as the actual meaning of Fiqh al-Akbar itself, how more Twelver Shi'i can you be? :!!!:

والله تعالى يرى الاخرة ويراه المؤمنون وهم في الحنة بأعين رؤوسهم بلا تشبيه ولاكيفية ولا يكون بينه وبين خلقه مسافة

It states that believers in the Paradise will see Allâh Most High with the eyes of their head without tashbîh, kayfiyyah (modality), direction/distance etc.

It doesn't state that it's physical since the physical attributes are negated, it only makes your misinterpretation clearer.

But, they then try to skirt around the obvious implications of that by saying that somehow this doesn't mean that Allah has/is a physical body. Actually, all it really implies is that they have an inconsistent `aqeeda that makes no rational sense, where you are asked to believe something and not believe it at the same time. The reason for this is due to accepting ahadith from the Hashawiyya that quite clearly indicate that Allah literally has a body and so on, while trying to hold onto a rationalistic kalam that developed out of the earlier Mu`tazila. The two just really don't mix though, and instead what you end up with is a lot of these types of paradoxes and nonsensical tenets.

If your books contain seeing with the heart then it's not impossible to put this experience upon the eyes of the believers in the Paradise. And the two (hadîth & kalâm) do mixes like the Qur'ân and Kalâm mixes and you should know what I'm speaking about given your methodology. (a Mu'tazilah offshoot like Twelver Shi`as ended with greater nonsensical tenets)

I wouldn't trust the online translations. A lot of Sunnis these days have shifted into the Asharii or Athari creed. On the contrary, both Mutazilla and Maturidi were and are Hanafis.

What, are Hanafi's not Sunni? You don't even know the Mâtûridi 'Aqîdah so how can a person like you determine the difference between Matûrûdi and Ash'ari 'Aqîdah?

Nearly all of the classical scholars of Ahlul Sunnah were great supporters of tasawwuf. It wasn't just the Asharis, but nearly all of them.

Yes, and that's what eThErEaL has said in his post;

Sufis were mostly asharite theologians
Edited by Abu'l Fadl
Link to post
Share on other sites

right. but how exactly was it purer before than today?

1) I think it was most likely closer to the Sufism practiced by the Deobandis groups as opposed to that practiced by the Barelwi groups. The Barelwi groups have seemed to have gone to the excesses of Sufism with their focus on spiritual enlightenment through music and (some types of) dancing amongst other things whereas the Deobandi don't generally indulge in things like this. These are the two groups that come to mind. I'm sure there are others.

2) When you said that the Sufis were mostly Ahsari ttheologies, I wanted to correct you for two reasons: tasawwuf came before Asharism even existed and Asharism wasn't as prevalent then as it is today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

2) When you said that the Sufis were mostly Ahsari ttheologies, I wanted to correct you for two reasons: tasawwuf came before Asharism even existed and Asharism wasn't as prevalent then as it is today.

yes, but what i said does not imply that asharism existed before sufism. I simply said many sufis were asharite theologians. even if asharism isnt as prevelant as it was before, it still is considerably prevalent (at least to me). This is from what I have just by surfing around on the internet and reading various sunni discussions. But in any case, thanks for trying to clarify your point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...