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

How does Allah see and hear?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Strange Samurai said:

https://valiasr-aj-english.weebly.com/uploads/7/5/6/8/7568784/final_umar_would_have_been_ruined....pdf

please go through this link and satisfy yourself with the evidence from both your books and our books. 

Regards

Do you know what these narrations mean? You have provided a long extension of narrations without actually confirming you know the meaning of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 328
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Imam Jafar al-Sadiq, peace with him, has said, “He, the most Exalted One, is Hearing and Seeing. He hears without a faculty, sees without a tool. Rather, He hears by Himself, sees by Himself Imam

Lol! Like a lot of other spectators, I'm sitting back and watching/reading whilst the drama unfolds. To be fair, it's quite an interesting topic, which if we dare to be honest, must have crossed

Read the underlined and bold paragraph:   Additional (not necessary) reading:    

Posted Images

@Nightclaw

Not only this, but please go through this as well, it gives opinions of the one who has similar beliefs about Hazrat Umer (رضي الله عنه)

https://mahajjah.com/if-it-were-not-for-ali-umar-would-have-been-destroyed/

You will see here that the person does not disagree that it is not in their book. Rather what trick he uses is that if Caliph does the mistakes, let Prophet and his ahlebait be shown as wrong doers as well. 

If it were the truth, then does not it proves Hazrat Abdullah ibn Abbas as wrong too that he accepted Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as his caliph while he knew that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) does not know all Shariah ?

Strange things for a believer. Thus, it proves that neither Hazrat Abdullah ibn Abbas was wrong nor Imam Ali (عليه السلام) rather this was an innovation in religion to defend mistakes done by Caliphs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Strange Samurai said:

@Nightclaw

Not only this, but please go through this as well, it gives opinions of the one who has similar beliefs about Hazrat Umer (رضي الله عنه)

https://mahajjah.com/if-it-were-not-for-ali-umar-would-have-been-destroyed/

You will see here that the person does not disagree that it is not in their book. Rather what trick he uses is that if Caliph does the mistakes, let Prophet and his ahlebait be shown as wrong doers as well. 

If it were the truth, then does not it proves Hazrat Abdullah ibn Abbas as wrong too that he accepted Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as his caliph while he knew that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) does not know all Shariah ?

Strange things for a believer. Thus, it proves that neither Hazrat Abdullah ibn Abbas was wrong nor Imam Ali (عليه السلام) rather this was an innovation in religion to defend mistakes done by Caliphs.

The problem with you is that you are taking your own biased approach on it and superimposing it on these narrations. You forget that whatever you say is not proof for me nor do I accept it. The Calihps were not infallible. I do not understand why you say this, and you still have not shown comprehension of the narrations you were shown/shown me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Do you know what these narrations mean? You have provided a long extension of narrations without actually confirming you know the meaning of them.

Well, there are quite a large number of Scholars who have authenticated it as properly translated and I have read them such things from multiple books. So, yes I know meaning of them which is confirmed by numerous scholars on different occasions in different publications. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nightclaw said:

The problem with you is that you are taking your own biased approach on it and superimposing it on these narrations. You forget that whatever you say is not proof for me nor do I accept it. The Calihps were not infallible. I do not understand why you say this, and you still have not shown comprehension of the narrations you were shown/shown me.

I do not intend to convert you. If I were biased, I would not have accept Shia Islam. Because it is the only religion that makes sense and shows its divine. If you think that Caliphs were not infallible, then you did a great mistake by accepting them as caliphs after Prophet who was infallible. There is huge contradiction in your belief. While I acknowledge and accept 12 infallible caliphs after Prophet because they are the only one who deserve to represent the Prophet as they are infallible like him and do not contradict his teachings unlike Hazrat Umer (رضي الله عنه) who abolished "two Mutahs", innovated "Tarawiah" and added words to fajr azan "Salaah is better than sleep".

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, this I do not say about Hazrat Umer (رضي الله عنه), this is what both shia and sunni scholars agree to. I have done my research on three Caliphs when I was child on the question which came into my mind: "What if Shias have misunderstood them and they base their information on biased knowledge". I searched and to my dismay, I found that Sunni books agree on that as well. 

I did not get birth in the time of three Caliphs so I have no family dispute with them. But, my dispute is because of My Allah (عزّ وجلّ), if they did wrong who am I to defend them since they went against their own Creator. No relation is more important than creator. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/26/2020 at 2:28 PM, Cool said:

@eThErEaL I hope that now it is clear to you what actually is the issue here.

So استوى على العرش, if it present or repeated 7 times in Quran, would it mean God is above the throne? 

What actually is the throne? It is a thing which is carried by angels 

الَّذِينَ يَحْمِلُونَ الْعَرْشَ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهُ يُسَبِّحُونَ بِحَمْدِ رَبِّهِمْ وَيُؤْمِنُونَ بِهِ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُونَ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا

40:7

وَيَحْمِلُ عَرْشَ رَبِّكَ فَوْقَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ ثَمَانِيَةٌ

69:17

It is a thing which was once upon water:

وَكَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاء لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ أَيُّكُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلاً

If God is "above" the throne, literally sitting over it and angels are carrying the throne or throne is floating over water, what does this means? Can you shed some light on it as you pretend to be a Sunni, my dear brother. 

What I know is that even majority of Sunni don't believe in it. This ideology is specific to Salafi's.

Again, what actually is the throne? 

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has said that He is رب العرش for at least 6 times in Quran.

If He is above the throne, how He we understand this:

و هو معكم اين ما كنتم

هو معهم اين ما كانو

If this معيت is by His knowledge which has encircled everything, then, are the attributes of perfection like knowledge & power, something other than His essence? 

If the Attributes of God were extraneous to His Essence and distinct from each other, this implies a sort of multiplicity (kathrah), compositeness (tarkīb) and limitation (maḥdūdiyyah) in the Divine Essence, and all these characteristics cannot be applied to God.

Moreover, in originating the creatures and bestowing knowledge and power to them, He would be in need of His Attributes (Knowledge and Power) which are assumed to be distinct from His Essence.

Furthermore, that ideology itself is limiting God by fixing Him "above" a thing while He should be free from the concept of directions, above & beneath, in & out. 

وَلِلّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ فَأَيْنَمَا تُوَلُّواْ فَثَمَّ وَجْهُ اللّهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ

2:115 

هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

57:3 

Obviously God doesn't have a physical throne upon which He physically sits on.  But He does have a throne upon which he (without any dependency) sits on.   I believe this is what @Nightclawis saying.  He doesn't want to say it is metaphorical because this is discourteous towards the Divine Speech, it is a bit presumptuous on our part to say what God truly means by this and that, who do we think we are to "clarify" what God really intends to say?  Is God's speech inadequate?  No.  So This is why he doesn't like the use of the term "metaphor" to describe God's ascriptions to Himself.  But at the same time, He (nightclaw) does not ascribe dependency to God.  He does not ascribe parts to God.  But the question is, although he is not saying it, is he nevertheless implying that God has parts and that He is dependent?  I would say, why can't we say the reverse:  That he implying these statements are metaphorical (even though he is not saying it)?  We can't say whether he is implying limitations on God or whether he is implying that these statements are metaphorical.   In other words, his statements are not rational (I didn't say irrational).   And this is fine.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
On 11/26/2020 at 8:25 AM, Nightclaw said:

If you were an ex-Salafi, you would know that we do not infer that Allah has two eyes or give any set number to the amount of eyes He has.

Brother it's only because I am an ex-Salafi that I could tell you what Ibn Khuzaymah the Ustadh of Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj said about the above-mentioned hadith. If you still deny, take your time and read in Madaarij as-Saalikeen how Ibn Qayyim has argued about why he doesn't infer from اعین mentioned in Qur'an about Allah to mean more than two eyes and that why does he stick to the belief that Allah has two eyes, not more than that. I seek refuge in Allah. As for Ibn Taymiyyah, read in al-Aqeedah al-Wasitiyyah, he says that if affirming body for Allah means body of flesh and bones then we don't say so. Brother you can get very well what does it imply: he believes in a physical form of Allah without flesh and bones! I seek refuge in Allah. And that's why he compared Allah's descending to the lowest heaven to his descending from the pulpit which his own students including al-Dhahabi have reported. Though Dhahabi saw it as a grave blunder but Ibn Taymiyyah remained so adamant on this belief that he wrote a booklet expressing his anthropomorphism on this very topic of Allah's descending to the lowest heaven. Khayr, whatever they believed, it's good that Allah has protected you from such beliefs, it doesn't matter much that you call yourself a Salafi, but what you believe doesn't represent Salafi beliefs totally. Wassalam

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...