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

  • 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

  • Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:

Oh my. Are you sure? This will require a whole new thread. But to give you hints, how about the hadith of pen and paper for an instance of disobedience, etc.? Don't tell me I have to narrate it to you.

If you call that an instance of disobedience then even Imam Ali (عليه السلام) disobeyed the Prophet (S) when the Prophet (S) asked Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to erase that portion of the treaty of Hudaybiyyah that said  he (S) was a messenger of God.  One can argue, didn't the Prophet (S) know better what he (S) was doing?  Why didn't Imam Ali (عليه السلام) simply obey as instructed?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Just now, Nightclaw said:

Bring the explanation from شرح صحيح البخاري.

Why don't you ask for the isnaad first, to check if the narration is perfect and sahih (which it is, thats why). See, you are just helping me and proving me right. But I digress. I do not want to debate with you. You showed fake surprise and asked to show you, which I have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, The Green Knight said:

Why don't you ask for the isnaad first, to check if the narration is perfect and sahih (which it is, thats why). See, you are just helping me and proving me right. But I digress. I do not want to debate with you. You showed fake surprise and asked to show you, which I have.

Because I know this narration and I can read the Arabic for the narrators. You can say you are right - but you took something without giving an explanation and now run? Brother, come on. You spoke about being honest earlier - so be honest and truthful. At least represent our side properly. I am not surprised because I know these narrations.

Again, bring the explanation from the شرح صحيح البخاري.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
9 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Because I know this narration and I can read the Arabic for the narrators. You can say you are right - but you took something without giving an explanation and now run? Brother, come on. You spoke about being honest earlier - so be honest and truthful. At least represent our side properly. I am not surprised because I know these narrations.

Again, bring the explanation from the شرح صحيح البخاري.

Brother as I wrote before, I do not believe you can be debated with. You will double speak for answers and slip away as you have in this thread with your first reply to me. Maybe 10 years ago when I did not know better I might have bothered with you. You do have the stage to clarify it all you want.

Edited by The Green Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, The Green Knight said:

Brother as I wrote before, I do not believe you can be debated with. You will double speak for answers and slip away as you have in this thread with your first reply to me. Maybe 10 years ago when I did not know better I might have bothered with you. You do have the stage to clarify it all you want.

This is something that is truly mindboggling. You are saying I cannot be debated with while bringing up a narration with no context or explanation, and upon being asked to do so, all you say is I cannot be debated with. This shows lack of sincerity. I am not double speaking nor "slipping away", as you have stated. I usually ignore you because you like to poke fun and whatnot and that is a waste of time. If you want to be like that over the internet, be my guest. I will simply ignore you because I do not have much time on this earth. You can waste it being petty. However, I have decided to engage with you because you have taken it serious and have refrained from being as you were prior. No pettiness, no low blows or ad hominem. Straight discussion - which is the only reason I am talking to you.

Nonetheless, I am being clear cut. Bring the explanation and context from the books that explain it. Taking a narration out of hand can mean anything. Represent our side properly instead of cherry-picking.

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

a narration with no context or explanation

You wrote it yourself for the hadith of "Qati! Qati!"/foot of god that it has no explanation yet you believe in it. Or did that methodology just change? To you, sahaba are more important than Allah, then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:

You wrote it yourself for the hadith of "Qati! Qati!"/foot of god that it has no explanation yet you believe in it. Or did that methodology just change? To you, sahaba are more important than Allah, then?

Brother, what are you saying??? What is this equivocation that is absolutely senseless to the extreme? The narration HAS an explanation as opposed to the other narration NOT having an explanation. BRING the narration that HAS an explanation as opposed to the narration that does NOT have an explanation. 

Are you being serious, brother? Do you actually think that, based off of this false dichotomy of yours, that I place the companions more important than Allah? Be real with yourself and do not misrepresent based off of what you want to point the flaw in. 

My methodology remains the same. The narration where the Foot of Allah is mentioned has no explanation. This one does. Even if I DID want to explain it myself, that does not change the fact no explanation of it is given. THIS narration, however, HAS an explanation. Bring it forth and represent us properly and refrain from making these conclusions that make absolutely no sense. You are smarter than that and I have seen it from you, so do not decrease in using your intellect.

Edited by Nightclaw
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
11 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

When it is literal, it is not in the sense of within the context of the universe. He is Vision, Sight, Hearing, Consciousness, etc. He is not limited. He is not bound. He does not forget. He exists. We do not know how Allah looks, but He certainly can hear and see but we do not know how. It has nothing to do with human body parts or anything in creation. Just know the concepts we know of is always referred to from Allah to us is because we do not understand it any other way. Allah hears and sees like nothing else in creation. How? We do not know. Does He literally hear? Yes. Like us? No; and like nothing else that was created, has been created, or will be created.

That is our definition. Same applies to everything else He ascribes to Himself.

Brother your approach to understand Tawheed as-Sifaat seems nice but I being an ex-Salafi/Athari am aware that it is not the same as that of As'haab al-Hadeeth e.g. on the hadeeth "dajjal is one-eyed and your Lord is not one-eyed"  Muhaddith Ibn Khuzaymah commented taking it literally i.e. the Athari way that it means that our Lord has TWO EYES THROUGH WHICH HE SEES. I seek refuge in Allah from such words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

Though one thing that I don't get is. Let's say Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) does have humanoid features then why didn't He(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) just use his humanoid form to come and talk with Musa(عليه السلام) like the movie Bruce Almighty instead of the mountains crumbling and turning into ashes because human beings cannot perceive Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). But anyway this entire idea is bogus and very disrespectful to Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

But like I said above, some things we will never know until Death. Sunnis have their own educated estimations. Shiahs have their own educated estimations. Best thing would just be to respect one another's beliefs no matter how strange they appear to eachother. But avoid people like these who committ blasphemy and says Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) jogs:

 

Edited by El Cid
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

I place the companions more important than Allah

Dear brother, what do you want me to say? I observe. Our conversation is evident. When you saw the hadith of Qati Qati/god has feet you said you accept it. When I posted the hadith of Musa being superior to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) you had zero issues with it. With the last one, when it came to the "Jama'at" in your "Ahlussunnah wa al-jama'at", the core member of your religion, you start giving very big reactions and seek the help of explanations. Its not specifically about you because funnily enough, your scholars' explanations and whole websites do exist to explain this one away. It does mean your people have bothered a lot more with these particular hadiths of their interest. Because otherwise the "jamaat" comes under doubt, all their innovations and hence your school of thought, everything for you comes crumbling down. How weird is that. Your school "seems to be" incomparably less interested to learn about the nature of the "foot of Allah", or care about the defaming of the holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) (so many times in your hadiths).

Never ending anomalies in your sect. It is partly why I stopped discussing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Zaydi Shiapard said:

Brother your approach to understand Tawheed as-Sifaat seems nice but I being an ex-Salafi/Athari am aware that it is not the same as that of As'haab al-Hadeeth e.g. on the hadeeth "dajjal is one-eyed and your Lord is not one-eyed"  Muhaddith Ibn Khuzaymah commented taking it literally i.e. the Athari way that it means that our Lord has TWO EYES THROUGH WHICH HE SEES. I seek refuge in Allah from such words.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, The Green Knight said:

Dear brother, what do you want me to say? I observe. Our conversation is evident. When you saw the hadith of Qati Qati/god has feet you said you accept it. When I posted the hadith of Musa being superior to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) you had zero issues with it. With the last one, when it came to the "Jama'at" in your "Ahlussunnah wa al-jama'at", the core member of your religion, you start giving very big reactions and seek the help of explanations. Its not specifically about you because funnily enough, your scholars' explanations and whole websites do exist to explain this one away. It does mean your people have bothered a lot more with these particular hadiths of their interest. Because otherwise the "jamaat" comes under doubt, all their innovations and hence your school of thought, everything for you comes crumbling down. How weird is that. Your school "seems to be" incomparably less interested to learn about the nature of the "foot of Allah", or care about the defaming of the holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) (so many times in your hadiths).

I really could care less at this point about how you feel. Provide the explanation. All you are doing is throwing in red herrings and ad hominem. Provide the explanation because this is has gotten very pointless.

1 hour ago, The Green Knight said:

Never ending anomalies in your sect. It is partly why I stopped discussing it.

Although it is the exact opposite, this is very, very ironic.

If you are unable to provide the explanation, which you will not because you are too busy huffing and puffing while beating your chest, I will simply not respond because this will not go anywhere because of your failure to understand and provide anything. Say what you want and what you will. I will be waiting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

This question is primarily for the Shi'a. I was wondering about this because it is quite paradoxical when they make claims towards the Ahlul Sunnah of saying Allah is an anthropomorphic being. If you say it is metaphorical, this is problematic because this means that Allah does not hear nor see whatsoever [as a metaphor is a representative of something that is not literal, and in this case, the sight and hearing of Allah]. This also contradicts his name al-Hayy, which entails that He is living and has the qualities of living things, albeit not limited nor comparable whatsoever.

So my question is to the Shi'a:

How does Allah see and hear?

Salam im a bit late to this post.

But here's my response.

 Za’alab Yamani asked Imam Ali (AS): O’ Amir-al-Momeneen (the Commander of the faithful), have you seen your God? Imam Ali (عليه السلام) replied: Do I worship a being whom I do not see? Za’alab asked: How do you see God? Imam Ali (عليه السلام) replied: Eyes can never see God, but hearts with proper belief can recognize God. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is close to everything, but not attached to things; is away from everything, but is no stranger to them; is a speaker, not through thinking or thought; is determined, not by desire or wish; is creator/maker, not by hands or legs; is kind and friendly, and that is not secret or hidden; is great not by oppression; can see but not with external senses; is kind, but not touchy; the heads and faces fall down (prostrate) due to God’s greatness; and the hearts are restless due to fearing God.

My brother told me about this hadith. so thank big bro.

I hope this gives you an answer!:grin: 

 

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

Salam im a bit late to this post.

But here's my response.

 Za’alab Yamani asked Imam Ali (AS): O’ Amir-al-Momeneen (the Commander of the faithful), have you seen your God? Imam Ali (عليه السلام) replied: Do I worship a being whom I do not see? Za’alab asked: How do you see God? Imam Ali (عليه السلام) replied: Eyes can never see God, but hearts with proper belief can recognize God. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is close to everything, but not attached to things; is away from everything, but is no stranger to them; is a speaker, not through thinking or thought; is determined, not by desire or wish; is creator/maker, not by hands or legs; is kind and friendly, and that is not secret or hidden; is great not by oppression; can see but not with external senses; is kind, but not touchy; the heads and faces fall down (prostrate) due to God’s greatness; and the hearts are restless due to fearing God.

My brother told me about this hadith. so thank big bro.

I hope this gives you an answer!:grin: 

The same hadith was mentioned to me. I am aware now, though. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

I am not sure if you know this, but Allah gives Himself names and attributes in the Qur'an. All-Powerful? Attribute. Well-Acquainted? Attribute. The Merciful? Name and attribute. This sentence of yours is going against the Qur'an because the Qur'an gives the opposite.

Allah's description of itself does not relate Allah to any particular creation. Each and every attribute of Allah by Allah is a definition for us. 

How will you define Allah if their are no attributes? But their is also one more attribute which separates Allah from everything (creation/known/unkown/existent). This attribute is 'All-Independent'

A name of Allah is 'Boundless'. 

I am not ascribing these attributes to Allah. Like Allah 'sees and hears' but is independent of anything which can be supposed as a medium of hearing or seeing.

Allah says 'Be' and 'it is'. It doesn't mean Allah needs any tongue to say this. Allah speaks but independent of any medium of speech. 

You say that Allah has attributed to himself something which acts as a hand. Allah says this to make us understand his might and his power. To understand that he controls everything. He is the All-doer, the All-creator. It doesn't mean that anything like that belongs to Allah. 

These attributes are used to describe Allah because of our lameness and our lowliness. We humans have no way to describe Allah except this. Though, Allah is independent of every existence. 

But ascribing attributes to Allah by Actually meaning them is baseless and illogical. Because everything that literally becomes a medium for Allah is a creation.

Your saying that 'Allah ascribes himself to him' is correct. But at the same time saying that it is literally 'something' is completely wrong. 

I am not denying the words of Allah but I am denying your interpretation of the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, ServantOfTheHousehold said:

Salam im a bit late to this post.

But here's my response.

 Za’alab Yamani asked Imam Ali (AS): O’ Amir-al-Momeneen (the Commander of the faithful), have you seen your God? Imam Ali (عليه السلام) replied: Do I worship a being whom I do not see? Za’alab asked: How do you see God? Imam Ali (عليه السلام) replied: Eyes can never see God, but hearts with proper belief can recognize God. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is close to everything, but not attached to things; is away from everything, but is no stranger to them; is a speaker, not through thinking or thought; is determined, not by desire or wish; is creator/maker, not by hands or legs; is kind and friendly, and that is not secret or hidden; is great not by oppression; can see but not with external senses; is kind, but not touchy; the heads and faces fall down (prostrate) due to God’s greatness; and the hearts are restless due to fearing God.

My brother told me about this hadith. so thank big bro.

I hope this gives you an answer!:grin: 

 

Along with this sermon 186 and  sermon 1 are also shared

:grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Allah's description of itself does not relate Allah to any particular creation. Each and every attribute of Allah by Allah is a definition for us. 

Be consistent. Apply this to whatever He reveals about himself.

3 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

How will you define Allah if their are no attributes? But their is also one more attribute which separates Allah from everything (creation/known/unkown/existent). This attribute is 'All-Independent'

This just further affirms what I have been saying. This is not really an argument against it.

3 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

A name of Allah is 'Boundless'. 

Correct.

4 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

I am not ascribing these attributes to Allah. Like Allah 'sees and hears' but is independent of anything which can be supposed as a medium of hearing or seeing.

Apply this to what I have been saying. Literally change the variables and it is the exact same conclusion.

4 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Allah says 'Be' and 'it is'. It doesn't mean Allah needs any tongue to say this. Allah speaks but independent of any medium of speech. 

Nobody is arguing this; strawman.

5 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

You say that Allah has attributed to himself something which acts as a hand. Allah says this to make us understand his might and his power. To understand that he controls everything. He is the All-doer, the All-creator. It doesn't mean that anything like that belongs to Allah. 

Nobody said this acts as a hand. You have given your own interpretation after I have repetitively said that it is not like this. You have given your interpretation with no basis or real evidence. Allah never said this. Allah does not use "hand" to mean power, because He uses words all throughout the Qur'an to prove of His power. He explains throughout the Qur'an how His Power is and what exactly it does and whatnot. Never does He use hand to symbolize anything, because the language of the Qur'an is concise. If Allah meant power, He would have said so as He has done throughout the entire Qur'an. If you claim He meant power, provide evidence from the Qur'an that disproves what I am saying.

7 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

These attributes are used to describe Allah because of our lameness and our lowliness. We humans have no way to describe Allah except this. Though, Allah is independent of every existence. 

Be consistent; apply the same premise and conclusion to what I have been saying.

8 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

But ascribing attributes to Allah by Actually meaning them is baseless and illogical. Because everything that literally becomes a medium for Allah is a creation.

This is literally a contradiction, because you said:

8 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Allah's description of itself does not relate Allah to any particular creation. Each and every attribute of Allah by Allah is a definition for us. 

So when Allah says He is the All-Powerful, the actuality of it is baseless and illogical? You talking in circles has led you to run into this problem. Either the attributes of Allah are as they are and we do not know how it is or they are illogical and baseless, as you put it. You could give an alternate answer if it makes sense.

10 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Your saying that 'Allah ascribes himself to him' is correct. But at the same time saying that it is literally 'something' is completely wrong. 

You have not been reading nor trying to understand my thread. The word "thing" is only applicable to that which is within the universe. Anything outside of the universe cannot be a "thing" - so no, Allah does not have something. I have reiterated this for the umpteenth time. Please reread it and fully comprehend before saying that in which I am not doing.

11 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

I am not denying the words of Allah but I am denying your interpretation of the same.

I have no interpretation. I say Allah has these things in which He ascribes to himself, that is unlike anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Although it is the exact opposite, this is very, very ironic.

I think he makes a good point. Earlier in the same thread when he brought forward narrations, the reply was that they were simply accepted without interpretation. When he brings other narrations, you want him to refer to the commentary of the scholars. It's not a very consistent approach.

As for the thread in general, I don't see the correlation between attributing parts to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) (hands and feet) and His attributes of being All Seeing and All Hearing. 

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

I think he makes a good point. Earlier in the same thread when he brought forward narrations, the reply was that they were simply accepted without interpretation. When he brings other narrations, you want him to refer to the commentary of the scholars. It's not a very consistent approach.

How am I supposed to ask for explanations that are not present? There are no explanations for this narration, so how am I supposed to ask for them? Suppose I ask him. What will he do? I will send him on a hunt to Neverland, which is a waste of our time because I know they are not present and he will know. It does not make sense to do so. If you view it as inconsistent, then that is your opinion.

The explanation for narrations that are capable of being explained are more than prevalent. That is why I asked him to bring it forth. I will not ask you for an explanation of how Allah sees or hears because that does not make sense. Why? Because you cannot explain nor do you know how nor does anyone else who has ever existed. There are no explanations for it on planet earth - from our scholars nor yours. It is needless to do so.

I will not ask for an explanation that is not present

3 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

As for the thread in general, I don't see the correlation between attributing parts to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) (hands and feet) and His attributes of being All Seeing and All Hearing. 

It was already established that Allah can see and hear but without the limitations that anything in creation has. Exchange the variables of the other things He has attributed to Himself and you will reach the same conclusion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I think that the Salafi approach can be easily judged by something Zakir Naik said once upon a time.

When asked about anthropomorphic beliefs, he slipped up with this little gem:

"His hands are unlike any in creation! Maybe he has a thousand fingers unlike any in creation!"

It sounds eerily similar to @Nighclaw's "clocks have hands" logic.

@Nightclaw , have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe the sahaba were wrong sometimes? That maybe Aal e Muhammad's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) hadith carry more weight and authenticity in these matters? Try to be unbiased unlike Muhammad ibn Ismail Bukhari, who completely and explicitly rejected Imam Jafar Sadiq's ((عليه السلام)) narrations. It will answer a lot of questions about aqaid, especially Tawhid.

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

"1. His (attributes of) hearing and vision, Praise belongs to Him, are not different from our describing Him as having knowledge. Rather, they are among the branches of His knowledge of what is heard and seen. Due to His knowledge of both of them, He is said to be Hearing, Seeing.

2. Both descriptions are senses-related that are different from the absolute comprehension of knowledge, but they are proper nouns that are relevant to what is beyond His absolute knowledge without a plurality of the self or a requirement for embodiment. This is so because He knows everything/every-one that hears and sees. Being aware of what can be heard is hearing, seeing what can be seen is vision, yet this is different from His absolute knowledge of general things that are not heard and not seen."

(Al-Asfar, Vol. 6, pp. 421-23.)

Sheikh Hasan al-Amili has further explained it as:

Quote

Hearing in the case of man takes place through natural equipment and tools. Voice waves reach the head, and from there to the material brain, then one realizes it.

Yet there must be an emphasis on something interesting here. Is the presence of these material tools a requirement for achieving vision and hearing in a special status such as for animal or man, or is it an intruder into their reality in the general sense? There is no doubt that these equipment and tools, which science explains in its own way, are only particularities relevant to material man who cannot hear or see without them.

If we suppose there is an existent that reaches the same thing which man reaches without these tools, it would be more appropriate for him to be hearing and seeing because the goal anticipated from hearing and seeing is the arrival of the waves and images at the one that realizes them. Had the waves and images been present with an existent without a physical or chemical action, he, too, would be hearing and seeing because the goal is reached in a more perfect and in a higher way.

When researching the levels of His knowledge, it is proven that all worlds are present with Him, Praise belongs to Him. All things, what is heard and seen in particular, are absolutely His own actions and, at the same time, His own knowledge, the most Exalted One that He is. The world, in all its essences and manifestations, is present with Him. Thereupon, His knowledge of what is heard suffices to describe Him as Hearing. Likewise, His knowledge of what is seen suffices to describe Him as Seeing.

Yes, it is true, His knowledge of what is heard or seen is not the same like His knowledge, Praise belongs to Him, of totalities. Thus do you become familiar with the difference between the first statement and the second.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Cool said:

"1. His (attributes of) hearing and vision, Praise belongs to Him, are not different from our describing Him as having knowledge. Rather, they are among the branches of His knowledge of what is heard and seen. Due to His knowledge of both of them, He is said to be Hearing, Seeing.

2. Both descriptions are senses-related that are different from the absolute comprehension of knowledge, but they are proper nouns that are relevant to what is beyond His absolute knowledge without a plurality of the self or a requirement for embodiment. This is so because He knows everything/every-one that hears and sees. Being aware of what can be heard is hearing, seeing what can be seen is vision, yet this is different from His absolute knowledge of general things that are not heard and not seen."

(Al-Asfar, Vol. 6, pp. 421-23.)

Sheikh Hasan al-Amili has further explained it as:

 

EXACTLY!

Now we are in agreement!  The way Sheikh Al-Amili says it, is just spot on!  And of course the rest of what you quoted.  wonderful  thanks for sharing.

 

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

I think that the Salafi approach can be easily judged by something Zakir Naik said once upon a time.

When asked about anthropomorphic beliefs, he slipped up with this little gem:

"His hands are unlike any in creation! Maybe he has a thousand fingers unlike any in creation!"

Zakir Naik is not qualified and he has made a mistake in likening Allah to His creation. First part of his statement is where he should have left it. This is not our approach and I am unsure why it is so hard for people to comprehend, especially when they use the same methodology but reject the conclusion based off of what they accuse the accused of being accused of. It is a circular argument. If you think that, from this thread that has been clarified a multitude of times, that our position is that of Zakir Naik, that shows you do not take the word of any of our actual scholars and want to pin on us something that we reject and continuously reject despite it being attributed to us.

5 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

@Nightclaw , have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe the sahaba were wrong sometimes? That maybe Aal e Muhammad's hadith carry more weight and authenticity in these matters? Try to be unbiased unlike Muhammad ibn Ismail Bukhari, who completely and explicitly rejected Imam Jafar Sadiq's ((عليه السلام)) narrations. It will answer a lot of questions about aqaid, especially Tawhid.

Again, everyone is infallible except Allah, His Messengers and Prophets, and His angels. The companions made mistakes and were humans like everyone else. They had disputes. This is not something anyone disagrees upon. However, even if I were to accept that the family of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) held more weight in this discourse, I could still exchange the variables and come to the exact same conclusion regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I think we can all come to an agreement now.

@Nightclaw, what do you say about what @Cool has quoted?  They don't dismiss the words "hearing" and "seeing" in their particular meaning.  

And @Cool, do you see the issue Nightclaw is raising?  Where exactly he finds an issue?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Actually, the thing is, all words describing Allah are just metaphors. Because words in and of themselves are limited while Allah is not so we cannot say these are literal descriptions of him. They are just as close as our relative understanding can get, therefore metaphors. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, eThErEaL said:

I think we can all come to an agreement now.

@Nightclaw, what do you say about what @Cool has quoted?  They don't dismiss the words "hearing" and "seeing" in their particular meaning.  

And @Cool, do you see the issue Nightclaw is raising?  Where exactly he finds an issue?  

Frankly, I usually ignore his posts because he seems so attached to responding to me and purposely bothering me. That is a bit suspect for a man to be doing that - at least from where I come from, but I could most certainly be wrong.

The problem I have with it is this:

Quote

Being aware of what can be heard is hearing, seeing what can be seen is vision, yet this is different from His absolute knowledge of general things that are not heard and not seen."

What does Allah say in Surah Luqman, chapter 31, verse 34?

وَّمَا تَدۡرِىۡ نَـفۡسٌۢ بِاَىِّ اَرۡضٍ تَمُوۡتُ ؕ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ عَلِيۡمٌ خَبِيۡرٌ
Indeed, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.

One of Allah's attributes and names is "All-Aware, The Aware, The All-Aware". Therefore, All-Seeing/All-Hearing or Seeing/Hearing does not need to be explained via such because Allah has already explained it. They may coincide with one another, but their meanings are apparent and they are not derivatives of one another.

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

Actually, the thing is, all words describing Allah are just metaphors. Because words in and of themselves are limited while Allah is not so we cannot say these are literal descriptions of him. They are just as close as our relative understanding can get, therefore metaphors. 

What if I told you, ALL WORDS, are metaphors because no word can completely (or 100%) refer to anything!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Justsomeone said:

Actually, the thing is, all words describing Allah are just metaphors. Because words in and of themselves are limited while Allah is not so we cannot say these are literal descriptions of him. They are just as close as our relative understanding can get, therefore metaphors. 

metaphor
/ˈmɛtəfə,ˈmɛtəfɔː/
 
noun
 
1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
2. a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else. 
 
Therefore, none of Allah's attributes are literally applicable

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:
metaphor
/ˈmɛtəfə,ˈmɛtəfɔː/
 
noun
 
1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
2. a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else. 
 
Therefore, none of Allah's attributes are literally applicable

 

Exactly!!! Everything every words are just metaphor

Edited by Justsomeone
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...