Comments on: Ibn Taymiyyah says Aļļaah needs, is divisible, settles in a place, has 6 limits, has a size, and must be creating (though He can choose what to create – but not whether to create or not.)

By: Shaykh Abu Adam

Shaykh Abu Adam — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:39:34 +0000

So you accused me of lying about Ibn Tayimiyyah’s statements without having read the statements. You are a scoundrel and a liar like him.

By: Abraham

Abraham — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:32:17 +0000

write down here please the authentic Arabic text and I will respond accordingly

By: Shaykh Abu Adam

Shaykh Abu Adam — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 19:10:17 +0000

This is an empty claim and quite puzzling. I have quoted Ibn Taymiyyah in English and posted the Arabic wording. It is actually quite clear, even if some of them need a little after thought. The quotes are hand picked for being quite unequivocal. You fail to even point out a single mistake in translation or interpretation. Take, for example, Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement:

“We have already clarified what possibilities (in terms of what they mean) are associated with the words composition, settling in place, being other (having different sides or parts), and need, and that the meaning meant by this is something all existing things must be attributed with, whether necessary in existence (he means Aļļaah) or possible in existence (creation.) Verily, to say that this is impossible (for Aļļaah to be attributed with,) is pure sophistry.” (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/33)

This statement unequivocally states that Allaah must be attributed with composition, settling in place, etc. This has nothing to do with what I believe. It is Ibn Tayimiyyah who says this. Where is the fabrication?

By: Abraham

Abraham — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:41:46 +0000

all sinks into fabricated allegations and lies against Ibn-Taymiyah and me.

ALL your arguments are based up the notion of “according to” and what comes after this expression is simply a formulation of YOUR OWN words!!!

The texts above show how many times you use this notion and what exactly it is projecting .. it is a REFLECTION of your own theology into your own written paragraphs.

By: Shaykh Abu Adam

Shaykh Abu Adam — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:58:58 +0000

And it seems you yourself has drawn other conclusions. You were now faced with one aayah which clearly states that Allaah does not need the worlds. Then you saw other aayahs which tell us that punishment must happen. So you decided that the first aayah is not absolute in meaning, but has the exception that, according to you, Allaah needs the world in order to punish. This is your way of dealing with the situation. Muslims on the other hand will hold on to the absolute meaning of Allaah not needing the world, and that the aayah's you mention do not modify this absolute meaning. They will hold on to this without delving, because they understand that it cannot be said that Allaah has needs or obligations. By nature they will reject it, even if they cannot give a full and detailed explanation for why there is no contradiction between saying that the Creator has no needs, and that there will be punishment for some in the Hereafter. This is the simple and sound way of dealing with it. However, anthropomorphists like you will think they have found a goldmine for their kufr and insist that there is a contradiction to promote their ideas. When their sick hearts permit them to say such ugly things, then there is no argument that will help most of the time. However, I am going to tell you why there is no contradiction in the hope that some people who are confused may benefit. First of all, Jezreel is changing the topic from what Ibn Taymiyyah is talking about because he does not understand these issues. Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that Allaah must create the world in order to be perfect. He is saying that the world is eternally with Allaah and that Allaah MUST create it and does not have a choice at all. This is a complete contradiction of the statement that Allaah does not need the worlds, because it implies without question that Allaah cannot be perfect without creating it. This is one of the plain kufr beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah. The argument presented by the Muˆtazilah, who's position jezreel has taken (probably without knowing that) is a different issue. It is the deviant claim that Allaah is obligated to fulfill His threats and promises. The truth about this matter is that what Allaah has told us will happen MUST happen, but without this being an obligation for Him. This issue has been dealt with extensively on this site and articles related to this issue can be found under the heading "On the deviant belief that it is possible that Aļļaah could lie" in the table of contents. The key to this issue is to understand that Allaah is not like His creation, so He is not in time and does not change from state to state. Time is part of creation, because it is a measure of sequential changes, i.e. beginnings after beginnings, and Allaah has no beginning in any sense, because He is not created. In other words, He does not pass from a stage of saying something, and then doing something, or any other change. So there is not stage of promising followed by a stage of fulfilling. His Speech is without any beginning or end, i.e. without starting or stopping or change, as is true of all of His attributes. Accordingly, there is no stage of obligation. This issue also has a lot of previous articles that can be found under the heading "Related to the deviant belief that Allah changes, and is attributed with events (any thing that has a beginning) and being in time" in the table of contents.

By: Abraham

Abraham — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 06:54:57 +0000

THIS IS A CONCLUSION THAT YOU HAVE DRAWN YOURSELF FROM THE TEXT!!!!

the word “compelling” even exist in Quran:

1- وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةٌ سَبَقَتْ مِن رَّبِّكَ لَكَانَ لِزَامًا وَأَجَلٌ مُّسَمًّى
2- قُلْ مَا يَعْبَأُ بِكُمْ رَبِّي لَوْلَا دُعَاؤُكُمْ ۖ فَقَدْ كَذَّبْتُمْ فَسَوْفَ يَكُونُ لِزَامًا

so the punishment HAS TO BE created.

Don’t explain the text the way it suits you !!!! you should have stopped after writing “Meaning: Verily Aļļaah has absolutely no need for the worlds.”

By: Shaykh Abu Adam

Shaykh Abu Adam — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:08:49 +0000

Aļļaah said:

فَإِنَّ ٱلله غَنِيٌّ عَنِ ٱلْعَٰلَمِينَ
Meaning: Verily Aļļaah has absolutely no need for the worlds. (Aal Imraan, 97)

This means that Allaah is not compelled to create anything and has no needs.

By: Abraham

Abraham — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:31:03 +0000

“it is not a necessity for Aļļaah to act, i.e create, anything at all. This is because Aļļaah is perfect, and therefore does not need to do anything.”

1- “not a necessity for Aļļaah”
2- ” does not need to do anything”

who said this ????
does this even exist in Quran or Hadiths ???

these are the author’s own text !!!!

By: Shaykh Abu Adam

Shaykh Abu Adam — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 09:38:57 +0000

No, because the context tells us those two meant such sitting is possible, and not absurd, and they were arguing for it. The Aayah, however, has a context which tells us that the “if” here is not meant to imply that it is possible that Allaah could have a child. Rather, it is meant in the sense of “if you were right, then your claim would still be wrong, because so and so.”

By: tru_quran

tru_quran — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:25:57 +0000

As salamu ‘alaykum Shaykh,

I was looking for the ‘mosquito’ thread but couldn’t find it.

My question

Is it possible that Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Darimi could have made the statement about the mosquito based from this ayah from the Qur’an..

“If Allah had willed to take a son, He would have chosen whatever He pleased from what He has created. Glory be to Him ! He is God, the One, the Irresistible.” [ 39:4 ] ?

jazak’Allaahu khairan