Wahhabi Contention: Asharis contradict themselves by affirming some attributes and not affirming other attributes

Wahhabi Contention: The Asharis and Maturidis contradict themselves. They affirm for Allah Life, Power, Will, Knowledge, Speech, Hearing and Sight, while making Ta’wil of Istiwa’, Nuzul, Maji’, Ityan, Wajh, Yad, Saq, Qadam, Janb, ‘Ain, and relocation in (various) levels. The basic rule with regards to the attributes is one, so if you affirm the seven attributes, what prevents you from affirming the rest? What is the difference? This is nothing less than a contradiction.

Sunni Response: There is no contradiction. Asharis do not deny any attribute that Allah has affirmed in the Quran, or that are established by flawless hadiths. What they do is believe that no attribute of Allah is like that of creation, because “He does not resemble anything.” This means that “yad” does not mean a physical hand, but something else in agreement with the Arabic language, and that nuzuul does not mean physical descent, but something else in agreement with the Arabic language. This is because Allah is not like creation, and limbs, location and movement are attributes of created things. All of Allah’s attributes are understood in this way in the Ashari school, including Life, Power, Will, Knowledge, Speech, Hearing and Sight, so there is no contradiction. The rule is to affirm attributes established unequivocally, and to deny that they have any resemblance to creation. To be clear: this is not denial of the attributes, but of their resemblance to creation.

The people who contradict themselves are those who say, for example, that “nuzuul” involves movement, because this contradicts with “He does not resemble anything.” Movement is a created attribute, because it has a beginning and needs specification. That is, it did not exist, and then it existed, so it needs a creator. Moreover, it needs a specification of “from where to where,” and “at what speed.” Clearly then, Allah is not attributed with movement, because his attributes are not created.

Moreover, to believe that Allah moves to the sky of this world, is to believe that Allah becomes inside the creation, because this is below the seven skies. This is blasphemy by consensus of all Muslims.

Finally, it has been established in a hadith narrated by Ibn Hibbaan and authenticated by Al-Asqalani (Fath-al-Baari, V.13/P.411) that the Prophet said:

“مَا السَّمَاوَات السَّبْع مَعَ الْكُرْسِيّ إِلاّ كَحَلْقَةٍ مُلْقَاة بِأَرْضٍ فَلاة وَفَضْل الْعَرْش عَلَى الْكُرْسِيّ كَفَضْلِ الْفَلاة عَلَى الْحَلْقَة””

The Seven Skies compared to the Kursiy is like a ring thrown on the ground in a desert, and the size of the Arsh compared to the Kursiy is like the size of the desert compared to the ring.”

Accordingly, if someone believes Allah descends physically, then he is saying that Allah is like a ring in the desert compared to the Kursiy, or that He crashes the skies on every descent, or that He is like a cloud passing through them. Can there be any doubt that all of this is blasphemy?

Author: Shaykh Abu Adam al Naruiji

16 Responses to Wahhabi Contention: Asharis contradict themselves by affirming some attributes and not affirming other attributes

  1. abdulHAQ says:

    I heard an interesting discussion between a Suni & Salafi brother in Riaydh about the Nuzool of Allah (swt). Riyadh is approx. 1000 Km away from Makkah Al-Mukarramah and the prayer timings have 20 minutes difference. The Salafi brother was insisting that Allah (swt) descend to the lower heavens (skies) at the time of Tahajjud and till the time of Fajr. He was told about the problem with this explanation, that if it was tahajjud in Riyadh and Allah (swt) descended at Riyadh then when the time of Fajr begins He (swt) would move to Makkah and remained there till the time of fajr and then kept on moving from one place to place.

  2. Exactly, there would be no time to go back up according to this silly interpretation of nuzul.

    • upon-sunnah says:

      lol, do you underestimate the qudra of Allah, do you think its impossible for Allah to do that?, yes logically its impossible, but for Allah it is possible, do you believe that Allah will judge all of us at the same? if yes is that logically possible?

      • To do what? What on earth do you mean by your “logically impossible” and what does “judge us all the same” have to do with nuzuul? You are not making any sense. For the record, what I believe is that it is impossible for the creator to be a creation, unlike atheists, and accordingly it is impossible that He should be like creation, or changed by anything. I am not concerned about words per se, but about their meaning, and anything that changes, or has a beginning, needs other than itself to exist, because it was previously non-existent. This is the meaning of being created, because all changes and all beginnings are by His Will and Power. If you say that Allaah moves from one place to another, or shrinks to fit into the lower skies, then you are saying that He is subject to be moved and shaped by Allaah’s power and will, which would mean that He is no different from creation, i.e. subject to the power of a creator, and that His attribute of nuzuul would be a created attribute. What you are doing is describe a creation, and then call it Allaah. In reality you are therefore an atheist, because you do not believe in the existence of anything other than things that have a beginning and can change. Calling part of it Allaah does not change the actual meaning of what you believe.

  3. Irfan says:

    what exacltly is the athromorphist beliefs of pseudo salafies?
    i find that they are playing with words. do that exactly believe that Allah has hands ,direction,displacement etc . are they divided on this issue?? is there any cleaning up of their old beliefs on this issue being done by them??

    what if a salafi says i believe Allah has hands which is an attribute like seeing and not having dimensions,size,etc etc

  4. I think there is a lot of confusion among them, especially among the uninitiated. Their leaders sometimes hide their real beliefs to the followers, as they are afraid of being exposed. Very few of their average followers know, for example, that Ibn Taymiyyah believed that the world is eternal, and that the Hellfire will end. In one forum at one point I stressed that what we the Sunnis are saying is that Aļļaah’s attributes are not physical, upon which one of them posted his consent and then asked Yasir Qadi if he wasn’t right. The latter did not comment, and that speaks volumes. He knew he would put off a lot of people by saying that they are physical.

  5. el-Turki says:

    it may be that they have in mind an physical attribute, but what they write and say is basically the same that taymiyya said. nameley that they do not litteraly affirm or deny it. imam al kawthari refuted this thought beautifully.

  6. Ibn Abu Talib says:

    Do Asharais regard Allah’s hands as being purely metaphorical? Or do they, like some Salafis, mantain that His Hands are literal but not akin to our hands?

    Also, I would like to know how Asharis explain Allah’s anger. If Allah literally becomes angry, doesn’t that mean he went from a state of non-anger to anger which, in turn, would implicate Him of change?

  7. “Yad”, or what you have translated as “hand,” (a translation I disagree with) is sometimes interpreted as power. Some, like al-Bayhaqiyy, said that the word “yad” refers to an attribute other than Power, but we do not know what it means, though it is definitely not a hand.

    As for għađab, which you have translated as anger (another translation I disagree with), some keep silent regarding its meaning, but hold that it is not change or an emotion. Others, like Al-Baaqillaaniyy, say it refers to Aļļaah willing punishment for someone, and is not change or emotion.

  8. Ibn Abu Talib says:

    Thanks. What you have said made sense. Don’t you think the verse that says all will perish except Allah’s face on the Final Day poses a problem to those who take every verse of the Quran literally?

    Also, what exactly is the problem of affirming Allah’s hand while maintaining that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to His creation?

  9. To deny resemblance and avoid interpretation is the way of most of the salaf. However, today this can be misleading. For this reason I prefer providing some interpretation. I am afraid that if you said “hand unlike that of creation” some will still think of a really different kind of limb! It is thus much safer to say that it could mean “power” when teaching.

  10. Ibn Abu Talib says:

    So that my earlier question is not misconstrued, let me phrase it in another manner. Is it wrong for a Muslim to not interpret these verses as they fall into the realm of the Mutashabihat?

  11. One must interpret to the extent of believing that they are not literally meant, and that Aļļaah’s attributes do not have any likeness to physical attributes or change, or being imaginable.

  12. Attari says:

    Barak Allahu feek sheikh.

    Obviously we do not accept literal translations and do not liken Allah subhanahu wa ta’aala to His creation. How would we translate the words “wa arfa3a makaanak” from towards the ending of the 8th Hizb of the Dalail ul Khayraat. The immediately preceding invocation is “Subhaanaka Rabbi maa a3zdhama shaanak” and the invocation immediately following the words in question is “Anta Rabbiy yaa mutaQaddisan fi jabarootih”

    Can you please comment on Imam Al-Jazuli’s (raHimahu(A)llah) intended meaning if possible, because…

    I do realise, in the same 8th Hizb, a couple of invocations earlier on from the ones mentioned above, the Imam does say, ” al-ladhi laa yuHeeTu bihi makaan; wa laa yashtamilu 3alaihi zamaan”

    Salam Alaikum

  13. Abdullah says:


    there are some pretty serious accusations and quotes on this link;


    Maybe you could answer those? Honestly i believe it would be best if you, or someone really knowledgeable like you dear shaykh could register there and debate with them directly. This site is causing some serious confusing to sunnis on the internet, they have refutations on most topics that are “problematic” between wahabis and sunnis. It is very difficult to refute it, and even more difficult to understand how they can have such strong arguments…

  14. I did not see any strong arguments there. All what they say falls apart by the fact that they have not defined what they mean by “created.” How can a rational person say that Arabic words and letters are not created? See also today’s post:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: