Wahabi said: “If one were to call the arabic language created as it is the action and implementation of the ilm of Allah,
Comment: I do not know anyone who says this. No sect says that Aļļaah’s knowledge has actions. Very strange, it seems he is making up non-existing opponents in order to appear victorious. What is even stranger is the claim that the Arabic language is not created.
Wahabi said: then one must as well say that Allah’s act of creating Adam is as well created, and this is essentially absurd.”
Comments: How did he get to this conclusion. He is saying: “If the Arabic language is created then the act of creating Adam is also created.” This is pure nonsense, and I do not know quite how to respond. This is a serious case of jumping to conclusions.
Wahabi said: and “God created Adam.
Comment: Agreed.
Wahabi said: the product of the creation is haadith and therefore Adam is created.
Comment: It is a very strange to call “product of creation”, but it points out something important. This is the typical anthtopomorphist line of thinking. They are trying to understand the reality of Aļļaah’s attributes in light of what they see in creation. Therefore, according to them, Aļļaah’s creating is a production process. In the belief of Muslims, however, Aļļaah’s creating is an eternal act that is not in time and does not have a how. He is the creator of all work, processes, production and products. He brought everything emergent into existence. This is what we mean when we say that Aļļaah created everything.
Wahabi said: However, it is not only Adam that is haadith, it was also the action of creating him by God.
Comment: This is not correct. If you say it is haadith, i.e., it has a beginning, then it is brought into existence, and this means it is created.
Wahabi said: That action happened by God’s will who could have decided to create or not create. So, you will have to believe that not only Adam was created, but God’s action of creating Adam was also created and that is simply nonsense.
Comment: But this is what you are saying when you are saying that Aļļaah’s act of creating is emergent. You are saying that both came into existence after non-existence. This means that they were both brought into existence, and to bring into existence is to create.
Wahabi said: If you want to believe that Adam was created in eternity, then again you get an eternal Adam, and worse, the oxymoron pre eternal Iblis.”
Comment: Aļļaah willed eternally for Adam to exist at a certain time, and by His eternal and unchanging power this existence happened. What we call “act of creating” refers to this. It does not mean that the act is an event that takes place when Adam comes into existence. It is an act without a how, unlike our acts.
This must be true, because if Aļļaah’s creating was an event, then it would have come into existence after non-existence. This means it would have been brought into existence, i.e. created. If you say this then you need to say that this bringing into existence was either an event or not. If an event, then this event would also need another event to come into existence and so on. The result of this claim then is that for a created event to occur, you need an infinity of events in the past to first be completed, and this is impossible. The only solution is to say that there must be a bringing into existence that is not an event, not haadith.
Ahmad asked: How would one respond to these contentions? I’m starting to get the feel that people are using different definitions altogether when describing the same thing.
Comment: I hope you see that there is a huge diference. The Wahabis are only changing the words that they use to refer to the same thing. This does not solve the problem, as I have just pointed out. When we say that Adam is created, we mean that he was brought into existence. Then we say that the bringing into existence was not an event, not emergent, not haadith. Why? Because if it was, then it would have to be brought into existence, as it did not exist previously.
What the Wahabis do is to call one bringing into existence “creating” and the other one “bringing about,” or “willing,” or the like. They say, however, that these are all emergent, all events, so this is only a game with words, and it leads to saying that each and every creation needs infinitely many events to precede it to come into being. This is both silly and mathematically impossible. It is impossible because infinity cannot be completed, and if it cannot complete, then the proposed created event cannot exist. Since there are existing created things, however, we know that there must be a bringing into existence that is not emergent, not an event, not having a beginning, not haadith, not having come into existence after non-existence.
All of this above discussion would have been avoided by simply admitting that Aļļaah is eternal and does not change, and that He is not like His creation and cannot be imagined. His actions and attributes are neither created nor emergent, and He cannot be imagined.
The trick they use is to say that not everything emergent is created. “Rather,” they say, “it is brought about.” This is how they try to escape when told, “if you say it is emergent, then you are saying it is created.” This does not change anything in terms of meanings, however, and it is also a lie, because the definition of “create” is to bring into existence, as explained at this link. Not only that, but the Salaf was against saying that Aļļaah’s Speech is created, because it would mean that it is emergent! We have clarified that at this link, among other places.
It is they who make things complicated, and insist on trying to understand Aļļaah in human terms, and this is what made them fall into their snakepit of kufr and bidˆah. It is they who base their belief system on atheist principles, such as the idea that emergent things are not necessarily created.
Sunni Answers 
I’ll definitely follow this discussion more and keep tabs on both sides, and I really want to see if they can come up with a definition of emergent that is distinguished from the Ash’ari definition of “creation”, because I haven’t seen a clearly defined one.
As far as their similarity with atheist principles from a philosophical perspective, I’ve noticed it too. It seems like an approach of mass skepticism altogether, because I’ve seen some very dubious statements from this camp that could lead to COMPLETE doubt of the senses altogether.
I would love to hear responses from you as both arguments continue to develop and the discussions continue.
But I’m not seeing the difference in definitions they’re using right now, which is why I’m so confused with regards to their position and the logical justifications for their position.
wassalaam
Definitions need linguistic justification, and they do not have it. It also does not matter how they define these terms, because the meaning of what they say is as stated above. Emergent means to have a beginning, because it is their translation of ĥaadith, which means to have a beginning, having existence after non-existence.
Expect a bunch of threads on their forums calling attention to this article. This is one of the key points they want to differ on, and since they’re operating on kalami terms when formulating their arguments (they’re using deductive arguments to supposedly prove their aqidah), they’re, in essence, trying to do what the Ash’aris did to the Mu’tazilis, try to refute kalaam using kalaam.
If they can’t ever accept the fact that emergent means created, then they will never understand how the Ash’ari position is derived using proof texts and logic. In fact, I think it’s the use of logic that’s disputed here. One could present a deductive argument showing that infinite regress is impossible, but they still wouldn’t accept it because they divide logic into “proper logic” and Aristotelian (which, according to them, is a foreign influence/innovation in matters of deen) …. whatever that distinction means.
And if they can’t get past that point, then the discussion will never move forward.
Yes. Proper as in “we like this conclusion, so its proper. We do not like that conclusion, however, so it is not proper.” This is their attitude, and the attitude of all deviants. They do not really have any consistent rules or principles, but you find them all over the place, and the argument goes on and on for that reason.
Now it should also be said that logic is logic, and there is nothing aristotlean about it, really. It just received this name because Aristotales was the one that codified it. Logic has existed since the beginning of humankind, and no one can do without it, knowingly or unknowingly. All it does is teach how to construct sound arguments. No one denies that this is useful, unless he is a fool or does not know what logic is.
Salam Alaikum Sheikh
They are the sleaziest people on earth who always seem to look for/find an escape route from a sound argument when cornered, or if in a position of power, silence the opponent. Of course only Allah delivers guidance, but at a human level, how exactly do we deal with this sleaziness and escape artistry?
Lately they call themselves as not wahabis but followers of the madhab of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal rahimahullah to avoid being tagged as “la-madhabiy” and actually have the gall to say people of other madhab’s have grudges against the Hanaabila. They have moved the najd to Iraq when they could not successfully dodge the sahih hadith regarding the najd.
Can you please advice/comment on the narration regarding the last of these people (khawarij, of which najdis and wahabis are a part) fighting alongside the dajjal
Ahmad, that articulation of logic is wrong from the get go. The fact that you failed to grasp that there is an actual difference between reason and established logic, and then logic of the greek logicians is one of the hinderences in the lack of understadning coming from your side. this difference was triumphantly demonstrated in Ibn Taymiyyah’s “Dar at-Ta’arrud al-Aql wan-Naql” and adh-Dhahabee’s “al-Muntaqa min Manhj al-‘Itidaal fi Naqdh Kalaam Ahlu-Rafdh wa ‘Itizaal”
The problem was that a great portion of their logic was acceptable in terms of this world, which is why the innovations of the mutazilah along jurisprudential lines were accepted like the calssifications of certain issues.
However, when we speak of any section on emaan, the entire discusion of mantiq completely changes, and specifically if we are refering to Allah, then the entire format is altered, because we do not view Allah on the basis of how we view the creation, and that is exactly what the salaf warned us from, from the tashbeeh of Allah.
Please tell us about the difference between reasoning and logic, and why logic is not acceptable in iimaan. Does this mean that you think 1=3 in iimaan? That is a dangerous idea. Moreover, how does logic, according to you, view that Aļļaah is like creation? Or are you perhaps unable to give a logical answer to these questions, since you believe logic does not always apply?
the asl of logic is based on aql. Aql is like any other faculty that we use, like hearing, smell, seeing, basically the five sense. And every sense that we have has its limitation, including our logic, hence the saying “false logic” because not everyone’s logic will agree absolutely in every stance including members of your own heresy.
Anyway to get to the meat of the matter, Islam came with
محارات العقول
maharat al ‘uqool (what bewilders\puzzles the mind)
but did NOT come with
محالات العقول
mahalat al ‘uqool (what is impossible in the mind [unfeasible ?? is that also a correct word for it, excuse my bad English])
The belief in Allah having a yad (hand) that is different than that of creation, a hand that we could not imagine because of not seeing something similar to it, for Allah is not like anything, is not impossible.
Yes, it puzzles the mind, it is uncomprehendable because it is something that we have not seen anything like, but it is not impossible, only puzzling and bewildering.
what our madhaab, that of the atharis, is based on is that it is based on mahaaraat al-Uqool. But what your madhaab in essence actually argues for is that Allahs revelation is actually a revelation that has revealed mahalaat al-Uqool, what it impossible for the mind.
The reason why you negate Allah’s actual literal elevation as every Imaam on earth opined to and made takifr of those who denied it under the excuse of the “jihaa” argument is because you believe the texts of Allah has revealed that which is impossible, thus your madhaab implies that Allah revealed kufr as a source of guidance. That is why your madhaab adopted Tafweedh generally and t’awil where necessary because the “thinkers” (read as innovators) of your madhaab based their entire view of Allah on how they viewed worldly concepts. And example given
“It is impossible that Allah rose over the Throne because rising necessitates movement which is muhdaath etc, and it is impossoble that He is above it because that necessitates “jihaa” and jihaa necessitates confinement etc”
That is why your madhaab is based on a I disbelieve in a Lord that does ……” as it is a negative theology whereas out madhaab is an affirmative theology between your extremism and kufr and that of the mujassimah, whose actual origination came from the shia, not the ahlu-sunnah and none of the hanbalis ever opined to the mujasimi views of the shia. Anyways, since our aqida is one of positive theology, then our madhaab is based on “We believe in a Lord that does what He Wills” and we don’t place impossibilities for Allah in extraciricular ideas that Allah nor His messenger ever said.
Let me make it in simpler terminology. When you apply the theory of “rising necessitates movement and going to a direction and therefore confinement” then the only solid based reasoning that you have with you to prove this point is none other han what? created entities. Your judgment, which is the judgment of the philosophers , mutazilah and other than them with slight variations, is based on how you viewed the scientific properties of this creation. So how can someone “logically” transfer this science of empiracy and apply it to Allah and by doing so come out with equations like “Well Allah didnt do that in actuality because that would necessitate ……..”. This is where the logic of your madhaab is absolutely wrong, because opur madhaab cleared Allah from being confined, being manipulated, by the stipulations of this creation or any creation. Yet your madhaab did not make this proper tanzih of Allah, but rather fell into a false tanzih whereby the implications of your tanzih is actually making tanzih from Allah Himself.
Put simply, where is the logic in “applicating the essential empirical observations of this universe, build a system of logic on it, and then bound Allah to this logic”
that, my friend, to the “wahhabis” is not logical, rather it is absurdity, preposterousness, and it is at the very end, kufr.
Secondly, my logic doesn;t land me to the opinion that Allah is like the creation. Im not the one bounding Allah to the univseral laws of His creation and therefore denying what He says based on these created laws and then warped into the minds of pagan philosophers. Infact, Im making tanzih of Allah from your kufr of tashbeeh. I don’t believe Allah revealed impossibilities rather I believe Allah revealed what bewilders the mind and not what is impossible. Thats why I don’t make t’awil. I say what the salaf said.
I don;t make tafweed of meaning because we, like every athari, believe Allah revealed a Qur’an with meaning.
Lastly, Im going to save these entires because I have noticed that you deliberately hid the people of some devastating realities that your would wish for them to see, so I will post my replies on the Multaqa so as to anger your shaykh and all of Iblees’s underlings.
Wahabi says: the asl of logic is based on aql. Aql is like any other faculty that we use, like hearing, smell, seeing, basically the five sense. And every sense that we have has its limitation, including our logic, hence the saying “false logic” because not everyone’s logic will agree absolutely in every stance including members of your own heresy.
Comment: False logic is false reasoning. It cannot be both true and false, so it is a matter of reasoning correctly in order to expose the truth. What people disagree on sometimes are the premises in a logical argument, but no one that accepts that the truth can be known says that a logically correct argument could be false. If the premises hold then the conclusion must also hold. So if I said, (1) All men are mortal.
(2) Zayd is a man.
Therefore:
(3) Zayd is mortal.
In this case it is not possible that both (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false, so this argument is logically valid. By this I mean deductive logic, which is what is relevant to the matter at hand.
Wahabi said: Anyway to get to the meat of the matter, Islam came with
محارات العقول
maharat al ‘uqool (what bewilders\puzzles the mind)
but did NOT come with
محالات العقول
mahalat al ‘uqool (what is impossible in the mind [unfeasible ?? is that also a correct word for it, excuse my bad English])
Comment: Your English is fine, and what you said is correct, except that I would not say “Islam came with maharat al ‘uqool,” in such an absolute way, because what puzzles the mind of the revealed message is very little, it only a few hadiiths and aayahs that are mutashaabihaat, i.e. ambiguous in meaning in the sense that we do not know for certain what the mean.
Wahabi said: The belief in Allah having a yad (hand) that is different than that of creation, a hand that we could not imagine because of not seeing something similar to it, for Allah is not like anything, is not impossible.
Yes, it puzzles the mind, it is uncomprehendable because it is something that we have not seen anything like, but it is not impossible, only puzzling and bewildering.
Comment: What you said here is not a problem except your translating the word “yad” as “hand.” Although the utterance “yad” can be translated as “hand” in some contexts, this is not always true. This translation then involves some level of interpretation, and since you do not know what it means, you should not do that. You should rather leave the utterance as is, and just say “yad.”
Wahabi said: what our madhaab, that of the atharis, is based on is that it is based on mahaaraat al-Uqool. But what your madhaab in essence actually argues for is that Allahs revelation is actually a revelation that has revealed mahalaat al-Uqool, what it impossible for the mind.
Comment: Now that is a claim that needs substantiation. Unfortunately, he lost the ability to express his thought after this point, so I will just briefly dissect it:
Wahabi said: The reason why you negate Allah’s actual literal elevation
Comment: Note that he says now “literal”. Literal means the commonly understood meaning of elevation, which is a physical elevation, being positioned in a place higher than another. If that is not what he means he needs to clarify what he means.
Wahabi said: as every Imaam on earth opined to and made takifr of those who denied it
Comment: If he means that the imams made takfiir for those who deny that Allaah is something that is physically positioned, then the opposite is the truth: The Sunni belief in this matter, is as Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy stated {in brackets}: {This is a detailed remembrance of the belief of the People of the Sunnah and following {the Jamaaˆah}. Later he stated, as part of this remembrance,{Aļļaah is above} the status of {having limits, extremes, corners, limbs or instruments.} {The six directions} up, down, front, back, left and right {do not contain Him} because that would make Him {like all created things}. He also agreed that believing that anything else is an insult to Islam, for he said in the same remembrance: {Whoever attributed to Aļļaah an attribute that has a meaning among the meanings that apply to humans has committed blasphemy.} Note that he said this after having already pointed out that the six directions apply to all created things, which includes humans. In other words, the Sunni belief is that attributing a limit to Aļļaah makes one a non-Muslim.
Wahabi said: under the excuse of the “jihaa” argument is because you believe the texts of Allah has revealed that which is impossible, thus your madhaab implies that Allah revealed kufr as a source of guidance.
Comment: Empty rhetoric and baseless claims. We do not believe Allaah revealed something impossible. The burden of proof is on you. The connection between impossiblity and the “jihah argument” is not presented.
Wahabi said: That is why your madhaab adopted Tafweedh generally and t’awil where necessary because the “thinkers” (read as innovators) of your madhaab based their entire view of Allah on how they viewed worldly concepts. And example given “It is impossible that Allah rose over the Throne because rising necessitates movement which is muhdaath etc, and it is impossoble that He is above it because that necessitates “jihaa” and jihaa necessitates confinement etc”
Comment: What do you mean by “worldly concepts?” Do you mean by rising something other than transferring from one lower place to another higher place? If not, then the rising you are speaking of is identical in meaning to that of created beings. It is only this rising we claim involves confinement, because the definition we mentioned is moving from one lower place to another higher place and this means, by definition, confinement to the first place and then to the other.
Wahabi claims: That is why your madhaab is based on a I disbelieve in a Lord that does ……” as it is a negative theology whereas out madhaab is an affirmative theology between your extremism and kufr and that of the mujassimah, whose actual origination came from the shia, not the ahlu-sunnah and none of the hanbalis ever opined to the mujasimi views of the shia. Anyways, since our aqida is one of positive theology, then our madhaab is based on “We believe in a Lord that does what He Wills” and we don’t place impossibilities for Allah in extraciricular ideas that Allah nor His messenger ever said.
Comment: this was many new claims without any proof. There was also a couple of new terms, “negative theology” and “positive theology.” The meaning of “we don’t place impossibilities for Allah in extraciricular ideas,” is ambiguous and there is not supporting evidence either.
Wahabi says: Let me make it in simpler terminology. When you apply the theory of “rising necessitates movement and going to a direction and therefore confinement” then the only solid based reasoning that you have with you to prove this point is none other han what? created entities.
Comment: Not really, it is rather the definition of the word we are concerned about, namely “moving from a lower point to a higher point.” If you mean something other than that, or simply deny that this is the meaning, then perhaps we would not disagree after all.
Wahabi says: Your judgment, which is the judgment of the philosophers , mutazilah and other than them with slight variations,
Comment: Mentioning the philosophers and mutazilah is irrelevant, because not everything they say is wrong.
Wahabi says: [your view on ‘rising’] is based on how you viewed the scientific properties of this creation.
Comment: Again, no, it is based on the definition of “literally rising,” of moving from one lower place to a higher place. It is not about “scientific properties,” it is about meanings of words.
Wahabi sayid: So how can someone “logically” transfer this science of empiracy and apply it to Allah and by doing so come out with equations like “Well Allah didnt do that in actuality because that would necessitate ……..”.
Comment: There is nothing empirical about the claim that moving from one place to another involves confinement. It is known by the definition. No Sunni claims that one can know the truth with certainty tthrough empiricism, because it is based on inductive logic, and inductive logic is always fallacious (from the viewpoint of deductive logic.) The reason being that it draws conclusions about the unobserved whole based on a sample of the whole. That is why scientific theories always carry an element of uncertainty.
Wahabi said: This is where the logic of your madhaab is absolutely wrong, because opur madhaab cleared Allah from being confined, being manipulated, by the stipulations of this creation or any creation.
Comment: What does that mean? Are you saying that clearing Allaah of being confined is wrong? What does clearing Allaah of confinement have to do with creation?
Wahabi says: Yet your madhaab did not make this proper tanzih of Allah, but rather fell into a false tanzih whereby the implications of your tanzih is actually making tanzih from Allah Himself.
Comment: another claim without proof or clarification. What does he mean by “tanziih from Allaah,” and how was it done?
Wahabis says: Put simply, where is the logic in “applicating the essential empirical observations of this universe, build a system of logic on it, and then bound Allah to this logic”
Comment: We do not do this, as explained above.
Wahabis says: that, my friend, to the “wahhabis” is not logical, rather it is absurdity, preposterousness, and it is at the very end, kufr.
Comment: Empty rhetoric – since we do not do this, and he has not shown that we do.
Wahabis says: Secondly, my logic doesn;t land me to the opinion that Allah is like the creation. Im not the one bounding Allah to the univseral laws of His creation and therefore denying what He says based on these created laws and then warped into the minds of pagan philosophers.
Comment: Empty rhetoric.
Wahabis says: Infact, Im making tanzih of Allah from your kufr of tashbeeh. I don’t believe Allah revealed impossibilities rather I believe Allah revealed what bewilders the mind and not what is impossible. Thats why I don’t make t’awil. I say what the salaf said.
Comment: Empty rhetoric. There is no argument here, just claims.
Wahabi says: I don;t make tafweed of meaning because we, like every athari, believe Allah revealed a Qur’an with meaning.
Comment: Empty rhetoric, we also believe that the Qur’aan has a meaning.
Wahabis says: Lastly, Im going to save these entires because I have noticed that you deliberately hid the people of some devastating realities that your would wish for them to see, so I will post my replies on the Multaqa so as to anger your shaykh and all of Iblees’s underlings.
Comment: Actually the reason for not posting them is that they are all like the above or worse. Empty rhetoric without any structured arguments, let alone a well structured one. We want our website to have quality debates if any. If you can learn how to reason properly, we will post them for sure, and answer them. The beginning of your post looked a little bit like an argument, so we let this one through. The rest of it is very badly written, like your other “responses” and answering such verbal diarrhea is like trying to correct the essay of a 14 year old c – average high school student. It is all work and theres is little hope of any benefit.
abu hilal
jazakallahu khair for you points as they are well mannered and somewhat coherent to reason. when I find time I will inshallah answer these points stressing on that which needs to be clarified if soemwhat true and to correct what is mistaken bi ithnillah
Beware that you should take heed of the comments that were made to you. Empty rhetoric and unsupported claims, including citation-less quotes will be deleted. We do not have time for arguments for arguments’ sake. This is not a forum, but serious discussion is not a problem. You must also define your terms, such as what you mean by “time.”
Asalam u Alaikum,
What did you mean by, ” Aļļaah willed eternally for Adam to exist at a certain time..?” Didn’t you say that Allah(swt) is not bound by time?
waˆalaykumussalaam,
Eternally, i.e. without beginning or an end.
AAA
I know what that means :D
But what I was meaning to address was when you said “a certain time”. Wasn’t Adam not in existance before this “certain time”? How can Allah(swt) will Adam to exist at a “certain time” if time does not apply to Him or that He is not in time? Otherwise it doesn’t make sense to me to say that He willed eternally for Adam to exist at a certain time?
The “certain time” refers to Adam’s time, not the Will of Allaah. The Will of Allaah is not in time. It cannot be, otherwise it would itself need to be created. Our imaginations do not apply to this, that is why we say that Allaah’s attributes are “without a how.”
The rule that you must always apply, is that Allaah’s attributes cannot be imagined. Before getting into this line of thought, you should have stopped by remembering that. We know two things, first, Adam needs a creator, because he has a beginning, and anything with a beginning needs a creator. Second, the act of creating Adam cannot have a beginning, because if it did, it would need a creator, just like Adam, and then that creating would need another creating, and that one another creating, etc. in an infinite loop. An infinite look cannot be completed, so there must be an act of creating that does not have a beginning.
So we know that Allaah created Adam, and that His act of creating does not have a beginning. We cannot conceive the reality of this creating, because our minds cannot conceive what has neither beginning, nor end, nor modality. See the article Allaah is not in Time for more details.
AAA