Allaah is not in time

Wahabi argues: If tensed facts exist, then it necessarily follows that truth or falsehood is changing over time. For example, the tensed statement “It is now 1:27 pm” is only true at 1:27 pm and false at all other times. So if Allah knows this tensed fact, His knowledge must be changing constantly as He knows when certain statements become true and false. However, if Allah is absolutely changeless, that would mean that Allah cannot know tensed facts, hence compromising His attribute of omniscience.

Comment: This pseudo-argument that this wahabi enemy of himself, and of Aļļaah, feels so happy about, originates from likening the Creator to the created. Again and again they come back to their basic belief in the Creator, which is that He is something limited to a place (i.e. a body) with changes in it over time. They thought they could know the reality of Aļļaah’s knowledge by imagination and drawing inferences from their own existence. That is why, for example, they believe that His Will is a series of different wills over time, just like ours. Now even the belief in His perfect Knowledge is subject to their blasphemous attacks. They argue as above, because they cannot imagine perfect knowledge not in time, and think that reality is limited to what they can imagine. It is because they base their arguments upon imagination that they make so many mistakes.

Not being able to imagine something does not mean it cannot be true

It is not enough to say, “I can’t imagine it, so it cannot be true,” or even “I can’t understand it, so it can’t be true.” Even in sciences studying creation, especially physics, the facts and concepts they speak of are so counter intuitive and unfamiliar to our minds and knowledge that they cannot be imagined. That is why they rely on complex mathematics to express their theories instead. So if concepts in physics cannot be conceptualized in the mind, what would be the case for the Creator and His attributes?

For example, they say that if lightning hit the back of a moving train and at the same time its front, then to an outsider they happen simultaneously, but to someone inside the front is hit before the back, because he is moving towards the event. Accordingly, there could be points in time that are separate according to one frame of reference and simultaneous to another. None of these frames are special, and it is as equally true to say that it occurred simultaneously as it is to say that one occurred first.

The belief that Aļļaah does not resemble His creation and how it is applied here for average Muslims

Every aspect of a created thing or being has a beginning, since no aspect of it is eternal. Likewise, everything that has a beginning must be a creation, as it must have been brought into existence. This means that Aļļaah is not something you can imagine, not Him and not His attributes, because your imagination is based on what you are familiar with, namely things that have a beginning, things that last moments of time despite their possible non-existence.

Based on this, the scholars taught people the rule that “whatever you can imagine in your mind, Aļļaah does not resemble it.” Similarly, the cousin of the Prophet Muĥammad, and famous companion, Ibn ˆAbbaas said, “Ponder about everything, but do not ponder about the Self of Aļļaah.” (Fatĥu-l-Baariy 13/383 ) He said this because such dwelling leads one to draw analogies between the Creator and the created, which is blasphemy. It contradicts the belief in Aļļaah’s Oneness, as it involves the heretical belief that Aļļaah has an equal in some aspect. It also contradicts the Quranic “Absolutely nothing resembles Him.”

Accordingly, Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy stated in his creed: “Whoever attributed to Aļļaah an attribute that has a meaning among the meanings that apply to humans has committed blasphemy.” Note the categorical sense of “a meaning,” which tells us that this is true for any meaning that applies to humans, not just some. For example, having a direction, a body, changing or the like. Note also that he states “meaning”, and not “word,” because the important thing is the meaning of the word, not the word itself. Consequently, if someone said “Aļļaah is not a body,” yet believed that Aļļaah is something in a place, then he is not a Muslim. This is because he believes Aļļaah to be attributed with the bodily meaning of occupying place.

Had the Wahhabis held onto this advice from the scholars, they would have rejected the argument they presented above at face value, and remained firmly within the fold of Islam. This is what average Muslims have done, because they know that they cannot imagine Aļļaah or His attributes. There would be no need for complex answers. Instead, the Wahhabis, out of their inclination towards deviance and hatred for the People of the Truth, the Sunnis, they decided to present an argument based on the idea that “what is true of creation must be true of the Creator.”

As for us, the People of the Truth, the Sunnis, we do not liken Aļļaah to His creation, and we do not draw analogies between the Creator and His creation. We firmly believe that Aļļaah is not in the frameworks of time and place, unlike Wahhabis. Consequently, Aļļaah’s Knowledge is not our kind of knowledge, created knowledge, so it is not restricted by time. No creation can fully know the reality of Aļļaah, or His attributes. It is One Knowledge by which He knows everything, unlike our knowledge. As for time, it is something we are stuck passing through, a function of our reality of being under constant change and renewal relative to all other things in space. Aļļaah is neither in a state of change nor renewal, nor is He in a place, so it is nonsensical to draw analogies between ourselves or our knowledge and Aļļaah and His Knowledge.

A look at “Tensed Facts”

What confused the wahabi is that at 1:27 pm he is in one situation of time and place, and at 1:28 pm at another, as estimated by the position of the Sun with respect to the Earth, as is the custom of humans (see footnote[1].) He thought that since he is changing situations with respect to the rest of creation, that Aļļaah also was in a situation at 1:27 pm and then another at 1:28 pm. This is not the case, because Aļļaah is not in a “situation,” as He is not in a place, and is not in time, so the question, “when was He?” does not apply to Him. Missing this point, he thought that knowledge of “tensed facts” has to be in time. This cannot be true, because it is impossible that Aļļaah should be in time, as we shall prove below under the next heading.

The past tense, for example, is an expression referring to the relative situation of created things to each other. So when someone says “12:00 noon already passed,” he means that he already passed through that state relative to space and the change and renewal of other creations. Aļļaah, on the other hand, does not pass through relative situations, since He is not in a place and does not change and does not renew.

As for the present tense, it is true for me, at 1:27, that it is 1:27, but this is only a name for my relative position to other things that change with me at different places. Aļļaah is not in a place and does not change, or renew, so His knowledge is not relative to time. Aļļaah knows everything about all times, without Himself being in time. His knowledge of time is without a beginning, end, change or renewal.

Aļļaah knows all these relations, because He created them. He knows them with one indivisible knowledge, that is neither a whole nor a part, because it is not composed lest it need a composer, and that is beginningless and without end, because it is not brought into existence, lest it need a creator.

In fact, Aļļaah created our knowledge and perception of “tensed facts,” so He knows the “now is 1:27”, for a created being which is a matter of time, space and relative change or renewal for that being. He knows it without His knowledge having a future, past or present, because He created it. He knows it perfectly, because He created every aspect of it, unlike the creations that exist in the uncountable when situations/times that each and every creation pass through during the time they last. In fact, created beings only have the knowledge of the “now” they are in according to the limited perceptions He created in them.

We believe then, that Aļļaah knows “tensed facts” without needing to be in the creation of time. We believe His knowledge is eternal and some information created, just as we believe that Aļļaah’s action of creating is eternal while the created has a beginning.

It is impossible that Aļļaah should be in time

The arguer thinks Aļļaah’s knowledge is something that can be divided over moments of time, so that the concepts of past, present and future applies to it. That cannot be true, however, because Aļļaah’s existence is not a possibility, but an existence that is intrinsically necessary (Waajibu-l-Wujuud). To clarify: something that exists is either intrinsically (i.e. with respect to itself alone) possible in its existence, or intrinsically necessary. There is no third judgment for what exists. The possible in existence accepts non-existence, while the necessary does not. Aļļaah is necessarily existent, but everything else is possible, because what is possible in existence needs something other than itself to exist. If it did not, then it would be intrinsically necessary.

If Aļļaah’s existence was divisible into time periods, then His necessary existence would be in a state of renewal, moment by moment, and what is renewed is not necessary in existence, rather it is only possible in the next moment, i.e. possible after having existed. In other words, renewal of existence does not apply to what is necessary in existence, because it does not need renewal. After all, if it needed renewal, it would not be necessary in existence. Consequently, it does not have moments of existence.

Another way to say this is that if Aļļaah’s existence had been divisible into moments of time, then this would either be with Him having a beginning, which none of us believe, or with Him having no beginning. However, if his existence was divisible into moments of time, without a beginning, then this would mean that an infinite number of moments passed before the world came into existence. An infinite number of moments cannot pass, however, because infinity cannot be completed. Therefore, since an infinite amount of moments cannot pass, it must be true that Aļļaah’s existence is not divisible into moments of time. Accordingly, His knowledge is not either, because it is an eternal, necessary, and thus non-renewing, attribute of Aļļaah. We know He has this attribute, because He specified and brought everything into existence, and since He specified it, He must definitely know it also.

Our knowledge, on the other hand, is a knowledge that is renewed over time, so our knowledge existing at 1:27 differs from our knowledge at 1:28. This is because it is changing, and because it is not necessary in existence, and is therefore divisible into moments of existence.

Beginningless Eternity is not a time

One important point needs to be stressed: Beginningless Eternity is not a past time. Rather, it is an expression by which we mean the existence of Aļļaah with the non-existence of time, place and all creation. The mind wants to know what this precedence of the Creator with respect to His creation is. It is not in time, however, because time is possible in existence, as it is parts (moments) following each other in sequence, and these parts are definitely not eternal. The whole of time then, is dependent on possible parts, and what depends on the possible is surely only possible in existence. Accordingly, the precedence of its Creator cannot be in time, not the least because that would make Him both in time and not in time, which is self-contradictory.

The reality of this, however, is not something the mind can grasp, because anything that enters the mind is in a situation of time. That is why Aļļaah being precedent is known by us in general, but not in detail or comprehensively.

For example, Aļļaah’s precedence of beginninglessness indicates a distinction between His beginninglessness and His endlessness. Beginningless eternity, however, is not something other than Aļļaah (but not Him Himself either.) Moreover, distinction between the two meanings would require a beginning for endlessness, but this is impossible, because any hypothesized beginning would have endlessness before it, as there is no beginning before that. That is, distinction between beginninglessness and endlessness would require the completion of beginninglessness, and that is impossible, because what does not begin cannot finish. This means that our minds are incapable of distinguishing between the concepts of beginninglessness, endlessness and eternity. The reason is that the mind only knows what the mind encompasses. So what is apparent is that Aļļaah is first in that everything that has a beginning depends on Him for their existence. If one tries to understand the reality of that firstness, however, one is completely unable, because the mind cannot encompass what has no limit.

Now we are back to the point that the reality of Aļļaah’s existence is not comprehensible to humans, but at an even deeper level than previously. A further indication of this fact, is that a human being does not conceptualize something except if he perceives in his mind inner feelings, such as pain and pleasure, or input from his senses, such as light, color, shape, sound, voice, taste, smell, temperature and softness. Anything beyond that is difficult for a human to conceptualize. Since Aļļaah’s reality is not like what we perceive through our senses, we are not able to conceptualize Him.

Yet another indication of this incomprehensibility, is that what we know about Him, is either in the sense of negation, like in the sense that He is neither a body, nor a particle, or in terms of meanings that pertain to Him, such as, “He is the one that has all rights to judge.” In fact the most apparent fact we know about Him is: “He is the Creator of the world,” and that therefore He precedes it. Yet we cannot know the reality of this precedence, because it is not one of time.

We are compelled, nevertheless, to speak about this meaning in a figurative way, because language has been established to speak about things that are in time and place, and we do not have special vocabulary to express exactly what we want to say. For this reason, the feeble minded will think that we are saying something other than what we intend, such as when we say “before Aļļaah created the worlds.” We not mean by this to say that Aļļaah was in time.

In this regard, the Imam of Guidance, Abuu Manşuur Al-Maaturiidiyy says: “A fundamental belief principle is that whenever Aļļaah is ascribed an attribute, then this attribute is eternal. One says that He is attributed with knowledge, power and providing eternally without a beginning and without an end. If He is mentioned with regard to His management of creation and orders to it, then time is stated, but this time is for creation, not for Him. For example, it is said, “Aļļaah knows eternally that you are sitting here,” or “(sitting here) at this time.” I.e. Aļļaah knows eternally without a beginning or an end that the person is sitting now…. This is all to prevent people from thinking “How were the created things in eternity? (Ta’wiilaat Ahlu-s-Sunnah 9/473)”

Having said that, what the arguer is describing, is a change of information over time for something in time. Time is something relative to one’s frame of reference, as one relates to all other things in space. Even in modern, generally accepted physics, they teach that the order of things is a matter of one’s reference point in space, and now the trend is that the phenomena of time is related to mass. Strange, but since Aļļaah is not in a place, unlike what Wahhabis believe, this helps us to accept also that time is not something He passes through as He does not have a reference point in space nor does He have mass, because He is not a body. Rather, all places at all times pertain to Him with no difference between them, because He is not in a place and does not change. It is what His Power to create pertains to that is in time and place with respect to each other, not that He Himself is in time.

Accordingly, Aļļaah knows eternally without a beginning or end, or change or renewal, the fact that “the time is 1:28 when the time is 1:28” and He knows the relation of that particular time to all other times. For example, He knows the time at which this time is present in itself, and when it is passed, and when it is future, just as He knows that time’s relation to the beginning of time, and so on. In other words, He knows everything that has to do with that time, both what we know, and what we do not know. So if that time comes, in relation to us, as we pass through time, and He is not, then Aļļaah did not increase His knowledge, because He knows eternally everything that has to do with it.

Further explanation

The ambiguity of what the wahabi said is made clearer if we hypothesized that a prophet asked his Lord, “what time is it now?” and Aļļaah revealed to him that the time is so and so. Is this revelation that was revealed to Him something that happened to Aļļaah’s knowledge, or something that He knows without beginning or end? The answer is without doubt that it is something that Aļļaah knows eternally, because the word “now” is a word of relativity (relative to what passes through time) that Aļļaah (who is not in time) knows by His beginningless and endless knowledge. In other words, it is true that the time, at that particular point in time, is called “now” relative to things that are renewed or that change (i.e. things that could intrinsically, with respect to themselves, in the mind’s eye, be non-existent after existence.) So it is true that it is “now” with respect to that prophet when he asks. Based on this we can rephrase the hypothesized request as follows: “What is the time now, relative to myself?” or, “What is the time now, relative to what passes through time?”

As for the Eternal, the relation of all different places is one to Him, in the sense that no place is closer or further from Him than another, because He is not in place, neither in one place, nor in all places. Likewise, all different times have one relation to Him, in the sense that one time is not nearer to Him than another. This is indicated in the aayah:

هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ [الحديد : 3]

Literally translated: “He is the First and the Last.” Since Aļļaah does not have a beginning, it is true, based on the aayah, that He is First and Last without a beginning, i.e. without a past time, i.e. without being last after having been first. So the meaning of being last is not after being first and being first is not before being last. We consequently know that He is not bound by time, and that all different times have one relation to Him, because created things (i.e. what passes through time) cannot be last unless they have a past time. There is no question, however, that comprehending this is utterly beyond the capability of our minds.

The origin of this doubt-spreading point brought forward by the wahabi is his thinking that Aļļaah passes through time, just as creation does. So he thought that the relation of “now” to Aļļaah is the same as the relation of “now” to us, His creation. This thinking stems from his failure to define time properly, and failure to differentiate between the Creator and the created. If he was really trying to get to the truth, he would have solved this problem by defining time properly. Alternatively, he could have believed Aļļaah’s saying about Himself:

وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ [الأنعام : 101]

Meaning: “He created everything, and He knows everything.” After all, time is definitely other than Aļļaah, so He is its Creator, and He is not passing through it.

---

[1]This is because measuring time is estimating renewal or change by renewal or change in something else. For example, days are measured in terms of changes in the sun or moon’s positions. If a sunrise is followed by a sunset, we say that a day has passed, and if this happens seven times, then we say that a week has passed and so on. Elements and bodies are in a constant state of renewal, because their existence in every new moment is only a possibility; you do not know with absolute certainty whether they will exist in the next moment or not. They are therefore in a continuous state of renewal of existence. That is why the concept of time always applies to them; they cannot break free of it. They are in a state of continuous state of existence after existence instead of non-existence, as long as they exist. This is what it means to pass through time. This is not so with Aļļaah, because Aļļaah’s existence is a must, and it is therefore impossible that He should cease to exist. In other words, His existence is not in time, because His existence is not in a state of renewal. It is also clear then that He is not measurable in terms of time, because time is a measure of relative change or renewal between two things, and Aļļaah is not attributed with change or renewal. He is, after all, the Creator of time, because time is other than Aļļaah, and He said in His Book that He created everything.

Advertisement

Wahabi Contention: “It is intellectual dishonesty/illogical for the Asharis/Maturidis to claim infinite events is possible in the future but not in the past”

Comment: This person has completely missed the point and his attempt to hide behind big words like “intellectual” and “illogical” does not hide his ignorance. The point is that to finish infinity is impossible. If you say infinity has passed, then you are saying it has finished, and this is absurd, because infinity means that it will not finish. When you say that infinite events in the future is possible, you are not saying it will finish, so this is COMPLETELY different. This is not just the saying of Asharis/Maturidis, but of anyone who uses his mind.

I think part of the problem is that people call it “infinite regression” which is totally misleading. It is not regression, it is past infinite progression coming to completion we are saying is impossible, or a completed infinite loop if you will. The reason is that it is self contradictory to say that it has passed/completed/finished.

Books on wisdom written by scholars state, “do not befriend a fool, for he may unknowingly harm you.” These wahabis have reached the ultimate in this regard, as they are unknowingly harming even themselves.

Al-ĥamdu lillaahi ˆalaa niˆmati-l-ˆaql.

The pillar of false shirk accusations

In Muĥammad ibn ˆAbdi-l-Wahhaab’s Kashf al-Shubuhaat, he wrote:

عرفت حينئذٍ التوحيد الذي دعت إليه الرسل، وأبى عن الإقرار به المشركون، وهذا التوحيد هو معنى قولك: لا إله إلا الله، فإن الإله هو الذي يقصد لأجل هذه الأمور، سواء ملكا، أو نبياً، أو وليا، أو شجرة، أو قبراً، أو جنياً لم يريدوا أن الإله هو الخالق الرازق المدبر، فإنهم يعلمون أن ذلك لله وحده كما قدمت لك، وإنما يعنون بالإله ما يعني المشركون في زماننا بلفظ السيد. فأتاهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يدعوهم إلى كلمة التوحيد وهي (لا إله إلا الله) والمراد من هذه الكلمة معناها لا مجرد لفظها
In English his statement is: “…..And this Tawheed (that the messengers called to) is the meaning of “Laa ilaaha illallaah” (There is non ilaah except Allaah alone). For a ilaah (god) – in the view of the Mushriks – is the one who is sought for the sake of these affairs (that is intercession and nearness to Allaah), whether it be an Angel, a Prophet, a tree, a grave or a jinn. They did not intend or mean that a deity (ilaah) is the Creator, Sustainer or Regulator (Mudabbir), for they knew that this is only for Allaah alone – as has preceded – but what they meant by ilaah what the Mushriks of our time intend by the word “sayyid” (master, lord).”

Subĥaana-Aļļaah, this man was very far from being a scholar. It is common knowledge that for a definition to be correct, it needs to be mutually exclusive and cumulatively exhaustive. In the above he attempts to explain “There is no god except Allaah alone,” by the understanding of god he provides, and thereby of worship. This is the pillar of wahabi ideas regarding shirk, and this definition falls apart after about 2 seconds thought.

Note what he says: ” god (ilaah) – in the view of the Mushriks – is the one who is sought for the sake of these affairs (that is intercession and nearness to Allaah).”

This “sought for the sake of” is not mutually exclusive, because Al-Bukħaariyy narrated that the people on the day of judgment will be seeking the Prophet and calling him to intercede for them. Clearly this is not making the Prophet a deity. Another example would be a Muslim seeking to please his mother, because He wants Aļļaah’s acceptance. Does this make his mother his deity?

What this ignorant sħayţaan, Muĥammad ibn ˆAbdu-l-Wahhaab should have said was, “worshiped for the sake of,” which makes a world of difference.

Instead, based on this pathetically badly constructed definition he sold the idea of killing and robbing Muslims and stripping them of their heritage. At the same time he called his followers to worship an imaginary body above the sky, and sold this to them by calling it “Aļļaah.”

So they do not know what worship is exactly, by considering things as worship that are not, and they do not know Aļļaah, and yet are presenting themselves as representatives of the Salaf.

As-Sanuusiyy on the types of shirk

Under the kinds of shirk, As-Sanuusiy (895 AH) mentions:

“There are six types of shirk:

-Shirk of independence, which is to believe that there are two independent gods, like the shirk of the Majuus (the religion of ancient Persia.)

-Shirk of dividing, which is to compose a deity from several deities, like the shirk of the christians.

-Shirk of “making near,” which is to worship other than Aļļaah to (according to those who do it) get closer to Aļļaah’s acceptance, such as the shirk of the early Arabs of the Jaahiliyyah period.

-Shirk of immitation, which is to worship other than Aļļaah because others are doing it, like the later generations of  Arabs in the Jaahiliyyah period.

-Shirk of causes, which is to believe that ordinary causes have effect in reality, like the shirk of the philosophers and naturalists, and those who follow them in this.

-Shirk of purpose, which is to do something (prescribed by Aļļaah) for the sake of other than Aļļaah (i.e. only for the purpose of being rewarded or praised by other than Aļļaah).

(Sħarĥu-l-Muqaddimaat, P. 46)”

In the above, As-Sanuusiyy focuses on the shirk of believing that someone other than Allaah has actual and real power to influence events, or of worship of other than Aļļaah for whatever reason.  Just as it is shirk, however, to believe that someone has power like Aļļaah’s Power, it is shirk to believe that some creation has an attribute like  one of Aļļaah’s attributes other than Power. Another example of shirk is disbelieving in the known judgments of Aļļaah (such as the obligation of the 5 daily prayers, or the prohibition of drinking wine) based on following someone’s opinion, like a priest or a monk. ˆIzzu-d-Diin ˆAbu-s-Salaam mentioned these in his “Maqaaşidu-ş-Şalaat. Arguably, they could be fit under As-Sanuusiyy’s mentioned types.

In the end it comes back to one underlying concept, which is to believe that Aļļaah has a like in some aspect. So those who believe that causes in normal life have actual influence on other events, are believing that Aļļaah has partners in His Power, while those who worship other than Him believe He has partners in godhood, and those who believe that Aļļaah is in a place believe He has partners in His existence, etc.

Q&A: Mushirks on a sinking ship II

As a follow up on Mushirks on a sinking ship; we were asked the following:

Someone asked: _I need the to know the specific(not general) reason for revelation of these verses.  Why is the act of mushriks on a sinking ship specifically mentioned in several verses ?

Comment: Some mention that it was a habit of the Arabs to bring idols with them on their boats, and then if the going got tough, they would do as described. As they say,”there is no atheist on a sinking ship.” There seems to be something about sinking ships that makes it a solid reality call. Anyone who has been on the ocean in bad weather knows what I am speaking of. I guess the best way to describe it is: “A enormous unpredictable deathtrap not under any creature’s apparent control.” Ponder that.

Someone asked:_did the mushriks believe that only Allah can help in distress?  did the mushriks call other gods beside Allah when in distress?

Comment: They knew that Allaah is the true Creator, but the worshiped other than Him still. They believed that this was something that would make Allaah accept them. Note that we are speaking of actual worship here, not merely asking for help or intercession. The latter is based on the acknowledgment that some worshipers are more likely to have their prayers answered than others, and to be blessed in what they do. The former, however, is based on thinking that other than Allaah deserves worship. The difference between them is enormous.

Someone asked:_do you have any book/quote from sunni scholars on the mushrikeen belief of Allah/god?

Comment: Sure, there are many. For example, under the kinds of shirk, As-Sanuusiyy (895 AH) mentions 6 types of shirk. The 2nd and 3rd kinds mentioned are: “(2) Shirk of making close, which is to worship other than Aļļaah to (according to those who do it) get closer to Aļļaah (i.e His acceptance), such as the shirk of the predecessors of the Arabs of the Jaahiliyyah period. (3) Shirk of immitation, which is to worship other than Aļļaah because others are doing it, like the later generations of the Jaahiliyyah.” (Sħarĥu-l-Muqaddimaat, P. 46)

Wahabi says: it is absurd to say that you can’t prove there is a beginning to the world if one says Allah can perform new acts.

Comment: "New acts" are in your view events that happen in Aļļaah Himself, and since they have a beginning they need to be brought into existence according to a specification, which means they need another act to exist, and if that act has a beginning, then that one also needs another act and so on, in an infinite past loop, which cannot be completed, so the "new act" can never exist. Since you have implied that there can be an infinite number of events in the past, and thereby rejected its obvious impossibility, you have no way to prove logically that the world has a beginning. This is because you have stubbornly or ignorantly rejected the impossibility of the completion of infinite past events, so there is no logical way to prove why the world cannot have infinite past evens, i.e. no beginning. The reason for this is that you rejected the impossibility of infinite past events, which is the main premise for the proof for why the world (defined as everything other than Aļļaah) must have a beginning.

Wahabi says: This statement is out of date because today we can prove the beginning of the universe by appealing to the best scientific evidence (e.g. big bang cosmology and the second law of thermodynamics?)

Comment: These are scientific theories only, and theories can be proven wrong. Moreover, they do not prove, as scientists see it, that this world is brought into existence by other than it, nor do they by themselves prove unequivocally that there were no events prior to the proposed Big Bang. To prove that, you must accept that completing an infinity of past events is impossible, as it clearly is. This again means that you must reject the idea that Aļļaah’s Will or Creating happens with a beginning.

Wahabi contention: Ash’arees are merely a less consistent version of the Mu’tazila

wahabi wrote:

In practise, the more I have read, the more I have come to realise that the Ash’arees are merely a less consisten version of the Mu’tazila, esp with regards to Allah’s attributes

This is a pity, tell me, which book did you study under a qualified Asħˆariyy teacher to understand what they say? I suspect the answer is "none."

Your inclination towards the Muˆtazilah is because they, like you, believe that Aļļaah’s Speech is something that He brings into existence according to specification. The only difference is that you called this "emergent speech brought into existence by Aļļaah according to His specification" an "uncreated attribute," whereas the Muˆtazilah called this very same "emergent speech brought into existence by Aļļaah according to His specification" a "created non-attribute." You only differ about what to call it, and that is not a real difference, and thus not what the Salaf were concerned about. The Salaf therefore, would have treated you like they treated the Muˆtazilah. See: Wakiiˆ on those who say “the Qur’aan is created.”

Wahabi wrote: If you are saying the Qur’aan is internal speech….

Wahabi wrote: Hmmm…it’s interesting that Imam Ahmad didn’t say what you’re saying. If you’re saying the Qur’an is Allah’s internal speech, then let’s see the evidence for that- unless you make things up…

I never said ” Aļļaah has “internal speech,” and I fear that anyone who says that has committed kufr, as it suggests that He has an inside and an outside, which means He would be a body. Believing that Aļļaah has a body is blasphemy, as stated by Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy {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.

What we do say is that Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech is not emergent, because anything emergent (having a beginning) must be specified and brought into existence, i.e. created, and we cannot say that an attribute of His is created. This means that Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech is not letters or sounds, because letters and sounds begin to exist, i.e. they are emergent. The word “Qur’aan” refers to Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech, but it also refers to the revealed book with Arabic letters and words, which tells us what Aļļaah said eternally without a beginning or end, i.e. not in time. This is the source of the confusion in this issue. If you really care and want to understand why Sunnis say what they say, read this article carefully along with all of its linked articles: Wahabi contention: Ashˆaris say “This Quran is not Allaah’s Speech”.

Wahabi contention: Aļļaah is above the Arsh, but we do not say He is a body.

Wahabi wrote:

Allah is indeed above his Arsh and separate from His creation- all the evidence points to this.  We don’t say Allah is a body or anything- we just affirm what He and His Messenger (sallallahu aleyhi wasallam) affirmed. This is in opposition to Abu Aristotle

If you mean by "above the ˆArsh" in the sense of greatness of status or the like, then this is true, and all Muslims must believe that. This is the most beautiful meaning one can understand from this statement, and is therefore how it should be understood, because Aļļaah has the most beautiful namings.

However, it is not true that evidence shows that Aļļaah is above the Arsh in the sense of location and direction, because Aļļaah told us that He does not resemble anything, and because it is not the most beautiful meaning of the statement.

If He was in a place, then He would have a limit adjacent to the ˆArsh, and this limit would be of some shape. Such a shape would need to be specified and brought into existence, i.e. created by a creator, just like all other shapes, which means that Aļļaah would be in need of a creator, and that would mean that He is like creation. That is why the Salaf said that Aļļaah is without a how, that is, without a shape. This is actually very obvious. See also what Al-Qurţubiyy said in this regard at this link, and see Wahabi contention: Maalik says Aļļaah has a how.

As for your, "We don’t say Allah is a body or anything…." this misses the point. It is not about the words you use. If you say that Aļļaah is in a place/location over the Arsh, then you are saying that He is a body, because being in a location necessitates borders for the thing in that place. This is because something in a location is either in all locations, or in some location(s). If it is in some location, but not others, it must be confined by a border and have a size and shape limiting it to that location i.e. it must be a body. That is why it makes no sense to say that Aļļaah is in a place, but is not a body. We do not care about the word body, as much as we care about its meaning. Or put in another way, we care about the word body, because of its meaning. For more detail see this article: Bodies have limits, but not Aļļaah .

Wahabi contention: the Ashˆariyys deny explicit texts.

A wahabi wrote: To me, the biggest problem with the Ash’arees is their denial of numerous explicit texts in favour of their corrupt philosophical arguments that few- if any- of them even claim the Salaf believed in.

Comment: An argument is either sound or not. If it is sound, then its conclusions are sound, i.e. true. The argument itself is not really a matter of belief, it is the conclusions that are important. If you can think of new proofs for what is correct belief in Allaah then this is a good thing, even if no one mentioned it before. The Qur’aan encourages us to ponder Allaah’s creation to see proofs for His existence, Power, Will, Knowledge, etc. and to use our minds. This process doesn’t really stop, and should not stop.

The belief of the wahabis is not that of the Salaf, because it is self contradictory, and therefore foolish, see The ‘Simple’ Wahabi Belief II: Contradiction versus narration.

To know the actual origin of wahabi beliefs read this: Ibn Taymiyyah says that Allaah has six limits, and could have settled on a mosquito, and Ibn Taymiyyah says Allaah needs, is divisible, and settles in a place.

The Ashˆariyys do not deny explicit texts in favor of corrupt arguments. If you think that, then you have not understood what they are saying. I advice that you take a look at this article Wahhabi Contention: How are “Ar Rahmanu `alal `arsh istawa” and “Laysaka mithlihi shay`” different?