Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

Society Religion & Philosophy
81

Come on yaar, I don't wanna fight or disagree or agree with you, As far as I am concerned, you are a 'KALIMA GO' and my Muslim brother so lets leave it at that. Allah bless...

••••••For Jiia K London•••••
82

Which questions? Besides I don't want you to agree with me, do what you think is right but yeah this is the faith of majority.

83

Re: Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

@ ALLAHKABANDA

Quote:
 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by **secular** 					[http://www.paklinks.com/gs/images/buttons/viewpost.gif](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/311393-do-salafis-take-literal-meaning-quran-post6353169.html#post6353169) 				
			*Quran talks about the "people of the house" and the covenant with Ibrahim (AS) for divinely ordained leadership in his family.*

so you’re a raafidha, not surprised. Not only you know nothing about what we believe, you also accuse people without any evidence. Is this what your “Imams” have taught you?

how does this make someone raafidha?

You label and accuse everyone without supporting facts, that will make you a Khawarij

84

Assalamu'alaikum brother AllahkaBanda

I'm not sure it is accurate to call this discussion attacks. People are merely defending their position.

I've been pondering over the explanation that you gave regarding taking the dhahir meaning as opposed to the batin meaning. Anything that takes the dhahir meaning is not ta'weel and anything taking the batin meaning is ta'weel.

Should this be the case I believe sometimes taking such as the Hand of Allah (SWT) in its dhahir meaning would not be in the maadi sense but nonetheless because there is a premise in the Athari belief that 'The Hand' is an Attribute of Allah (SWT) they will resort to a maadi sense even when the dhahir is majazi. In which case sometimes taking the maadi meaning is ta'weel and it cannot be argued out that 'The Hand' is not an Attribute therefore ta'weel is allowed.

The premise is an important issue to me. Attributes are also important. Notice how Al-Rahman is a definition and does not come in the form 'The (x) of Allah'.
where 'x' is a given Attribute.

A definition is semantics is when you say: x is y ... which should also means y is x. So in terms of premise we can only accept The Hand of Allah (SWT) as an Attribute when it comes in the form of a definition.

i.e. The Hand of Allah(SWT) ***is* a Hand.**

When you can present this definition from the Qur'an or Sunnah then we can move further, but until then it must be a matter of ta'weel because it is not dhahir at all that Allah(SWT) must have a Hand.

85


anyone with few brain cells can realize that you only accused and attacked me and provided no evidence in your support and by your own statement, you're a khawarij. My advice to you is that keep your raafidha gult in the other thread and don't hijack this thread. You don't know abc of Islamic creed, so first learn the basics and some adab as well. Once you've done this, pm me and we'll discuss it, insha'Allah. Till then, enjoy yourself!


I don't ask you to agree with me for sake of agreeing with me because I get nothing whether you agree with me or not. I'm simply reminding you of not rejecting the clear ayaat and saheeh ahadeeth. As far concerning the majority argument, it is a day dream of Ash'aris and will remain so, insha'Allah Ta'ala, till the day of judgement. Even your own scholars don't agree with you, let alone the Salaf.

My questions are three:

1) Make me understand your belief regarding "where is Allah?", this is what the Ash'aris belief:
Allah is not within His creation, nor outside of His creation, neither He is bounded by any direction but He is everywhere
btw, ask Shaykh Nuh keller and GF Haddad to throw the heretic attack at Imam adh-Dahabi (rahimahullah) as he spoke the truth and said:
As for the third saying which came about finally, then it said that "Allah is not in a place, neither outside of it, nor above His Throne, neither connected to the creation nor disconnected from it, His Holy Essence is neither spatially confined nor distinct from His creation, neither is He in any directions nor outside of directions, neither this nor that, neither this nor that..."

This is something which neither makes sense nor can be understood! Not to mention the opposition to the ayaat and narrations that is found within this saying. So flee with your deen and beware of the views of the Mutakallimeen (speculative-theological rhetoricians) [al-'Uluww, p.268]
So adh-Dahabi was another "wahabi mujasmi heretic"!

2) Can you quote ONE SINGLE satement from the Salaf affirming your belief?

3) Why do you reject the athar of the Salaf I posted and your own scholars's statements?

86

Wa’alaykum As-Salam brother

I hope you’re doing well insha’Allah

I don’t know how they’re defending when they haven’t provided one shred of evidence in their support and only throwing accusations.

brother, I think I clarified this before and btw you’re kind of introducing a straw man argument here

The dhahir meaning of an ayah can be majazi (metaphorical) or haqiqi (literal). If the dhahir meaning is majazi then we understand the ayah accordingly. If the dhahir meaning is literal, we understand the ayah that way. The dhahir meaning is which comes to mind first and more obvious. For more on this please refer to the following links:

Meaning of “dhahir” and “Ta’wil” 2 Topics and Replies
The Apparent (dhahir) meaning could mean 2 things Topics and Replies
Meaning of “dhahir” (translated to “LITERAL” in English) Topics and Replies

Your argument of athari’s premise is incorrect. We didn’t have ilmul ghyab and neither Allah Ta’ala sent a revelation to Ahlus Sunnah that He has Two hands and thereof by knowing that we interpreted the ayah that Hand is an Attribute of Allah Ta’ala. Ahlus Sunnah reached this conclusion as Allah Ta’ala has told us, the saheeh ahadeeth and athar of the Salaf confirmed it. Brother, I’ve posted this question before and I’m asking again, bring your evidence from the Salaf that they made ta’weel of this ayah.

you’re simply playing with words here ya akhee kareem. I can say Allah Ta’ala is al-Rahman, Allah Ta’ala has Two Hands. Both of the statments implying an Attribute for Allah Ta’ala. The ayah say that “created with Both My Hands”. Are you telling me that the dhahir of ayah is not that Allah Ta’ala has Two Hands?

right … but “Both My Hands” doesn’t prove that? For example, If I say “I eat with my two hands”, what I’m tring to say here? I don’t have to say “the hand of mine is a hand” to prove that I’ve a hand. This is complete nonsensical! The term “my hands” prove that I literally have two hands.

brother, the dhahir of the ayah is clear and your premise and logic is flawed. I’ve presented to you what the Qur’an says, I presented to you how the early scholars understood it but you’re still asking me this. Why don’t you tell me what is the dhahir of “with Both My Hands”? If suppose, we should understand it by ta’weel, then what does it mean:
“O Iblis (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands” [Surah Sa’d:75 - interpretation of the meaning]
The trick of ta’weel could have worked for Ash’aris but Allah Ta’ala left no room for them when He said “Both My Hands”.

Wallahu A’lam

87

Wa’alaikumuSalam bro AllahkaBanda

Yes I am saying that the dhahir is not Allah has two maadi hands if you read the statement ‘created with both My Hands’ … here is the reason why it is not dhahir.

When you interpret Hand of Allah you say it is not like any other hand, because He is Unique.

In semantics and in logic some statements are called definitions … When you read Surah Ikhlas it defines what Allah (SWT) is … Allah hu Ahad … Allah IS One … x is y. Do you see why this is not a strawman?

When you read the verse “created with both My Hands” you need to apply a meaning to Hands that has already been established from somewhere else. I hope you follow.

now if we say that Allah (SWT) has two Hands is that not like our hands because we have two? Ok may be that is a stretch … what is the Hand of Allah? What we can say about the verse above is that ‘the Hands of Allah Create’, but we cannot say anymore than that.

Now hopefully knowing that Allah is One … it means that One cannot be broken into parts … just as we say the Hands of Allah are not like any other hands because He is Unique in the same way His Hands cannot be limbs or a part of something because He is One and Indivisible.

So Hand of Allah IS NOT like any other hand and Hand of Allah IS NOT part of Allah, because of what is explained … can you agree so far?

Here the dhahir meaning is no more than ‘Both My Hands Create’ it is not a verse which defines the term Hand so cannot be used to DERIVE the meaning:

The Hand of Allah IS a hand.

The dhahir obliges us to take Hand not like any other hand due to other defined things about Allah and likewise we cannot say the Hand of Allah is a part of Allah as One cannot have parts. Although I am not saying the meaning of Hands is metaphoric at this stage I am indeed negating the physcial meaning of hand due to other complexities outside this verse.

Even you believe that the Hand of Allah is not a hand. And if it is a hand then it must be like other hands otherwise how else can it be a hand and not like any other hand?

Guppy/Guppan of the Year-2012
88

Re: Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

@AllahkaBanda

Lets agree for a minute that I don't know anything. Please answer these points?

  1. Is God Omnipresent
  2. Is God omnipotent
  3. Is God limited or unlimited? (Mahdood ya la'mahdood)
89

Where did you get this from?

I will but first explain where is Allah?

This is what you quoted from your salafi websites...

In answer to your question, the claims that Imam Abul Hasan Ash‘ari (d. 324/936) repudiated his own positions are not new, but have been circulated by these Hanbalis for a long time, a fact that compelled the hadith master (hafiz) Ibn ‘Asakir to carefully investigate this question, and the sanad*s (chains of narrators) for the attribution of these repudiations to Ash‘ari. The results of his research furnished probably the best intellectual biography of Ash‘ari ever done, a book that rebuts these claims thoroughly and uniquivocally, called *Tabyin kadhib al-muftari fi ma nusiba ila al-Imam al-Ash‘ari [On showing the untruth of the liars, concerning what has been ascribed to Imam Ash‘ari], that proves that there are liars in all the sanad*s that impute this to Imam Ash‘ari. The book is in print, and whoever would like the details should read it.
Imam Ash‘ari’s *al-Ibana ‘an usul al-diyana [The clarification of the bases of the religion] was not his last book, but rather among the first after he broke with Mu‘tazilism. Imam Kawthari states:
[INDENT]The Ibana was authored at the first of his return from Mu‘tazilite thought, and was by way of trying to induce [n: the Hanbali literalist] Barbahari (d. 328/940) to embrace the tenets of faith of Ahl al-Sunna. Whoever believes it to be the last of his books believes something that is patently false. Moreover, pen after pen of the anthropomorphists has had free disposal of the text—particularly after the strife (fitna) that took place in Baghdad [n: after A.H. 323, when Hanbalis ("the disciples of Barbahari") gained the upper hand in Baghdad, Muslims of the Shafi‘i madhhab were beaten, and anthropomorphism became the faith (‘aqida) of the day (Ibn Athir: al-Kamal fi al-tarikh, 7.114)]—so that what is in the work that contradicts the explicit positions transmitted from Ash‘ari by his own disciples, and their disciples, cannot be relied upon (al-Sayf al-saqil, 108).[/INDENT]

90

Re: Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

Is this discussion really going to get you guys anywhere good in the end? Why can't u guys use your time more wisely and go read the Quran or pray rather than sit online arguing is Allah SWT has hands or not (naoudubillah).

Point is Allah SWT is everywhere and knows all. There are just some things humans can't comprehend....so just let it go at that.

91

Re: Do Salafis take literal meaning of the Quran?

^A very nice advice.

92

Please refrain from name calling!!!!

93

@pysch

brother, I’ve already responded to your points but let me ask this

  1. Quote me a statement from the Salaf affirming your interpretation and belief

  2. What is the ta’weel of the phrase “both My Hands”?

The Surah Ikhlas tells us about Allah Ta’ala; it doesn’t tells how are His Attributes. Similarlay, Allah Ta’ala tells us that He created Adam ('alayhi as-salam) with His Two Hands. This tells us that Two Hands are one of Allah’s Attributes. We don’t go into “howness” and end at their! Let me repeat my previous example:
If I say “I eat with my two hands”, what I’m tring to say here? I don’t have to say “the hand of mine is a hand” to prove that I’ve a hand. This is complete nonsensical! The term “my hands” prove that I literally have two hands.
As far conerning the straw man, this is not what I was calling a straw man. Let me quote it for you akhee, what I actually said:

when you say “what is Hand of Allah?”, this is asking “howness” which is bid’ah to say the least and forbidden to ask. Allah Ta’ala’s Hands are Unique like He is. Right…we can say Allah Ta’ala created Adam with His Two Hands but we can’t say the Hands are actually His Hands. How does this make any sense?

Allah Ta’ala is not like anything and He doesn’t have jism or parts etc. We simply believe in what He has told us and His Messenger (peace be upon him) has relayed to us and how the Salaf understood it. He told us that He has Two Hands, we affirm and believe in it without getting into these kalami discussions … PERIOD!

Why does it have to be a part? This is what happens when the kalamis get into “howness” and then accuse us of tajseem when they’re the ones who doing it with their kalami arguments. Why can’t you just say Allah Ta’ala has Two Hands, which befits His Majesty and end it there? Why don’t you say the same thing about other Attributes of Allah Ta’ala i.e. Mercy, Forgiveness?

Why it has to be like ours? You don’t say that Allah Ta’ala is like us then why do you say that His Hands must be like ours, otherwise they can’t be hands? Humans also have the attribute of mercy, does it prove that Allah’s Attribute of Mercy is also like ours? If so, why don’t you reject it as well? Why do you accept that but reject this? Akhee, this is the problem with people of kalam!

94


bro, you should have done this before and in many other threads. Why don't you do the same when they call us "wahabi" etc? At least, I haven't seen a single time; so, let's be fair here! In addition, editing my post should have been sufficient.

Please read your own books before attacking and answer your question after reading this, it says in shia book Kamil Adh-Dhariyyat (The Complete Visitations) Page 218:My father narrated to me, from Sa'd b. Abdullah, from Muhammad b. Issa from Muhammad b. Sinaan, from Abu Sa'eed al-Qammaat, from Ibn Abi Ya'foor, from Abu Abdullah [radiallahu anho] saying: While the Messenger of Allah was in the quarter of Fatimah and al-Hussain on his lap, he cried and fell down to prostration. He then said: O Fatimah daughter of Muhammad, the Most Exalted High, appeared to me in this house of yours, in this very hour, in the best form and finest shape, and said to me: O Muhammad, do you like al-Hussain? Upon which I said: O Lord, (he is) the comfort of my eye, my garden and the fruit of my heart, and the skin above my eye (eye lid). He then said to me: O Muhammad, and He placed His Hand on the head of al-Hussain [radiallahu anho]... this has been authentically reported
95

:salam: brother AllahkaBanda

I edited the previous posts in a hurry and should have spent more time on them … well to answer the questions put to me. I need to step back and take it a bit slowly. I am still learning and developing my understandings.

You ask me to quote something from the Salaf to affirm my stance. Unfortunately that is going to be quite difficult so you can take that how you wish. There is a reason why that is going to be difficult and it has nothing to do with citing references. I can cite references. The problem is the same references are taken differently by different people and I can see both sides.

For example the references of taking verses that contain information about Allah (SWT) are said by the references you have given to take the dhahir meaning. To one person dhahir is something when to another it could be something else. It depends on what it clearer to them. Unfortunately we need to define what dhahir means so we can understand the comment.

You say it is nonsensical to assert what I assert regarding hands but it is not. You have given a good example. I like the rendition also. Well in the statement “I eat with my two hands” the dhahir in this phrase is that “two hands are used to eat” which means that the function of hands are to assist the feeding process. We define the hands by what they do. We also make an assumption in this statement, that assumption is that “my two hands” are normal hands like any other human being. However, in the case of the Attributes of Allah (SWT) we must look at the verse in context to what Allah (SWT) has said about Himself in other places. Such as that nothing is like Him. We know therefore that any statement pertaing to Hands of Allah cannot be like our hands, but need to take a different meaning. We need information from elsewhere to define for us what the Hands of Allah are. It would be an assumption to say that the Hands of Allah are hands and likewise it is an assumption to say they are not hands. Unless we find anywhere to show what is correct.

I have to go now but more later inshaAllah… JazakAllah khair for your contributions.

96

continued from above ...

Asking what the Hand of Allah is, is not the 'howness', the howness is asking how it performs its function etc and so on. If somewhere it has been defined what the Hand of Allah (SWT) is by a Salaf then we should except it perhaps.

So you confirm Allah (SWT) does not have jism or parts - I think others believe the same.

You say He told us He has two Hands, but what is meant by this? Created with Our Two Hands.

We can say the Two Hands of Allah Create
We cannot say the Two Hands of Allah are physical parts of Allah
We cannot say the Two Hands of Allah are anything like our hands

We might claim the Two Hands of Allah are a part of Allah if taken figuratively, but to do so without evidence is speculative and not allowed.

A figurative meaning is not necessarily wrong it could be right, because it does not contradict the criteria in red. But it cannot be made 'aqidah because it is not a matter of certainty.

You ask a question
[quote]
Humans also have the attribute of mercy, does it prove that Allah's Attribute of Mercy is also like ours?
[/quote]

No it does not prove the Mercy of Allah (SWT) is like ours, but on the other hand Mercy cannot be anthropomorphed in to a physical domain, whereas hands are generally understood in the physical domain already.

So you see a middle ground is developing here:

I see clearly:

1) Athari aqidah does not require us to anthropomorph the Attributes of Allah (SWT)

2) 'Ashari aqidah does not reject the Attributes of Allah

However, I see that perhaps both camps as a result of being positioned on opposites sides of the middle see each other on the extremities.

It is for this reason why I still hold that the acceptable positions of 'aqidah according to Ahl-us-Sunnah are Athari, 'Ashari and Maturidi. Let's move on with our Deen now ... this debate will not end with us.

97

This doesn't mean anything....I have never heard of this book. Allah is malik' kul (Lord of everything) and being the Lord He has the liberty to manifest in any form.

You are trying to prove His form by one of his manifestation. He also appeared to Moses as pure light.

P.S. If this is a shia book, why do you assume that I will take it at its face value.