/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Confused about trinity......need an answer



Danah
12-18-2008, 04:02 PM
Peace Be Upon You All

I hope this question is not repeated because I searched for it and did not find it.

I am a bit confused about the trinity concept. It is mainly three in one (Father, Spirit, Spirit) and all of them are considered as holy symbols in Christianity. I read that Christians cant spearate those three elements from each other.

I asked in one forum about who create the son and the spirit and I got an answer that it is the Father or God

My question is how can one part of trinity create the other?
Cant this be a sign for the weakness of those created parts?

Does this mean that the trinity parts are not equal in terms of power?


hope you got my question.

Peace
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Follower
12-18-2008, 06:40 PM
We have a body, mind and soul- 3 parts in one. Our body and mind often do not work towards one good end.

The Trinity always works in unison, unity towards the one good holy end. One part of the Trinity did not create another, they always existed but manifested to man when it was time to in GOD's plan.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-18-2008, 07:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SAYA
Peace Be Upon You All

I hope this question is not repeated because I searched for it and did not find it.

I am a bit confused about the trinity concept. It is mainly three in one (Father, Spirit, Spirit) and all of them are considered as holy symbols in Christianity. I read that Christians cant spearate those three elements from each other.

I asked in one forum about who create the son and the spirit and I got an answer that it is the Father or God

My question is how can one part of trinity create the other?
Cant this be a sign for the weakness of those created parts?

Does this mean that the trinity parts are not equal in terms of power?


hope you got my question.

Peace
First, I would not speak of the three persons of the Trinity as "the three elements." Though I take no offense at it. It is just that one of the things that causes people to misunderstand it is that different people use different terminology that they think means the same thing when it really doesn't. Thus they are halfway down one path exploring what the Trinity means/is before they realize that the "trinity" they are exploring is NOT the one that Christians actually say we believe in. But even here I don't blame those who have trouble with "person", because what it means in today in our contemporary understanding of the term also is NOT what it meant when the phrase was coined in reference to the Trinity some 1700 years ago. So, if it can be confusing for those who have grown up with the language, surely it is even more so for those who have not.

Second, I would not speak of the persons of the Trinity as being "symbols" of Christianity. I'm not sure what the connotation you had behind that use of the term "symbols" was, but I usually think of a symbol as something that stands for or suggests something else. I don't think that the persons of the Trinity are meant to suggest something else but who they are. Though I would hesitate to say that even a perfect understanding of the Trinity (a manmade philosophical construct to explain the intrinsic nature of God) should fully articulate God who is beyond our human comprehension. So, if you meant to use the term "symbols" in this way, then I withdraw my objection.


Now as to your larger question, "How can one part of trinity create the other?":
I think the answer that you got previously -- where a person suggested that the Son and Holy Spirit are created by the Father -- is either misinformed or the individual was not careful in the way they worded their answer. Christians do NOT believe that any part of the Trinity was created by another part of it. This is because that all of the Trinity is indeed one and the same God and is co-eternal with one another.

Sometimes we use the words "generated" or "proceeds" to speak of the Father "generating" the Son or of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, but in neither case do we mean to imply that there is an act of creation going on. We are not talking about a beginning, that the Son or the Spirit was at some point in time not present and then came into existence. (Jesus is not the Son because he is God's offspring for instance.) Just as Muslims would say that Allah is uncreated, so too would Christians affirm that about God -- meaning all of God be it the Father, the Son, or the Spirit.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
12-18-2008, 08:22 PM
Confused about trinity....
i thought most people were?


the confusion shall never stop
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
anatolian
12-18-2008, 08:42 PM
After spending some years in the monastry the boy was asked by the father if he learnt the Trinity at the end.The boy said "Yes I've done, father!" Then the father replied "Get out of here!Even I haven't got it yet, how can you do!" :D

Excuse me, no offense.Peace.
Reply

mkh4JC
12-19-2008, 05:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
We have a body, mind and soul- 3 parts in one. Our body and mind often do not work towards one good end.

The Trinity always works in unison, unity towards the one good holy end. One part of the Trinity did not create another, they always existed but manifested to man when it was time to in GOD's plan.

Yes, and Christians believe that we as human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and just as we are triune beings are and are still one, so too is God. As it goes: God=the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, human beings=the spirit, the soul, and the body.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-19-2008, 05:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fedos
Yes, and Christians believe that we as human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and just as we are triune beings are and are still one, so too is God. As it goes: God=the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, human beings=the spirit, the soul, and the body.
But Fedos, let us remember that we are not drawing a syllogism here. While God is one being in three persons, that in and of itself is not the reason that we find that people have these three constituent parts to their being.
Reply

Argamemnon
12-19-2008, 06:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fedos
Yes, and Christians believe that we as human beings are made in the image and likeness of God.
What do you think of this verse in the Quran?

"But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!" (Surah sajda 32:9)
Reply

Najm
12-19-2008, 07:13 PM
Peace!!

Wow i think im more confused now imsad

I think i would understand better if someone tells be where, specifically, in the Gospel does Jesus (PBUH) mention the Trinity?

Thanks for you time
Reply

Danah
12-19-2008, 07:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
First, I would not speak of the three persons of the Trinity as "the three elements." Though I take no offense at it. It is just that one of the things that causes people to misunderstand it is that different people use different terminology that they think means the same thing when it really doesn't. Thus they are halfway down one path exploring what the Trinity means/is before they realize that the "trinity" they are exploring is NOT the one that Christians actually say we believe in. But even here I don't blame those who have trouble with "person", because what it means in today in our contemporary understanding of the term also is NOT what it meant when the phrase was coined in reference to the Trinity some 1700 years ago. So, if it can be confusing for those who have grown up with the language, surely it is even more so for those who have not.

Second, I would not speak of the persons of the Trinity as being "symbols" of Christianity. I'm not sure what the connotation you had behind that use of the term "symbols" was, but I usually think of a symbol as something that stands for or suggests something else. I don't think that the persons of the Trinity are meant to suggest something else but who they are. Though I would hesitate to say that even a perfect understanding of the Trinity (a manmade philosophical construct to explain the intrinsic nature of God) should fully articulate God who is beyond our human comprehension. So, if you meant to use the term "symbols" in this way, then I withdraw my objection.
thanks for such explanation, Its hard to explain the trinity in words after all, that’s why I might use some confused words


Now as to your larger question, "How can one part of trinity create the other?":
I think the answer that you got previously -- where a person suggested that the Son and Holy Spirit are created by the Father -- is either misinformed or the individual was not careful in the way they worded their answer. Christians do NOT believe that any part of the Trinity was created by another part of it. This is because that all of the Trinity is indeed one and the same God and is co-eternal with one another.

Sometimes we use the words "generated" or "proceeds" to speak of the Father "generating" the Son or of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, but in neither case do we mean to imply that there is an act of creation going on. We are not talking about a beginning, that the Son or the Spirit was at some point in time not present and then came into existence. (Jesus is not the Son because he is God's offspring for instance.) Just as Muslims would say that Allah is uncreated, so too would Christians affirm that about God -- meaning all of God be it the Father, the Son, or the Spirit.
If the generating is not a sign for an a creation as you said then even the generating mean that there is something happened before the other, or I may say that something was a cause or participate in creating something else even if it did not do the whole creation.
And the main question still remain here, one "part" *sorry, I can't explain it in any other word* is participate or generate the other parts of trinity?
Or I might ask the question differently to make it more clear. Are all the parts of trinity are equal in the power?
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-19-2008, 08:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Najm
Peace!!

Wow i think im more confused now imsad

I think i would understand better if someone tells be where, specifically, in the Gospel does Jesus (PBUH) mention the Trinity?

Thanks for you time
Don't know if you are asking a serious question, or already know the answer to this and are just playing a game. But giving you the benefit of the doubt:


The Trinity is a belief held by Christians regarding the nature of God. It is based not on any single verse in the Christian scriptures, but is something inferred from the various paradoxes that exist between several of them. Since it is a theological construct of systematic theology rather than something directly declared in revelation, there is no verse (from either the Old Testament nor the New Testament) that explains it. Rather it tries to explain how it is that in one place the Bible says there is just one God and only one and in others it also declares that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-19-2008, 08:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SAYA
If the generating is not a sign for an a creation as you said then even the generating mean that there is something happened before the other, or I may say that something was a cause or participate in creating something else even if it did not do the whole creation.
And the main question still remain here, one "part" *sorry, I can't explain it in any other word* is participate or generate the other parts of trinity?
Or I might ask the question differently to make it more clear. Are all the parts of trinity are equal in the power?
Yes, the Father generates the Son. But the father has been always generating the Son, from before the beginning. This is important that you understand that this has always been, so that nothing is before or after anything else. You can't say that the Father is God and then created the Son. That would mean that not only was their a time when the Son did not exist, but that a time when the Father was not the Father. But we believe that we have just one God who has always been both Father and Son (and Holy Spirit). So that if there were ever a time when the Son was not, then it would follow that there was also a time when the Father was not as well. For how can the Father be a Father without the presence of the Son? So, there is no beginning to this relationship (and likewise the relationships with the Spirit), any more than there is a beginning to God. The Father and the Son and the Spirit (all three in the one God) have just always been.



Are all three equal in power? Well, yes in that they are all equally God and have exactly the same divine power. No, in that they each have different roles in their relationship with the world. While the Son and the Spirit proceed from the Father, it is by the power of the Word of God (i.e. the Son) that all that is created comes into being, and yet it is the Spirit that sustains all that is. Further, when God decided to incarnate himself into this world (a Christian belief that I know Muslims do not share) it was not the Father or Spirit who did so, but the Son. In so doing the Son limited himself in ways that one does not normally think of God being limited. God is not limited to time and space, but Jesus was. God is not dependent on othes, but Jesus was. God cannot sin, and while Jesus did not there was the genuine risk that he might have. For if he did not have free will to voluntarily submit his will to that of the Father and the Spirit (thus implying that he also could have refused to submit), then he was not truly human. But it is only in their relationship with us that they exercise different roles and we experience their power in different ways; in their relationship with one another within the Godhead I don't see any disparity spelled out in scripture. Beyond what scripture actually says (and there are some things that are not revealed to us) I will not speculate.

So my answer to your question about whether they are equal or not is both YES and NO (and even unknowable), depending on in what way you meant it.
Reply

mkh4JC
12-19-2008, 09:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Argamemnon
What do you think of this verse in the Quran?

"But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!" (Surah sajda 32:9)
That sounds similar to what is in Genesis:

'Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.' --Genesis 2:7
Reply

mkh4JC
12-19-2008, 09:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But Fedos, let us remember that we are not drawing a syllogism here. While God is one being in three persons, that in and of itself is not the reason that we find that people have these three constituent parts to their being.
I understand that that's not the only reason we have spirit, soul, and body. Animals have bodies and spirits, they just don't have souls. But from my understanding we are the only beings in the universe (I don't believe in aliens) who are made in the image of God. We are unique. I was just trying to elaborate on what Follower said.
Reply

Civilsed
12-19-2008, 10:18 PM
:sl:

Trinity explained by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat
http://theislamicummah.ning.com/vide...:412:thumbs_up
Reply

Civilsed
12-19-2008, 10:20 PM
CORRECTION

:sl:

Trinity explained by Ahmed Deedat

http://theislamicummah.ning.com/video/2361023:Video:412
Reply

Danah
12-20-2008, 11:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
so that nothing is before or after anything else
is that mean that the son was generated before it sent to the people?

btw, what is the exact nature of the holy spirit?

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
In so doing the Son limited himself in ways that one does not normally think of God being limited
sorry, but I think it does, how can a god be limited to something, this is what I meant by not equal in the power


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So my answer to your question about whether they are equal or not is both YES and NO (and even unknowable), depending on in what way you meant it.
To be honest, that confuse me even more now, what do you mean by unknowable?




format_quote Originally Posted by Argamemnon
What do you think of this verse in the Quran?

"But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!" (Surah sajda 32:9)
format_quote Originally Posted by Fedos
That sounds similar to what is in Genesis:

'Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.' --Genesis 2:7
both two verses are talking about the same thing *if I am not mistaken*, right?
which is creating a man from a dust and breathed into him the life. That is mainly prove that it was a nothing transferred to be something.

and this is confuse me now with what Grace Seeker specified before
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But the father has been always generating the Son, from before the beginning. This is important that you understand that this has always been,
how it can be that God has been always generating the son?
Reply

Follower
12-20-2008, 02:11 PM
civilized - it says that page is not available. Deedat was very confused and wrong about what Christians believe. I would not go by his understanding. You have to learn about what a person believes from that person.

GOD's time is very different form ours.

2 Peter 3

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
Reply

Follower
12-20-2008, 02:36 PM
saya - GOD is one, He always was. When the time came the "person/part" that needed to manifest to man did so as Jesus.

How would you label the concept of the Trinity? I think I have mentioned before that I like Triunity, Triune-GOD. One True GOD, but not limited by our understanding of the word one. Man was given the responsibility of naming all kinds of things in this world.

Why would Jesus say:

Matthew 28
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Why didn't Jesus say no don't worship me?

John 10
30I and the Father are one."

John 14
7If you really knew me, you would know[a] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?




Matthew 22
37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-21-2008, 06:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by SAYA
is that mean that the son was generated before it sent to the people?
Yes. The Son has been around for every bit as long as the Father has. Both of them have been around since before the begining. In other words, both the Father and the Son are eternal.

btw, what is the exact nature of the holy spirit?
To be honest, that confuse me even more now, what do you mean by unknowable?
The Holy Spirit is God. He is spirit. He does not have a corporeal body. He does not occupy space. He does not occupy time. He is immiment in people's lives. He moves in a through us, connecting us with God by virtue of being God present in our lives. He convicts us of sin, leads us into truth and reveals God to us. But that hardly covers all that can be said about the Holy Spirit. Indeed should I write a thousand-page post I would never cover all that could be said, and therefore never cover it exactly. The same could be said of the Father or the Son. And even then there would still be more that we simply don't know because it has not all been revealed to us, at least not yet. This is what I meant by saying that some is "unknowable".


sorry, but I think it does, how can a god be limited to something, this is what I meant by not equal in the power
Let me try an analogy. A few years ago when George Bush Sr. was President, it was known that he was a millionaire and had many investments. No doubt some of those investments would be impacted by the decisions he made as president. So as to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, he had all of his investments put into a blind trust. In this way he would not have knowledge of what he owned, how they were doing, or what impact his policies might have on his investments while he was in office. He couldn't even write a check to buy his wife a birthday present from those funds. It was as if he didn't have that money. While he was in the office of president, he had so limited his access to the wealth that was indeed his, that he couldn't actuially live like a millionaire.

So, was Bush Sr. a millionaire or not while he was in office? Yes. But it didn't make any difference. He still had to earn a paycheck like the rest of us.

In much the same way, Philippains 2 tells us that the Son limited himself when he came to earth:
Philippians 2
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
According to this passage, as the Son, Jesus was by nature God. (This would be before his incarnation.) And then he took on the nature of a human being. Notice he didn't quit being God. Therefore, he retains his divine nature. But because he also took on the nature of a human being, either he is going to live as a divine human being (half man/half god) or he is going to live exactly as a human being (having limited his divine power) while living as a man on earth. So, he is no less God than before, just as Bush was no less of a millionaire than before, but neither Bush nor Jesus could claim access to that we was truly theirs for as long as they were in the position which they entered into as president (Bush) or servant human being (Jesus). The fancy theological term used to describe this is kenosis -- which is the Greek word translated in verse 7 ("made himself nothing", literally "he emptied himself") -- meaning emptying. This is why I say that he limited himself, because he did not claim any of those divine powers while on earth, even though he was still just as much God as ever.

Ironically, I find that more Christians get confused by this next concept than Muslims do. The question then becomes, if he had limited his divine power so that he functioned just as all other humans do, then how did he do all of the miracles that he did? Wouldn't he have had to have been God to do that? And I say, that he did them by the power of God, the Holy Spirit, that was present in his life, just as that same Holy Spirit, and thus the power of God, is available to any other human being today. It was because, unlike us, Jesus lived a truly submitted life to the Father, that the Father was able to do things in and through him that we never do. If God willed them for us, and we were as submitted as Jesus, then we would see them in our lives just the same. And in fact, if you take a look at the disciples, we do in fact see them doing many, in some cases more, of these very sorts of miracles themselves.

But anyway, I hope you can see how Jesus who was God before he was incarnated, doesn't become less God simply by that act of putting on flesh, but he does voluntarily limit himself (empty himself) of those powers which we humans tend to associate with God like omniscence and omnipresence. But because he is God, he is never less holy, never less divine; his essential character remains the same. But like people, he will now get hungry, tired, and feel sorrow.




how it can be that God has been always generating the son?
I didn't say that God has always been generating the Son. I said the Father has always been generating the Son. God has always been Father and Son and Holy Spirit all three at the same time. If we were to assume a point in time in which the Son never existed, then without the Son, there can be no Father. And since the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, then there can also be no Holy Spirit. And if there is no Son, no Father, and no Holy Spirit, then in fact there is no God.

My guess is that this is still confusing, so let me go back to the bit about if there is no Son, then there is no Father.

I don't know whether or not you have children Saya, but I do no you are a child. Perhaps like me you are the oldest in your family. Now, while my father existed before I was born. He was not yet a father until I was born. His fatherhood was entirely dependent on generating me as his son. Without me as his son, he was not a Father. Now, some people like to conceive of God in just this way, existing in heaven by himself and then having a Son. But those who think this way are not thinking in accordance with what Christianity understands the Bible to actually teach. We understand that the Bible sees God has having always been the eternal Father. That Fatherhood is one of the basic natures of who and what God is. Thus, if he has always been the Father, then there also must have always been the Son.

When we speak of God sometimes we do speak only of the Father or only of the Son or only of the Spirit. But just because we sometimes focus on God's Fatherhood, or his Sonship, or that he is Spirit doesn't mean that these other aspects of who God isn't don't exist at the same time. The one and only God who created the universe, who called Abraham into covenant with himself, who called for Moses to lead his people, who sent Jesus into the world, and who spoke to Muhammad has never changed in who he is. But when we look more closely at his divine being, we find that while it in essence he is one, that there do exist these three persona by which he has made himself known, and none of them is any less God than another.


BTW, Ahamad Deedat, got it wrong when he said in that video that the Catechism says that the three persons are just one person. No Christian catechism actually says that. We say that there are three persons, but just one being. And we don't use person to refer to the concept of individuals either, the Greeks who coined that phrase didn't mean by it what is generally meant by the venacular of the word in contemporary English usage. When they spoke of persons, what they meant was something more akin to personas than to individuals. So, don't depend on him to get your understanding of the Trinity. He doesn't really talk about the Trinity that Christians believe in, but has created his own version of it -- one that Christians don't believe in any more than he does.
Reply

Danah
12-21-2008, 07:14 PM
Thanks for all your explanation, it gave me a lot to think about, and I made many comments to many parts of your replies. hope you will bear with me ^_^

First lets come to Follower Comment
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me
can I ask by whom the power given to Prophet Jesus?

"Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
is the lord here meant to be Jesus?
9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
but how can they see the father on him when he is in the human nature/



Then Grace_Seeker
The Holy Spirit is God. He is spirit. He does not have a corporeal body. He does not occupy space. He does not occupy time. He is immiment in people's lives
I thought that the spirit is something you feel inside in your hearts and minds, but your answer made me confused a little bit
if the God is the spirit then why you consider them as two things....sorry I know I am not supposed to say it as "two" but I am trying to put my thoughts in words. What I meant is why you mentioned God and Spirit separately like saying that you have God, Son, and Spirit?
I can understand what is the difference between the son and the God, but I want to know what is the difference between the God and the spirit? arent they the same thing? why you mention them separately?

He convicts us of sin, leads us into truth and reveals God to us
are you talking here about the same thing? how can God reveals God to you?......this is what I meant by if they are one thing or not

Philippians 2
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
I noticed the bold part part sentences
can this be as we considered the son being powerful one day then that power took from him to be in the nature of human?

he didn't quit being God. Therefore, he retains his divine nature
you mean after crucified him?

but he does voluntarily limit himself (empty himself) of those powers
so if its done voluntarily, then is it him who did it? or the father?

But just because we sometimes focus on God's Fatherhood, or his Sonship, or that he is Spirit doesn't mean that these other aspects of who God isn't don't exist at the same time
thanks for this comment, its exactly what I am trying to say. Its because I see the Christians don't deal with trinity as one thing. many times they focus only on Jesus or seeking only the protection of the holy spirit......so they are dealing with the trinity as three things not one only
Reply

malayloveislam
12-21-2008, 11:59 PM
Peace be upon everyone,

Can anyone enlight us with the history of Trinity doctrine being set up as Christian prime doctrine? Is it only have something to do with Roman Catholicism? But I also had seen that Orthodox Christianity in Greece and Egypt too have this doctrine. In Greece mother Mary had been revered, apart of Holy Spirit.

I have also heard about Calcedonism, Monophysitism and Nestorianism. How many sects actually happened to arise in Christianity around 4th C and how are their views concerning the divinity of prophet Jesus (pbuh)? What is the first base sect of Roman Catholicism and other protestant Churches today? I also find their views sometimes confusing, because there are too many views. I only know that valid view about prophet Jesus divinity by Christians is that he is their Lord and he is the focus of Christians prayers. Forgive me my ignorance.
Reply

Keltoi
12-22-2008, 01:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by malayloveislam
Peace be upon everyone,

Can anyone enlight us with the history of Trinity doctrine being set up as Christian prime doctrine? Is it only have something to do with Roman Catholicism? But I also had seen that Orthodox Christianity in Greece and Egypt too have this doctrine. In Greece mother Mary had been revered, apart of Holy Spirit.

I have also heard about Calcedonism, Monophysitism and Nestorianism. How many sects actually happened to arise in Christianity around 4th C and how are their views concerning the divinity of prophet Jesus (pbuh)? What is the first base sect of Roman Catholicism and other protestant Churches today? I also find their views sometimes confusing, because there are too many views. I only know that valid view about prophet Jesus divinity by Christians is that he is their Lord and he is the focus of Christians prayers. Forgive me my ignorance.

Christianity spread quickly to many different areas of the middle east and north Africa and eventually to the Roman Empire. There were so many new churches that sprung up all over the place without any true central authority to cement fundamental doctrine in place. The fundamental doctrine has and always was the salvation offered through Jesus Christ. The Trinity doctrine was established to recognize what Scripture makes clear, which is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God. A literate Christian wouldn't need Paul or anyone else to formulate what was already apparent from reading the books of the New Testament.

What wasn't as clearly spelled out in the New Testament was the complicated question about the nature of Christ's divinity. Some Christian groups adopted explanations about Christ's divinity that were not accepted by the majority of Christian leaders. An example would be Arianism.

As for the difference between Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodox, that split was and primarily still is one of political history, not theology. When the Roman Empire split apart into East and West a schism was formed. The East propped up its own Pope and the West did the same.

The Protestant Reform movement occurred as a result of percieved corruption within the Roman Catholic Church. There are theological differences between Protestants and Catholics, but not about the nature of Christ. The dispute was over the monopoly the Catholic Church claimed to have over the religious lives of European Christians. Increased rates of literacy in Europe led many to read the Bible for themselves and realize that their salvation was not dependant upon the Catholic Church but upon Christ alone.

That was a nutshell reply to your question, hope it was at least a little helpful.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-23-2008, 05:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SAYA
Grace_Seeker
thanks for this comment, its exactly what I am trying to say. Its because I see the Christians don't deal with trinity as one thing. many times they focus only on Jesus or seeking only the protection of the holy spirit......so they are dealing with the trinity as three things not one only
Yes. I fear we Christians are not always as careful as we should be in the way we speak. I don't know if you experience this in Islam or not, but there are the common, more generalized ways of speaking, and then there are more precise ways of speaking. When talking amongst each other, Christians speak of God and Jesus as if they were independent beings, when what we really mean is Father and Son as independent persons (not separate beings), but we should still be speaking of them both as being God who has made himself known to us as the Father and as the Son (and as the Holy Spirit). Then a person comes along who wants to talk theologically and adopts the imprecise ways that we sometimes speak to talk about things where it is important to use more precise language and confusion results. And that really isn't your fault, but ours for being so sloppy in our language at times.



I'm hoping what your realized above helps to clarify some of these other things you mentioned:
I thought that the spirit is something you feel inside in your hearts and minds, but your answer made me confused a little bit
if the God is the spirit then why you consider them as two things....sorry I know I am not supposed to say it as "two" but I am trying to put my thoughts in words. What I meant is why you mentioned God and Spirit separately like saying that you have God, Son, and Spirit?
I can understand what is the difference between the son and the God, but I want to know what is the difference between the God and the spirit? arent they the same thing? why you mention them separately?
There is no difference between the son and the God -- in fact the son is God, the Spirit is God, the Father God, but only when speaking of them as one and not three should we refer to them as THE God. I could have written the statement exactly the same way when referring to the Spirit. But there are distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Patrick was able to use a shamrock when he went to Ireland to explain this concept to the Celts. He would pick a shamrock and point out the three leaflets. Now each leaflet was a seperate and distinct leaflet, and you could speak of them individually. Sometimes people mistakenly speak of the three parts as if they were themselves leaves, but they aren't. It is only as a whole that we actually have the leaf of a shamrock. So too we can see God as the Father who sends the Son and the Holy Spirit, and God is the Son who offers his life for the sins of the world to redeem us, and who is an advocate on our behalf with the Father, and God is the Spirit who gifts us with his presence in our lives and with abilities to be used as his instruments to accomplish God's purposes in the world. But though they are one God, they are still distinct persons, thus, for instance, Jesus is not the Father, but the Son of the Father, and by that reasoning we speak of Jesus as both God (i.e., God the Son) and the Son of God (i.e., God the Father). Which no doubt causes the confusion to resurface among those who have not grown accustomed to those ways of talking.

Originally by Grace Seeker:
He [the Holy Spirit] convicts us of sin, leads us into truth and reveals God to us
are you talking here about the same thing? how can God reveals God to you?......this is what I meant by if they are one thing or not
Yes, I am talking about the same thing. I could simply say that God convicts us of sin, leads us into truth and reveals himself to us. But I specified the Holy Spirit, because this aspect of how God relates to us is something that we see done more (but not exclusively) as a work of the person of the Holy Spirit than we do of either the Son or the Father. But it is also true that the Son reveals God to us. For instance in in John 1:18 we are told that "No one has ever seen God, but God the Only Begotten [please don't think biology], who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Note that this passage is referring to the Word who is God (John 1:1) and that became flesh (i.e. Jesus, John 1:14), as "God the Only Begotten". So, this passage is calling Jesus God, and then immediately after writting this the gospel writer has John the Baptist introduce Jesus to the world as the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." So, even in their distictivenesses, there is a lot of things folding back in on themselves.

We talk about Son providing redemption and salvation, but this is his primary work, but he is also involved in providing truth that leads us to God. And the Father and the Spirit (though not primarily) participate in the work of salvation alongside the Son. But it is all the work of just the one God.

As Muslims you speak of the God's 99 names which refer to his many different attributes. As Christians we speak of the work of God more than his attributes (though they are important to us as well). And just as the Jews before us personified God's Wisdom, God's Word, and God's Spirit; the followers of Jesus (btw, all Jews) in experiencing the presence of God in the person of their friend Jesus and having that confirmed through God's Spirit moving among them just as they had read of it being mentioned in the prophets (compare Joel 2:28-32 with Acts 2), they began to think of God in this new way as more than just possessing a number of attributes, but actually having these personas to himself. And thus it was that the Christians of the New Testament era began to talk about all three persons (Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit) as God, but they also knew that even as they did so, that they were still talking about just one God, the very same God that they had always worshipped. For them, because it was part of their common shared experience, they never needed to question it or articulate it more than they did. But in time, as the church grew older and new people joined it, they would ask some of the very same (and very good) questions that you are asking. And it was then, in response to those questions, that the theologians of the church in trying to articulate answers to these questions developed what today we know as the doctrine of the Trinity to explain what we read in scripture about the nature of God who we know in theese three persons.


I noticed the bold part part sentences

Philippians 2
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

can this be as we considered the son being powerful one day then that power took from him to be in the nature of human?
No, because the power was not taken from him. It is something that he himself gave up voluntarily.

so if its done voluntarily, then is it him who did it? or the father?
I think I just answered that.



originally byGrace Seeker:
he didn't quit being God. Therefore, he retains his divine nature
you mean after crucified him?
Not just then. He was God when he was in heaven before he came to earth. He was God when still en utero. He was God when born. He was God when walking around. He was God when hanging, even as he died, on the Cross. And before you (or more likely another) comes back with all of the verses that some like to cite about Jesus not knowing something or crying out about God abandoning him, I am completely aware of all of those verses and still affirm that Jesus retained his divine nature through all of that. An essential part of understanding the incarnation is to understand that YES, we proclaim that God entered into and experienced all of these things as a person fully emeshed in corruptible humanity and yet was nonetheless God in the midst of all of this. And, YES, he is also still God after the crucifiction when he entered the realm of the dead, when he was raised to new life, ascended on high, as he reigns today in heaven, and when he returns in glory on the last day.
Reply

Aqeel Ahmed
12-25-2008, 11:15 PM
:sl:
This answer could be best given by a Christian but in my perspective , the Christian religion has no pillar to support it's main topic. They gave only one thing who is prophet Isa(AS) who is also mentioned in the Quran. :sl:
Reply

Keltoi
12-25-2008, 11:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aqeel Ahmed
:sl:
This answer could be best given by a Christian but in my perspective , the Christian religion has no pillar to support it's main topic. They gave only one thing who is prophet Isa(AS) who is also mentioned in the Quran. :sl:
No pillar to support its main topic? Not sure that makes sense. Our pillar is Jesus Christ. Our main topic is Jesus Christ.
Reply

Imam
12-26-2008, 01:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by SAYA
Peace Be Upon You All



It is mainly three in one (Father, Spirit, Spirit) and all of them are considered as holy symbols in Christianity. I read that Christians cant spearate those three elements from each other.


Peace
:sl:

Sis Saya

such question had been discussed before,so let me quote myself


Grace Seeker argues as all christians


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
We say that there are three persons, but just one being
in which I told him before:

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
If you keep using these terms, so you are obligated to provide definitions of "being" and "person" and a distinction between the two. Without a doubletalk, what are the differences? in fact, there are no differences

"Being" and "person" have no distinction and are merely elements of a ruse employed by christians. Because they can come up with two different words, they, therefore, claim they have two different entities.

If Jesus is God and the Father is God, then how can God be a being. It must be a quality such as Godhood or Godhead. But it is not a separate being per se.
Christians call this three persons within one being but fail to admit that one of the beings is separate from the other three beings. Thus, there are not 3 persons within one being but 3 separate beings distinct from a fourth being which has a separate and distinct identity. On the other hand, whenever expediency dictates, Christians dissolve the beingness or personhood of God and turn him into nothing more than a general term, a rubric, into which the other 3 beings are absorbed, much like the words "mankind" or "dogkind" and use words like "Godhead" or "Godhood." Your argument is as,that Robert is a separate and distinct human; John is a separate and distinct human; therefore, "human" is a separate and distinct being..



format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Philippians 2
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
According to this passage, as the Son, Jesus was by nature God. (This would be before his incarnation.) And then he took on the nature of a human being. Notice he didn't quit being God. Therefore, he retains his divine nature. But because he also took on the nature of a human being, either he is going to live as a divine human being (half man/half god) or he is going to live exactly as a human being (having limited his divine power) while living as a man on earth. So, he is no less God than before, just as Bush was no less of a millionaire than before, but neither Bush nor Jesus could claim access to that we was truly theirs for as long as they were in the position which they entered into as president (Bush) or servant human being (Jesus). The fancy theological term used to describe this is kenosis -- which is the Greek word translated in verse 7 ("made himself nothing", literally "he emptied himself") -- meaning emptying. This is why I say that he limited himself, because he did not claim any of those divine powers while on earth, even though he was still just as much God as ever.
the same he argued before in which I said:


format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
what did Jesus,according to that passage , in his human (incarnate) state, empty himself?

We have only two choices:

1- that at the time of the Incarnation, God emptied himself of his divine attributes so that he could become a man. And in becoming a man in the very real sense, And so there is the transformation from deity to humanity because he set aside his omniscience, his omnipotence, and all of those other attributes that are proper to the nature of God.If God laid aside one of his attributes, the immutable undergoes a mutation; the infinite suddenly stops being infinite; it would be the end of the universe. God cannot stop being God and still be God.
.

2-or his transformation from deity to humanity never set aside his omniscience, his omnipotence, and all of those other attributes that are proper to the nature of God.His human nature was fully human, and his divine nature always and everywhere was fully divine.(fully man and fully God).

If so then

How could you have a being who is perfect and not perfect simultaneously?

Luke 18:19, Jesus responded: "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is God..

How could a being be both ignorant of some facts and omniscient?

Jesus said"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 and Matt. 24:36) But God knows all. His knowledge is without any limitations.


How could a being of one substance forsake itself?

Jesus cried out while on the cross"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and died(Matt. 27:46).

Plainly put it,If Jesus lacks a quality possessed by God or vice versa,be it ever so minute, then he isn't God.or as you wish to call him(fully man and fully God).

If The Son was mere a human without divine attributes then he obviously lacks qualities possessed by God,and If a being whatever you wish to call(God the son-Moses-seeker etc...) lacks a a quality possessed by God,,be it ever so minute, then he isn't God.

seeker,if you will consult a basic logic book you will learn the simplicity of your error.

If God the Father still retained all of his omniscience.

then, it logically follows that Jesus still retained all of his omniscience,otherwise he doesn't deserve the title of God...If Jesus is God and the Father is God, then, it logically follows that Jesus is identical to the Father. You say, "The Father is not the Son." Oh, yes he is! Under your line of reasoning, he has to be.Here, again, your muddle is exposed. If two things are the same in material , then they are identical. If they differ in any respect, whatever, then they are neither the same nor identical.

If God the father empitied God the Son of the divine attributes , then, it logically follows that he was only fully human..
How do you expect from a being to be emptied by another being from the divine attributes ,still to be called Divine or share him the same nature?!!!

Unless you are able to repeal the law of contradiction, Seeker, you are entangled in a hopeless quest for a phantasy.


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker;

Only Christ was present as part of the Godhead before the world began.

in what form he was present as part of the Godhead?
Don't say in human form,as you know the so called incarnation happened
on earth,not in heaven...
so ,he has to be in spiritual form God's own spirit
If he was God's own spirit(they both still one spiritual material) then The father glorified the father,cause the son hasn't appeared at the scene yet...

If we apply the Christian argument to logic then:

-The father is God(has a divine nature).
-Jesus is God (has a divine nature).

-The father never set aside his divine attributes, his omnisciences.
-Jesus set aside his divine attributes, his omnisciences.

-It logically follows
that we have two Gods ,one never stopped for a moment to exercise his power ,another God does not exercise his power for a period of
time.


If Jesus was the same nature (divine) as God then you can't have it both ways,they have to stuck to their omnisciences,or to leave it all together...

If one say,

God did practice his power the whole last April,without a moment for a pause.

Jesus did practice his power the whole last April except 5 days.

then Jesus still God

that is according to the Christian logic !!!.......


No concept human ever invented , more self-contradictory than the Trinity...

Peace for all
Reply

Follower
12-26-2008, 02:15 PM
LOL! imama - The concept of the Trinity is in the Gospel. It is all through the Gospel!!

Is the Trinity named in the Gospel? no. Just because it is not named does not mean it does not exit.

Muslims do not have the true personal name of GOD- YWHW mentioned in the Quran only the impersonal Allah the GOD- so does GOD exist in Islam?
Reply

Follower
12-26-2008, 02:18 PM
oops that was supposed to be imam- I was not trying to be disrespectful!!

Sorry imam
Reply

Imam
12-26-2008, 04:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
LOL! imama - The concept of the Trinity is in the Gospel. It is all through the Gospel!!

Is the Trinity named in the Gospel?
Follower
as you new to the forum,you don't know yet my approach to the bible and so called sacred books in general

I don't believe in the trinity not only for being foolish,self-contradictory concept that should only be taken with pure faith ,but also and more important , the source from which Christians try to derive such concept(the NT) is proved to be unqualified,untrustworthy

and just as christian fundamentalist Gleason Archer wrote:

(if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind )


If the bible writers can't be trust in the easy to be verified claims:

resurrection (through verifying their accounts)
prophecies (through verifying their fulfillments)



so how can one trust them in the areas where their claims cannot be tested:

trinity
salvation

etc....


I'm not such kind of Muslim who busy his mind with the question:

Is the trinity in the bible?

I busy my mind with more crucial question:

Is the bible truly inspired from God?


If the Bible proved errant ,then who bother himself with what it says !!!!

Christianity with its basic concepts Trinity,salvation ...stands or fall on its scripture...

my posts deal basically with the proofs that the bible fell short the test of inspiration.......



format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
oops that was supposed to be imam



Imama is a nice nick too.....

not all words end with (a) makes you think it to be female lol


Imam and Imama in Arabic

is like scholar and scholarship in English
Reply

Zamtsa
12-26-2008, 04:37 PM
Yahweh means "Who exist by Himself, who created whatever exist."

So, like Jehova witness who said that Jesus is not Allah but god or God too. They said that Allah has the ability that Jesus and the Holy Ghost (Jibril) don't have.

Allah came from the word Al and Ilah, means the only God.

So, this is His name. When we say that Allah is the only God, then Yahweh is only 1 of Allah's characteristics according to the meaning of Yahweh AS ABOVE.

The Jews hated Jibril, so the christians differ themselves from the Jews by doing the opposite extreme which was by making him as 1 of the God.
Jibril the Ruhul Qudus is a Malaikat (angel) not God. Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam is very close to Allahu Ta'ala according to Rasulullah so that whenever He loves someone, He will tell Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam.

So no Trinity in Allahu Ta'ala but His Rububiyyah, Uluhiyah and Asma' wa Shifat.

Allah has more than 99 names, so He has more than 99 personalities but He is 1 being (Dzat) and He could be in these more than 99 personalities at once at one time and one place.



Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh.
Reply

Follower
12-27-2008, 03:06 AM
The Holy Ghost/Spirit is not Gibraiel.

Why does the Quran use the term for Gabriel when he is the angel messanger? Why confuse the issue? The Holy Spirit which some, as in the Jehovah Witnessws say isn't another personality of GOD?

"my posts deal basically with the proofs that the bible fell short the test of inspiration..."

Using that arguement makes the Quran a lie though!?!? All that is in the Old Testament leads up to the Gospel. The very Gospel that the Quran validates!

LOL!! If you have trouble understanding the Quran you are to seek out those who have studied they Bible?

What?

010.094
YUSUFALI: If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.
SHAKIR: But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

Of all the miracles in the world the greatest is the Holy Bible itself.

The prophecies fulfilled.

Paul's conversion a cool miracle- a person that was presecuting the Christians becomes a teacher of Christianity!!
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-27-2008, 06:18 AM
how can God be a being?
God exists, i.e. God is or God be's. All that is alive be's and are beings. Most beings are created beings, creatures created by God. But since God has always existed and always will, his name even meaning "I will be who I will be," then God is not a creature but an eternal being. And there is only one being who can be eternal, uncreated and existing not only before all other beings came into existence, but even outside of time itself. This Being that exists, the one who simply IS who he is -- immutable -- is God. There is none like him.

The term person is different from the term being in that personhood is an expression of only some beings. Those that have personalities, that possess a degree of sense of self and can project that self toward others. (I.e., starfish are not persons, once upon a time I would not have said that monkey and apes possessed personhood, but as I learn more about them, I may have to change my mind regarding them.) Certainly this is true of God, that he possesses personhood, and it is also true of his human creatures. The difference between God's human creatures and God of course has to do with the finite nature of his human creatures. They are confined to time and space, where he is not. They are 3-dimensional, where he does not exist within dimensions at all, but transcends them. Thus, there are some limitations on the concept of personhood with regard to the creature, that are not true with regard to the creator. Among them is that for the creature, persons are individual discreet beings and that each unique are unto themselves. Because they occupy a certain unique set of space at a particular unique time, they are each unique individuals. But as God exists outside of time and space, then he does not occupy it in the same way that his creatures do. Hence, we should not superimpose our limited experience of what it means to be a persons onto him. And indeed, we find in the scriptures that it speaks of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each as God, but this same scripture also affirms that there is just one God. While the doctrine of the Trinity was an attempt by some to explain that reality, it matters not if we are capable of explaining it or it remains a mystery understood by God alone. We do know that this is what the scriptures reveal to us regarding the nature of God, and thus we accept it as true, whether or not we or anyone else can understand how it is. We nonetheless know that it in fact simply is what it is, and it is true.

Now, if you don't accept the scriptures as true, then you are certainly free to question all of this at length, and decide for yourself what is and isn't true by any logic you so desire to use. But I don't have that option, as I accept that the nature of God revealed to us in scripture is of the God that is, aand whether or not I am able to fully understand him with my limited human mind is actually irrelevant to who he is.



in what form he [the Son] was present as part of the Godhead?
Don't say in human form,as you know the so called incarnation happened
on earth,not in heaven...
so ,he has to be in spiritual form God's own spirit
If he was God's own spirit(they both still one spiritual material) then The father glorified the father,cause the son hasn't appeared at the scene yet...
Indeed, prior to his incarnation, the Son was in present in spiritual form. I have always asserted exactly this. But I will not say spiritual material, for that mistakenly begins to think of something that is concrete in nature and occupies a given space at a given time. And can you see the how this leads you to think in terms of "before" and "after" with regard to saying that the Son hasn't appeared yet. Again, as I have already discussed with Saya, there is never a time when the Son was not in existence. That he has not appeared in the flesh yet, does not mean that he doesn't exist. That is the whole point of the Trinity, God has always been three persons. He didn't just become three persons at the time of Jesus. Since from before the beginning, as a very part of who God himself is, at the core of his being, God is three persons. Yet, as you have said: "(they both still one spiritual material)", he is still just one.

Athanasius, who is the major name in dispute with Arianism, surmised that when Jesus said "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), it means that the Father and Son are of one substance as it is is a matter of identity of substance (your "spiritual material") not numerical unity. By extension, Son and Spirit are of the same substance with the Father. Thus, we can speak of God's one "substance" (what I generally call one being) and three distinct yet undivided "persons". Tertullian, who coined the term "Trinity", by which he meant "one substance in three persons" put it this way:
Father, Son, and Spirit are "three" not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as he is one God.
Tertullian was also the first to apply the term persona in referring to God. For Tertullian, while substance stood for the common fundamental reality shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he understood person as the principle of distinct operative character.

And as the word "person" seems to be still causing confusion, let me just quote from another author on it:
Much has been written about the history of the term persona and its application to Trinitarian language. The contours of the term are both obscure and wide. In its original sense it has the meaning of "mask" as worn by an actor in a play [think Greek theater], thus denoting something that is not "real" for the human being behind the mask. The other extreme, the modern one, is to regard the persona as not only something "real" abot the human beingbut also highly individualistic. Tertullian probably meant something like concrete individual. Understandably, neither the etymology of the term nor its highly individualized modern meaning captures the principles of distinction-in-unity meant by those who first applied it to the Christian God.
Veli-Matti Karkkainen, The Trinity: Global Perspectives
Reply

Zamtsa
12-27-2008, 11:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Thayyib
Yahweh means "Who exist by Himself, who created whatever exist."

So, like Jehova witness who said that Jesus is not Allah but god or God too. They said that Allah has the ability that Jesus and the Holy Ghost (Jibril) don't have.

Allah came from the word Al and Ilah, means the only God.

So, this is His name. When we say that Allah is the only God, then Yahweh is only 1 of Allah's characteristics according to the meaning of Yahweh AS ABOVE.

The Jews hated Jibril, so the christians differ themselves from the Jews by doing the opposite extreme which was by making him as 1 of the God.
Jibril the RUHUL QUDUS is a Malaikat (angel) not God. Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam is very close to Allahu Ta'ala according to Rasulullah so that whenever He loves someone, He will tell Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam.

So no Trinity in Allahu Ta'ala but His Rububiyyah, Uluhiyah and Asma' wa Shifat.

Allah has more than 99 names, so He has more than 99 personalities but He is 1 being (Dzat) and He could be in these more than 99 personalities at once at one time and one place.



Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh.

Look the one being capitalised there, translate that into English, what will be your translation? Holy spirit or not? It was named that way from Jibril 'Alaihi Salam the Ruhul (spirit) Qudus (holy, not Quddus).
Reply

malayloveislam
12-27-2008, 01:56 PM
Err, sorry, what exactly is Holy Spirit in Christianity?? I had read about his function in Christianity through Scripture studies but I am not quite sure about what is Holy Spirit according to Christians understanding.

In Islam we only know Archangel Gabriel as Holy Spirit, it is translated from Quranic Arabic, Ruhul Qudus. This is his title. He is not God for us and he is not apart of God, he is an angel and the emissary of Allah to His prophets and messengers. Means that he is the creature created by God. Angels were created from light, Genies including Devil and demons are from smokeless fire, and Adam from earth elements.

Archangel Gabriel brought revelations to the prophets and messengers and teaching them about religion matters including the act of worship.

In Surah Maryam, Archangel Gabriel is the one who had annunciate to mother Maryam about the nativity of prophet Jesus (pbuh). He takes the form of a young man not in his real form through the permission of Allah.
Reply

Imam
12-27-2008, 02:17 PM
:sl:

Grace Seeker, you are at it again!


though you affirmed

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
it matters not if we are capable of explaining it or it remains a mystery understood by God alone.
still you want to have another run and making sense to the illogical mystery


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Indeed, prior to his incarnation, the Son was in present in spiritual form. I will not say spiritual material, for that mistakenly begins to think of something that is concrete in nature and occupies a given space at a given time. :
I never think of spirit as something concrete,occupies a given space at a given time.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
this leads you to think in terms of "before" and "after" with regard to saying that the Son hasn't appeared yet.:
before and after I meant ,obviously ,(before and after the so called incarnation)


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
there is never a time when the Son was not in existence. That he has not appeared in the flesh yet, does not mean that he doesn't exist. That is the whole point of the Trinity,
and that is one of the basic refutations to the trinity!

First:

If we agree that God's spirit is nothing concrete in nature and never occupies a given space at a given time, that means not only there is never a time when the son (Jesus as in his spiritual form) was not in existence ,but also
there is never a time when all human mankind (as in spirits) were not in existence.
you see now, under your line of reasoning ,how many could fairly join the Godhead?


Second:

you claim

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Indeed, prior to his incarnation, the Son was in present in spiritual form.
If we rewrite your sentence ,we would realize the problem ,those who try to explain the trinity,can't resolve..


let's rewrire it:

Indeed, prior to his incarnation, the Father was in present in spiritual form.

If the father is God as in John 20:17 :"Jesus saith unto her, ...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your

And God appeared in the flesh (incarnated)

then the father was incarnated.....


let's rewrite it again :

Indeed, prior to his incarnation, Imam was in present in spiritual form.

If Imam was (just as all humans) present in spiritual form and Christians claim that the spirit if go through the flesh considered an act of incarnation

then Imam was incarnated !


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
God has always been three persons. He didn't just become three persons at the time of Jesus. Since from before the beginning,

I guess you mean God has always been three spiritual persons before the incarnation

well,under your line of reasoning
one could fairly claim

God has always been countless spiritual persons before their incarnations (God breathed his spirit in their mothers' wombs)



in sum

If one claims that :

the Father has timeless,limitless,indivisible spiritual form .

and

The son(before,during,after incarnation)has timeless,limitless,indivisible spiritual form .

then logically the son has to be the father and vice versa..... and the phrases


God incarnated

the father incarnated

the son incarnated

would surely mean the exact same thing


And if one would argue that God the father emptied God the Son of the divine attributes , then, it logically follows that he was only fully human..


If one ignore all such logical facts,and insist that He was fully human and fully God then one should answer some logical questions:

How could you have a being who is perfect and not perfect simultaneously?

Luke 18:19, Jesus responded: "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is God..

How could a being be both ignorant of some facts and omniscient?

Jesus said"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 and Matt. 24:36) But God knows all. His knowledge is without any limitations.

etc........


submitting logic to trinity is an impossible dream....

the best Christians could do to talk about the trinity is to search for it in the Bible ,if so they would find non-inspired work,and self-contradictory concept.

format_quote Originally Posted by Follower

But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

LOL!! If you have trouble understanding the Quran you are to seek out those who have studied they Bible?
and I would say:

If you ,follower ,have trouble understanding the Quran you are to seek out those who have studied they Quran.


According to your understanding of the verse , God advised , if one doesn't understand a verse like (they killed him nor crucified him )to go to Christians to explain for him how jesus was crucified !

and if one doesn't understand that in the Quran that all the prophets were examples of moral and spiritual rectitude ,one should go asking the Jews
and they will explain such Quranic fact by their biblical stories of prophet Lot's incestuous relationship with his daughters ,David's adultery,Solomon etc......

Does that make sense?! no it doesn't

in order to understand the verse you should consider:

1- the conditional If in the verse.


2-what kind of things he might ask....

As logically,It is not possible he would ask about things they hide,deny or dont exist in their books...
and that is affirmed by the context of the chapter
one look at the theme of the chapter (Yunus) ,it is the Quran alludes to the fact that those nations who denied their messengers after having been convinced of their messenger ship were destroyed by the Almighty. A little contemplation on verses 71-93 shows that those verses provide evidence from history how this principle applied to different nations. As a result, verses 71-73 narrate the story of Noah (pbuh) and his nation who was drowned in the great flood. Verses 75-93 narrate incidents from the history of Bani Israel (Jews) of prophet Moses (pbuh) and prophet Aaron (pbuh) and how Pharoah and his folks were drowned. It is after this that verse 94 declares,

told that the history that Quran has just narrated is well-known to the people of the Book. So if you do not believe in what has been told to you, ask the people who have the Book before you. Needless to say, the incidents of doom of nations of Noah (pbuh), and Moses (pbuh) and Aaron (pbuh) are all narrated in the Bible. In addition, narrations of the stories of many other nations can also be found in the Bible which were doomed by the Almighty for their disbelief in the messengers of God. This reference to the people of the Book is primarily for the purposes of verification of history.




format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
The prophecies fulfilled.

visit me there and I will show you that such claim is false.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...eve-jesus.html


:w:
Reply

Zamtsa
12-27-2008, 02:37 PM
That's a good reply from Imam, infact the BIBLE only tell about Jesus was around 30 Years old, where was the other story of him? Where?
So I ask Christian why do you reject Gospel of Nazorean, Gospel of The Ebionites and Gospel of the Holy Twelve? And if you're still an Ebionite, why don't you read this is in Bible:


The BURNING of True 'Iisa Followers By Romans Empire

والسماء ذات البروج(1)

واليوم الموعود(2)
وشاهد ومشهود(3)
قتل أصحاب الأخدود(4)
النار ذات الوقود(5)
إذ هم عليها قعود(6)
وهم على ما يفعلون بالمؤمنين شهود(7)
وما نقموا منهم إلا أن يؤمنوا بالله العزيز الحميد(8)
الذي له ملك السماوات والأرض والله على كل شيء شهيد(9)
إن الذين فتنوا المؤمنين والمؤمنات ثم لم يتوبوا فلهم عذاب جهنم ولهم عذاب الحريق(10)
إن الذين آمنوا وعملوا الصالحات لهم جنات تجري من تحتها الأنهار ذلك الفوز الكبير(11)
إن بطش ربك لشديد(12)
إنه هو يبدئ ويعيد(13)
وهو الغفور الودود(14)
ذو العرش المجيد(15)
فعال لما يريد(16)
هل أتاك حديث الجنود(17)
فرعون وثمود(18)
بل الذين كفروا في تكذيب(19)
والله من ورائهم محيط(20)
بل هو قرآن مجيد(21)
في لوح محفوظ(22)

001. By the heaven, holding mansions of the stars,
002. And by the Promised Day.
003. And by the witness and that whereunto he beareth testimony,
004. (Self-)destroyed were the owners of the ditch
005. Of the fuel-fed fire,
006. When they SAt by it,
007. And were themselves the witnesses of what they did to the BELIEVERS.
008. They had naught against them save that they BELIEVED in Allah, the Mighty, the Owner of Praise,
009. Him unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth; and Allah is of all things the Witness.
010. Lo! they who persecute (BURN) believing men and believing women and repent not, theirs verily will be the doom of hell, and theirs the doom of burning.
011. Lo! those who believe and do good works, theirs will be Gardens underneath which rivers flow. That is the Great Success.
012. Lo! the punishment of thy Lord is stern.
013. Lo! He it is Who produceth, then reproduceth,
014. And He is the Forgiving, the Loving,
015. Lord of the Throne of Glory,
016. Doer of what He will.
017. Hath there come unto thee the story of the hosts
018. Of Pharaoh and (the tribe of) Tsamud?
019. Nay, but those who disbelieve live in denial
020. And Allah, all unseen, surroundeth them.
021. Nay, but it is a glorious Qur'an.
022. On a guarded tablet.

For ayat no.14, my comment is that the Roman king who like to say that they forgive someone mistakes and free them from charge aren't Ghafuurul Waduud (the Forgiving, the Loving) who is Allahu 'Azza wa Jalla.


ما المسيح ابن مريم إلا رسول قد خلت من قبله الرسل وأمه صديقة كانا يأكلان الطعام انظر كيف نبين لهم الآيات ثم انظر أنى يؤفكون (QS.5:75)

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to EAT their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!


(QS.5:75)

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to EAT their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!

قل إن كان للرحمن ولد فأنا أول العابدين(QS.43:81)
Say: "If (Allah) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship."

The earth and sky aren't as the result of marriage between Allah and a woman as some spiritual said. This is the evidence:

تكاد السماوات يتفطرن منه وتنشق الأرض وتخر الجبال هدا(QS.19:90)
At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,

إذ قالت الملآئكة يا مريم إن الله يبشرك بكلمة منه اسمه المسيح عيسى ابن مريم وجيها في الدنيا والآخرة ومن المقربين(QS.3:45)
Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;

إذ قال الله يا عيسى إني متوفيك ورافعك إلي ومطهرك من الذين كفروا وجاعل الذين اتبعوك فوق الذين كفروا إلى يوم القيامة ثم إلي مرجعكم فأحكم بينكم فيما كنتم فيه تختلفون(QS.3:55)
Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

إن مثل عيسى عند الله كمثل آدم خلقه من تراب ثم قال له كن فيكون(QS.3:59)
The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

وبكفرهم وقولهم على مريم بهتانا عظيما(QS.4:156)
That they rejected Faith(to 'Iisa); that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

فبما نقضهم ميثاقهم وكفرهم بآيات الله وقتلهم الأنبياء بغير حق وقولهم قلوبنا غلف بل طبع الله عليها بكفرهم فلا يؤمنون إلا قليلا(QS.4:156)
(They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word; We need no more)";- Nay, Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy, and little is it they believe;-

وقولهم إنا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وإن الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه ما لهم به من علم إلا اتباع الظن وما قتلوه يقينا(QS.4:157)
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they KILLED him not, nor CRUCIFIED him, but so it was made to APPEAR to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only CONJECTURE to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

وإن من أهل الكتاب إلا ليؤمنن به قبل موته ويوم القيامة يكون عليهم شهيدا(QS.4:159) The Proof that 'Iisa still live in the 3rd sky and will descend and become a just judge using Al Qur'an and As Sunnah.
And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his DEATH; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-

THE UNTOLD STORY OF 'Iisa And Nashrani

إذ قال الله يا عيسى ابن مريم اذكر نعمتي عليك وعلى والدتك إذ أيدتك بروح القدس تكلم الناس في المهد وكهلا وإذ
علمتك الكتاب والحكمة والتوراة والإنجيل وإذ تخلق من الطين كهيئة الطير بإذني فتنفخ فيها فتكون طيرا بإذني وتبرئ الأكمه والأبرص بإذني وإذ تخرج الموتى بإذني وإذ كففت بني إسرائيل عنك إذ جئتهم بالبينات فقال الذين كفروا منهم إن هذا إلا سحر مبينQS.5:110)

Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'


وكذلك أعثرنا عليهم ليعلموا أن وعد الله حق وأن الساعة لا ريب فيها إذ يتنازعون بينهم أمرهم فقالوا ابنوا عليهم بنيانا ربهم أعلم بهم قال الذين غلبوا على أمرهم لنتخذن عليهم مسجدا(QS.18:21)The Habit Of Making Churches Above The Grave Of Pious People

Thus did We make their case known to the people, that they might know that the promise of Allah is true, and that there can be no doubt about the Hour of Judgment. Behold, they dispute among themselves as to their affair. (Some) said, "Construct a building over them": Their Lord knows best about them: those who prevailed over their affair said, "Let us surely build a PLACE of WORSHIP over them."


QS.2:87 Wa laqad a_taina_ musal kita_ba wa qaffaina_ mim ba'dihi bir rusul(i), wa a_taina_ 'isabna maryamal bayyina_ti fa ayyadna_hu bi ruhil qudus(i), afakullama_ ja_'akum rasulum bima_ la_ tahwa_ anfusukumus takbartum, fa fariqan kazzabtum wa fariqan taqtulu_n(a).

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-Baqara Ruku 11 Surah 2Madina (87) 286 Ayahs40 Rukus


QS.2:87 We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary CLEAR (Signs) and strengthened him with the HOLY SPIRIT. Is it that whenever there comes to you an Apostle with what ye yourselves desire not ye are puffed up with pride? Some ye called impostors and others ye slay!


Quran TransliterationSurah Al-Baqara Ruku 16 Surah 2Madina (87) 286 Ayahs40 Rukus


QS.2:136 Qu_lu_ a_manna_ billa_hi wa ma_ unzila ilaina_ wa ma_ unzila ila_ ibra_hima wa isma_'ila wa isha_qa wa ya'qu_ba wal asba_ti wa ma_ u_tiya mu_sa_ wa 'isa_ wa ma_ u_tiyan nabiyyu_na mir rabbihim, la_ nufarriqu baina ahadim minhum, wa nahnu lahu_ muslimu_n(a).

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-Baqara Ruku 16 Surah 2Madina (87) 286 Ayahs40 Rukus


QS.2:136 Say ye: "We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord we make no difference between one and another of them and we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

Quran TransliterationSurah Al-i'Imran Ruku 5 Surah 3Madina (89) 200 Ayahs19 Rukus



QS.3:45 Iz qa_latil mala_'ikatu ya_ maryamu innalla_ha yubasysyiruki bi kalimatim minh(u), ismuhul masihu'isabnu maryama wajihan fid dunya_ wal a_khirati wa minal muqarrabin(a).

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-i'Imran Ruku 5 Surah 3Madina (89) 200 Ayahs19 Rukus

45 Behold! the angels said "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus the son of Mary held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

Quran TransliterationSurah Al-i'Imran Ruku 5 Surah 3Madina (89) 200 Ayahs19 Rukus



QS.3:52 Falamma_ ahassa 'isa_ minhumul kufra qa_la man ansa_ri ilalla_h(i), qa_lal hawa_riyyu_na nahnu ansa_rulla_h(i), a_manna_ billa_h(i), wasyhad bi anna_ muslimu_n(a).

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-i'Imran Ruku 5 Surah 3Madina (89) 200 Ayahs19 Rukus


52 When Jesus found unbelief on their part he said: "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples: "We are Allah's helpers we believe in Allah and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.

Quran TransliterationSurah Al-i'Imran Ruku 5 Surah 3Madina (89) 200 Ayahs19 Rukus


QS.3:55 Iz qa_lalla_hu ya_ 'isa_ inni mutawaffika wa ra_fi'uka ilayya wa mutahhiruka minal lazina kafaru_ wa ja_'ilul lazinattaba'u_ka fauqal lazina kafaru_ ila_ yaumil qiya_mah(ti), summa ilayya marji'ukum fa ahkumu bainakum fima_ kuntum fihi takhtalifu_n(a).

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-i'Imran Ruku 5 Surah 3Madina (89) 200 Ayahs19 Rukus


QS.3:55 Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject Faith to the Day of Resurrection; then shall ye all return unto Me and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

Quran TransliterationSurah An-Nisaa Ruku 23 Surah 4Madina (92) 176 Ayahs24 Rukus


QS.4:171 Ya_ ahlal kita_bi la_ taglu_ fi dinikum wa la_ taqu_lu_'alallu_hi illal haqq(a), innamal masihu 'isabnu maryama rasu_lulla_hi wa kalimatuh(a_), alqa_ha_ ila_ maryama wa ru_hum minh(u), fa a_minu_ billa_hi warusulih(i), wa la_ taqu_lu_ sala_sah(tun), intahu_ khairal lakum, innamalla_hu ila_huw wa_hid(un), subha_nahu_ an taka_na lahu_ walad(un), lahu_ ma_ fis sama_wa_ti wa ma_ fil ard(i), wa kafa_ billa_hi wakila_(n).

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah An-Nisaa Ruku 23 Surah 4Madina (92) 176 Ayahs24 Rukus


171 O people of the Book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of Allah and His Word which He bestowed on Mary and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Apostles. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One Allah: glory be to him: (for Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

Quran TransliterationSurah Al-Maida Ruku 6 Surah 5Madina (112) 120 Ayahs16 Rukus


QS.5:46 Wa qaffaina_ 'ala_ a_sa_rihim bi'isabni maryama musaddiqal lima_ baina yadaihi minat taura_h(ti), wa a_taina_hul injila fihi hudaw wa nu_r(uw), wa musaddiqal lima_ baina yadaihi minat taura_ti wa hudaw wa mau'izatal lil muttaqin(a).

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-Maida Ruku 6 Surah 5Madina (112) 120 Ayahs16 Rukus


46 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

Quran TransliterationSurah Al-Maida Ruku 10 Surah 5Madina (112) 120 Ayahs16 Rukus



78 Lu'inal lazina kafaru_ mim bani isra_'ila 'ala_ lisa_ni da_wu_da wa 'isabni maryam(a), za_lika bima_ 'asaw wa ka_nu_ ya'tadu_n(a).

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-Maida Ruku 10 Surah 5Madina (112) 120 Ayahs16 Rukus


78 Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected faith by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses. 786 787

Quran TransliterationSurah Al-Maida Ruku 14 Surah 5Madina (112) 120 Ayahs16 Rukus


QS.5:111 Wa iz auhaitu ilal hawa_riyyina an a_minu_ bi wa birasu_li, qa_lu_ a_manna_ wasyhad bi annana_ muslimu_n(a).

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-Maida Ruku 14 Surah 5Madina (112) 120 Ayahs16 Rukus


QS.5:111 "And behold! I inspired the Disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Apostle: they said `We have faith and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims'."

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-Maida Ruku 15 Surah 5Madina (112) 120 Ayahs16 Rukus


The ORIGIN of Sunday praying:

112 Behold! the disciples said: "O Jesus the son of Mary! can thy Lord send down to us a table set (with viands) from heaven?" Said Jesus: "Fear Allah if ye have faith." 825
113 They said: "We only wish to eat thereof and satisfy our hearts and to know that thou hast indeed told us the truth; and that we ourselves may be witnesses to the miracle.
114 Said Jesus the son of Mary: "O Allah our Lord! send us from heaven a table set (with viands) that there may be for us for the first and the last of us a solemn festival and a sign from Thee; and provide for our sustenance for Thou art the best Sustainer (of our needs).

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-Muminun Ruku 3 Surah 23Mecca (74) 118 Ayahs6 Rukus


50 And We made the son of Mary and his mother as a Sign: We gave them both shelter on high ground affording rest and security and furnished with springs. 2906 2907

Jesus could talk since he was a baby:

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Az-Zukhruf Ruku 6 Surah 43Mecca (63) 89 Ayahs7 Rukus



63 When Jesus came with Clear Signs he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me. 4663
64 "For Allah; He is my Lord and your Lord: so worship ye Him: this is a Straight Way." 4664
65 But sects from among themselves fell into disagreement: then woe to the wrongdoers from the Penalty of a Grievous Day!

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-Hadid Ruku 4 Surah 57Madina (94) 29 Ayahs4 Rukus



27 Then in their wake We followed them up with (others of) Our apostles: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the monasticism which they invented for themselves We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good pleasure of Allah; but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed on those among them who believed their (due) reward but many of them are rebellious transgressors.

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah As-Saff Ruku 1 Surah 61Madina (109) 14 Ayahs2 Rukus



QS.61:14 O ye who believe! be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples "We are Allah's helpers!" Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed and a portion disbelieved: but We gave power to those who believed against their enemies and they became the ones that PREVAILED.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-28-2008, 12:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
First:

If we agree that God's spirit is nothing concrete in nature and never occupies a given space at a given time, that means not only there is never a time when the son (Jesus as in his spiritual form) was not in existence ,but also
there is never a time when all human mankind (as in spirits) were not in existence.
you see now, under your line of reasoning ,how many could fairly join the Godhead?
How do you reach the conclusion of the portion I highlighted above? I understand that Muslims believe that all persons already exist on the spiritual plane, but this is not what is taught in the Bible nor believed by either Christians nor Jews. We do not exist until our creation in our mother's womb, that includes our spirit as well. Thus, talking about Jesus as being pre-existent is only possible when speaking of him as the incarnation of the eternally existing God, not in his humanness.


It seemed much of the rest of your critique flowed from this error in understanding the Christian view of humanity.


But I do want to comment on the following:
in sum

If one claims that :

the Father has timeless,limitless,indivisible spiritual form .

and

The son(before,during,after incarnation)has timeless,limitless,indivisible spiritual form .

then logically the son has to be the father and vice versa..... and the phrases


God incarnated

the father incarnated

the son incarnated

would surely mean the exact same thing
I don't really have much of a problem with this. This is why I keep reminding you that we Christians don't actually associate partners with God. Though I know that Muslims will continue to accuse us of such blasphemy, whether speaking of the Father or Jesus it is all the same one God to us.
Reply

Follower
12-28-2008, 01:39 AM
Hold the phone!!!!! grace that popped out at me too - wow imam I did not know that Muslims thought

"never a time when all human mankind (as in spirits) were not in existence"

Abdul - there are snippets of the truth of Christ as the Alpha and Omega troughou the Holy Bible.
Reply

Imam
12-28-2008, 11:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Muslims believe that all persons already exist on the spiritual plane, but this is not what is taught in the Bible nor believed by either Christians nor Jews. We do not exist until our creation in our mother's womb, that includes our spirit as well. .

format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
wow imam I did not know that Muslims thought "never a time when all human mankind (as in spirits) were not in existence .
Are you surprised? well,


(Job 33:4) "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.


(Job xii. 10). Through His spirit all living things are created; and when He withdraws it they perish.


the spirit of God is something timeless, not created .....

so you still sure that according to what the Bible teaches, our spirits not exist until our creation in our mother's womb?


if so then be ready for other surprises........

format_quote Originally Posted by Imam


If one claims that :
the Father has timeless,limitless,indivisible spiritual form .

and
The son(before,during,after incarnation)has timeless,limitless,indivisible spiritual form .

then logically the son has to be the father and vice versa......
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I don't really have much of a problem with this..
so you agree that son has to be the father and vice versa

well,could we say that the father was ignorant of the time of the hour?

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the father, but the son."

If not ,why not?
Reply

Zamtsa
12-28-2008, 02:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
How do you reach the conclusion of the portion I highlighted above? I understand that Muslims believe that all persons already exist on the spiritual plane, but this is not what is taught in the Bible nor believed by either Christians nor Jews. We do not exist until our creation in our mother's womb, that includes our spirit as well. Thus, talking about Jesus as being pre-existent is only possible when speaking of him as the incarnation of the eternally existing God, not in his humanness.


It seemed much of the rest of your critique flowed from this error in understanding the Christian view of humanity.


But I do want to comment on the following:I don't really have much of a problem with this. This is why I keep reminding you that we Christians don't actually associate partners with God. Though I know that Muslims will continue to accuse us of such blasphemy, whether speaking of the Father or Jesus it is all the same one God to us.

For other people, your difficulty is that Christian couldn't believe that all the Prophets were "Guide by Allahu Ta'ala from doing error" and they all had good akhlaq.
Muslim believed that Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam was cleansing Muhammad Shalalahu 'Alaihi wa Sallam's heart from the part of Syaithan, and fill his heart with Iman and Hikmah, so his heart only to Allahu Ta'ala. And Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam also did this surgery again to him, before he was having the trip of Isra' Mi'raj.

And so when people aren't used to obey the Taurat because it was being sent down to the chosen man, Muusa 'Alaihi Salaam, they also would not accept Iisa 'Alaihi Salaam as the chosen man, instead they made God out of him and son of God, na'uudzu billah.

Why Allahu Tabaraka Ta'ala was making a miracle of a fatherless Prophet?
It is known that the Jews liked to lower the woman against their original Din (religion of Muusa and other Prophets).
This miracle offcourse made them furious and got more arrogant or instead made others forget their arrogance of being the Ibrahim's descendants.
And made them accept the true teaching of Muusa 'Alaihi Salaam in Taurat.

So it's not the action of people who said "the Jews don't have any Iman" or saying "the Nashrani don't have any Iman," what's right is "The followers of Taurat have Iman and the followers of Injil have Iman."
When these people met Rasulullah, they knew that what had been promise by Allahu Ta'ala came true at that time, of the coming of Almasih and the coming of the last prophet after Iisa time.

You'll see in the beginning of John, there was someone asking to Almasih Iisa 'Alaihi Salaam "Are you John?" then he replied "no," Are you Elia ? then he replied "no," ARE YOU THE LAST PROPHET?, then he replied "NO."

QUESTION, Reply the Capitalised words. Who is the SPIRIT of TRUTH? For me if you really believe this, then you must followed MUHAMMAD Shalallahu 'Alaihi wa Sallam, because he was receiving the words of Allahu Ta'ala through the SPIRIT OF TRUTH (Ruhul Amin), nonetheless Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam is Ruhul Amin and Ruhul Qudus.


assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh.
Reply

Zamtsa
12-28-2008, 02:40 PM
Quran TransliterationSurah Ash-Shu'araa Ruku 11 Surah 26Mecca (47) 227 Ayahs11 Rukus

193 Nazala bihir RU_HUL AMIN


193 With it came down the Spirit of Faith and Truth


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace be upon who follow the guidance)
Reply

Follower
12-28-2008, 02:55 PM
Wait are we confusing each other- are you saying my spirit was in existance from the beginning of time?

Do you mean to say that before creation human spirits were floating around?

Aren't Muslims getting the cart before the horse here- sort of like the created and uncreated Quran talk.

maylaylovesislam- the Holy Spirit is one of the manifestations of the One True GOD. When the Holy Bible speaks of Gabriel it mentions his name.

Luke 1
The Birth of Jesus Foretold
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

Also I might point out that in the Holy Bible the angel Gabriel reassures who he is speaking to- he doesn't choke anyone, punch them in the chest or squeeze them!!
Reply

Zamtsa
12-28-2008, 03:14 PM
For someone who debating the fact that Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam having name Ruhul Qudus (Holy Spirit) and Ruhul Amin (Spirit of Truth), do not make it hard for the Christian, because Jibril will never be different than Ruhul Qudus.

And also for who said that Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam didn't hug Muhammad Shalallahu 'Alaihi Salaam in the Hira cave, please know that the Malaikat even join battles to fight the Kafir, and Rasulullah said that they had horses and whips, and in other Shahih Hadits about Dajjal, Rasulullah said that Malaikat will guard the Madinah and Makkah with their swords.

Accepting these kinds of Hadits if Waajib for every Muslims.


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-28-2008, 06:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
(Job 33:4) "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.


(Job xii. 10). Through His spirit all living things are created; and when He withdraws it they perish.


the spirit of God is something timeless, not created .....
Agreed. You will note that when I talk about the Trinity, I also talk about the Holy Spirit as being co-eternal with both the Father and the Son. And I have no problem with viewing the Spirit as the one who gives breath to us human beings. I just dispute that he does so prior to our conception. I don't see that in scripture, and especially not in the verses you cited. I think this is a thought that you are bringing with you from your Islamic understanding and then applying to what you read in the scriptures. Understandable, I find I often do the same sort of thing in reverse when reading the Qur'an and Hadith, but it still is NOT reflective of the Christian understanding of what the scriptures teach.


so you still sure that according to what the Bible teaches, our spirits not exist until our creation in our mother's womb?
Yes. Exactly! Here is a key verse as to our origins:
Pslam 139
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
Now this does speak of God's sovereignty and omniscience, knowing even before we "came to be", but this implies that there is a time when we are not. If we were created in the same way that Jesus was co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit, then there would never be a time before one of our days came to be. The only problem I have with this verse is how much is to be taken as symbolic langauge and how much is literal? I don't think that it literally means that we were woven togehter in the depths of the earth, so am I to not take the rest of that thought literally either? I haven't answered that question for myself yet, so I can't for you either. But either way, it doesn't present to us the picture of people being in existence prior to their creation in the body. It just says that God is aware of us prior to our creation. And since God lives outside of time, and thus not constrained by the one-way flow of the arrow of time, this still makes perfect sense.



so you agree that son has to be the father and vice versa

well,could we say that the father was ignorant of the time of the hour?

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the father, but the son."

If not ,why not?
I recognize this as the crux of our different understandings and have been wanting to address it these last two posts, but I think doing so before we have mutual understanding of what it is that we each actually understand to be true with the prior points will just lead us to further frustration. So, let's be sure that while not likely to be in agreement, that we are willing to acknowledge the beliefs of the other before moving on to this key issue.





And, Abdul Thayyib, I would similarly love to respond to your posts, as well. However, I must confess that my ignorance of some of the terms you have used make me hesitant to respond until I have better understanding of what you mean.

Here are some of the words and phrases that I am needing help with:

akhlaq

Hikmah

Isra' Mi'raj

Taurat
(I'm guessing Torah, but don't know)

na'uudzu billah

Nashrani

Rasulullah
(this is another name by which you call Muhammad, correct?)

Almasih Iisa 'Alaihi Salaam (and I'm guessing this is another name, with a title for Jesus)

And please differentiate for me between these terms:
Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam is Ruhul Amin and Ruhul Qudus.
Reply

mkh4JC
12-28-2008, 09:07 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Quran mentions at some point that Allah caused everyone to be created in heaven and then made them confess that he was God so that they wouldn't have an excuse on the day of judgement? So if that's the case then where does it teach that we have always existed?
Reply

Imam
12-28-2008, 11:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I think this is a thought that you are bringing with you from your Islamic understanding and then applying to what you read in the scriptures.Understandable, I find I often do the same sort of thing in reverse when reading the Qur'an and Hadith .
If you have the problem of applying your Christian understanding to what you read in the Quran, it is not my problem , and you don't have the right to accuse me of not being objective without you offering reasonable proofs...



format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
And I have no problem with viewing the Spirit as the one who gives breath to us human beings. I just dispute that he does so prior to our conception. .

dispute that wherever you wish,but not in such thread as neither me nor anyone else claimed that the Spirit of God gives life to us human beings prior to our conception.

In my last post I was clear enough , according to the Bible, the spirit of God (which he offered us ...) is something timeless,was in existence prior to our conception and supported that with clear ,straight biblical proofs as;

(Job xii. 10). Through His spirit all living things are created; and when He withdraws it they perish.


If you have the proofs to the opposite ( the Spirit of God which he offers us ,just before conception, is something that is created ) just show us your documentations apart from Pslam 139:13 which is obviously offtopic .....


format_quote Originally Posted by fedos
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Quran mentions at some point that Allah caused everyone to be created in heaven and then made them confess that he was God so that they wouldn't have an excuse on the day of judgement?
surely you mean
Al-A'raf [7:172]

such verse has nothing related to the topic under discussion

(Confused about trinity)

I'd like to respect the forum rules as much as I can....so pardon me from explaining it..


peace


format_quote Originally Posted by follower

are you saying my spirit was in existence from the beginning of time?
my friend,the spirit that , me, you ,Jesus have is TIMELESS......
If you don't believe me ,go ask the inspired writer of Job ......



Peace for all
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-29-2008, 01:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
Go dispute that wherever you wish,but not in such thread as neither me nor anyone else claimed that the Spirit of God gives life to us human beings prior to our conception.
Did you not say:
there is never a time when all human mankind (as in spirits) were not in existence.
What do you mean by this is you don't mean that we humans beings exist prior to our conception?

In my last post I was clear enough , according to the Bible, the spirit of God (which he offered us ...) is something timeless,was in existence prior to our conception and supported that with clear ,straight biblical proofs as;
Which is somethng I have said as well. I don't dispute this. I dispute your conclusion that somehow this makes human beings pre-existentl spirts as well.



If you have the proofs to the opposite ( the Spirit of God which he offers us ,just before conception, is somethings created )
I have not said that the Spirit of God is something created. I have said that we do not exist, not even in a spiritual realm, until the time of our conception. And that our spirits are created at that same time and not prior to our conception. And while you think Pslam 139 is off topic, I do believe it speaks to that last point.


my friend,the spirit me, you ,Jesus have now is TIMELESS......
If you don't believe me ,go ask the inspired writer of Job ......
(Job xii. 10). Through His spirit all living things are created; and when He withdraws it they perish.
The Holy Spirit of God that Job speaks of created all things. And when he withdraws his Spirit, we perish. All well and good. But it is not the Holy Spirit that Follower and I speak of when we speak of our human spirit. Our human spirit, our soul if you will, is something that the Spirit creates within us, and by it we might have communion and fellowship with God, but it is not a part of God. It is a part of the created order, by God.
Reply

Imam
12-29-2008, 03:58 PM
:sl:

seeker: As the Father and Son are of one substance Indeed, prior to his incarnation, the Son was in present in spiritual form.

Imam: What is this spiritual form called?

Seeker:
the spirit of God .

Imam:what does the spirit of God look like?

Seeker: timless ,nothing concrete in nature and never occupies a given space at a given time

Imam:so you agree that the spirit of God timeless ,not created?

Seeker: yes,but our human spirits are created

Imam:but the Bible says that our spirit is not created but is given


Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of (A)dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and (B)man became a living being.


what is that ( breath of life) ?

according to the Bible as in Job ,It is the spirit of God

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
(Job xii. 10). Through His spirit all living things are created; and when He withdraws it they perish.

The Holy Spirit of God that Job speaks of created all things. And when he withdraws his Spirit, we perish.,Our human spirit, is something that the Spirit creates within us
.
What a muddle!!

What does the pronoun (it) in the verse refer to?

Job xii. 10). Through His spirit all living things are created; and when He withdraws it they perish.


It refers to (his spirit),(God's spirit)

Isn't it timeless,pre-existent?
yes, it is

Has it been given to us,or created for us?

it has been given..as the spirit of God is timeless


What if he withdraws it?

Seeker: And when he withdraws his Spirit, we perish.


Imam:so you realize that his spirit (God's spirit) if to be withdrawed from our bodies we perish,don't you?


Now how on earth, you claim that God's spirit which ,being without it, we perish,been created by another God's spirit ?!!!


that is what you want to say:

God's spirit is is something that God's spirit creates within us


while in order to make sense you should say:

The timeless spirit of God is something that God breath in our bodies in order to give us life and when He withdraws it we perish .

as we already have this timeless spirit of God till we die and it goes back to its timeless origin ,then that totaly evaporates your original argument
The so called Consubstantiality,Co-eternity of the son and his father or

(Jesus is part of the Godhead as , prior to his incarnation, the Son was present in spiritual form).


:w:
Reply

Zamtsa
12-29-2008, 04:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdul Thayyib
You'll see in the beginning of John, there was someone asking to Almasih Iisa 'Alaihi Salaam "Are you John?" then he replied "no," Are you Elia ? then he replied "no," ARE YOU THE LAST PROPHET?, then he replied "NO."

QUESTION, Reply the Capitalised words. Who is the SPIRIT of TRUTH? For me if you really believe this, then you must followed MUHAMMAD Shalallahu 'Alaihi wa Sallam, because he was receiving the words of Allahu Ta'ala through the SPIRIT OF TRUTH (Ruhul Amin), nonetheless Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam is Ruhul Amin and Ruhul Qudus.


assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh.
Akhlaq is the good manners. Hikmah is every lesson that will help us to correctly worship Allahu Ta'ala. Isra' Mi'raj is the journey of Rasulullah from Makkah to Baitul Maqdis, then to the 7th Heaven, riding a Buraq.
Na'udzu billah: I take cover to Allah. Nashrani:the origin name of Christian, the Nazoreans: from Nazareth.
Ruhul Amin: the Spirit of Truth. Ruhul Qudus: The Holy Spirit, both are nicknames for Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam.


Between you and Imam, that's HAQ, because syaikhul Islam ibn Taimiyyah had mentioned that the Nashrani was taking the spirit of human beings as not created, but likely as IMMORTAL.
In Islam that's only BATHIL, because when Allahu Ta'ala made Adam 'Alaihi Salaam, Allahu Ta'ala was breathing the soul which He has CREATED, to the body of Adam 'Alaihi Salaam, and He said "Be!," and Adam 'Alaihi Salaam came to being. Adam 'Alaihi Salaam was not like other being, because he was made by hands of Allahu Ta'ala, bi yadihim, while other creatures Allahu Ta'ala made yadihim, without "bi," which means "by" Allah's hands.

So the Nashrani was going to extreme by saying that the soul was given. What's right is created and breathe it unto the body.

If you would like to know names of Allahu Ta'ala, please look at these:


Shifatullah Al Waaridah Fil Kitab wa Sunnah
________________________________________
Aqidah

Asmaa was-Sifaat

General Principles Regarding Allaah's Attributes
Author: ‘Alawi ibn `Abdil-Qaadir as-Segaf




The First Principle
"Affirmation of everything that Allaah affirmed for Himself in His Book, or which His Messenger, sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallaam, affirmed for Him. Without distorting (tahreef), without denial (ta'teel), and without saying how they are (takyeef) and without making any resemblance with the creation (tamtheel)."[1]
Since Allaah knows better about Himself than anyone else, and His Messenger, sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallaam, knows better than rest of creation about his Lord.


The Second Principle
"To deny for Allaah everything which He has denied for Himself in His Book, or which His Messenger denied for Him, whilst believing its fully perfect opposite is confirmed for Allaah, the Most High."[2]
Since Allaah knows better about Himself than His creation, and His Messenger out of all the people is the one who knows best about His Lord, so denying death for Him includes affirmation of His perfect Life, and denying oppression for Him includes affirmation of His perfect Justice, and denying sleep for Him includes affirmation of His perfect charge/control over everything.


The Third Principle
"The attributes of Allaah, the Might and Magnificent, are only to be spoken of in accordance with a text (tawfeeqiyyah). So nothing is affirmed for Him except that which Allaah affirmed for Himself (or which) was affirmed for Him by His Messenger, and nothing is denied for Allaah, the Mighty and Magnificent, except that which He denied for Himself, was was denied for Him by His Messenger, sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallaam."[3]
Since there is no one who knows better about Allaah than Allaah, the Most High, (Himself), and there is no one of the creation who knows better about His Creator than Allaah's Messenger, sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallaam.


The Fourth Principle
"To halt with regard to vague terms which are not found to be affirmed or denied textually, in wording or meaning, so further explanation is sought. Then if something false is meant by it, then we declare Allaah free of that and reject it, and if something that is true and something that is not to be denied for Allaah, then it is accepted and the correct terminology as found in the text is to be made clear. And one should call for its usage in place of this vague and newly-introduced wording."[4]
An example of this is the term 'direction.' We halt, neither affirming or denying it, and we ask the one who says it, 'What do you mean by direction?' So if he says, 'I mean a place which contains Him.' Then we say, 'This is something false and Allaah is to be declared free from this, and we reject it.' But if he says, 'That He is unrestrictedly above.' Then we say, 'This is true it is not to be denied for Allaah,' and we accept the meaning from him, and we say, 'However, it is more fitting that you say, 'He is above the heavens,' or 'He is above,' as occurs in the authentic texts.' But as for the term 'direction' then it is vague and a novelty, so it is better to leave it.


The Fifth Principle
"Every attribute which is established by an authentic report definitely agrees with sound intellect."[5]


The Sixth Principle
"To cut off any hope of reaching the reality of 'how.' As He, the Most High, says:
And they will never compass anything of His knowledge.[6] [7]


The Seventh Principle
"The attributes of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, are affirmed in detail/specifically, whereas denial is done generally."[8]
So detailed and specific affirmation is, for example, affirming Hearing and Seeing, and the rest of the attributes. As for generalised denial, then like denial of any likeness as in His saying:
There is nothing like unto Him.[9]


The Eighth Principle
"Every name confirmed for Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, is inclusive of an attribute, but the opposite is not the case."[10]
For example, Allaah's name ar-Rahmaan (the Most Merciful) incorporates the attribute of mercy, al-Kareem (The Munificent) incorporates the attribute of munificence and al-Lateef (the Most Gentle and the All-Perceiving) incorporates the attribute of gentleness and being all-perceiving and so on. However, as for His attributes, (such as) His Will, His Coming, His Ascending-then names are not to be derived from them such as, 'The One who Wills,' 'The Comer,' 'The One who Ascended,' etc.


The Ninth Principle
"The attributes of Allaah, the Most High, are perfect, containing no deficiency in any sense at all."[11]


The Tenth Principle
"Attributes of Allaah, the Mighty and Magnificent, are dhaatiyyah - those pertaining to His Self, and fi'liyyah - those pertaining to His actions, and there is no limit or end to His actions.
And Allaah does what He wills."[12] [13]


The Eleventh Principle
"The proof from the Book and Sunnah for the establishment of an attribute is either:
(i) by clearly stating it,
(ii) or by its being incorporated by the name,
(iii) or by clear statement of an action or a description proving it."[14]
Examples of the first are Mercy, Might, Power, His Face, His Hands and His Fingers etc.
Examples of the second are al-Baseer (The Seeing) which incorporates the attribute of sight, and as-Samee' (The Hearing) which incorporates the attribute of hearing, and so on.
Examples of the third are (His Saying):
Ar-Rahmaan rose over the Throne.[15]
Which proves His having ascended, and (another example is His saying):
We shall exact retribution from the Mujrimoon.[16]
Which proves that He exacts retribution, and so on.


The Twelfth Principle
"One may seek refuge with Allaah, the Might and Magnificent's, attributes and swear an oath by them."[17]
From this is his, sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallaam, saying, "I seek refuge of Your Pleasure from Your Wrath, and from Your granting safety from Your punishment .." reported by Muslim (no. 486), and therefore al-Bukhaaree named a chapter heading in the Book of Oaths and Vows, "Chapter: Swearing an Oath by the Might of Allaah and His Attributes and His Words."


The Thirteenth Principle
"Speech concerning the attributes is like speech about His Self."[18]
Since just as His Self is real and does not resemble that of other than Him, then it is characterised by real attributes which also do not resemble the attributes of others, and just as affirming His Self is an affirmation of existence but not of 'how'-then the same is true of the attributes.


The Fourteenth Principle
"Speech concerning some of the Attributes is like speech about the rest of them."[19]
So whoever affirms the attributes of Allaah like Hearing, Seeing and Will, must therefore affirms Allaah's Loving, being Pleased, His Anger and His Hating. Shikhul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said, "And whoever differentiates between one attribute and another, despite their being the same with regard to reasons for their being literal or metaphorical-then he is contradicting himself, erroneous in his position, resembling those who believed in a part of the Book and disbelieved in other parts."


The Fifteenth Principle
"Whatever is attributed to Allaah and is not something separate from Him, then it is an attribute of His and not something created, and everything that is attributed to Him and is something separate from Him, then it is something created. So not everything which is attributed to Allaah is necessarily an attribute of His."[20]
Examples of the first are: Allaah's Hearing, Allaah's Seeing, His being Pleased and His Wrath.
Examples of the second are: The House of Allaah, the She-Camel of Allaah.


The Sixteenth Principle
"The attributes of Allaah, the Mighty and Magnificent, and all other matters of 'aqeedah are established by that which is established from Allaah's Messenger, sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallaam, even if it is a single hadeeth, even if it is aahaad."[21]


The Seventeeth Principle
"The attributes of Allaah, the Mighty and Magnificent, which are established in the Book and the Sunnah, are known and are explained literally-never metaphorically or figuratively. But as for ;how' they are, then that is unknown."[22] [23]


The Eighteenth Principle
"Whatever occurs in the Book or the Sunnah, then it is binding upon every Believer to hold what it entails as his saying and to believe in it, even is he does not understand its meaning."[24]


The Nineteenth Principle
"The domain of reports[25] is wider than that of the attributes, and so things related about Him are not necessarily dependant solely upon text, such as 'The Pre-Existing,' that He is a 'thing,' that He 'exists.'"[26]


The Twentieth Principle
"No analogy is made regarding the attributes of Allaah, the Mighty and Magnificent."[27]
So no analogy is made between His liberality (sakhaa') and His generosity (jood). Nor between His Strength (Jalad) and His Might (Qawwah). Nor His Capability (isti'aanah) and His Power (Qudrah). Nor His Compassion (riqqah) and His Mercy (rahmah) and (ra'fah). Nor His being Aware and His Knowing and so on. Since with regard to the attributes of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, we may not go beyond the principle of halting until a text is found, as has been seen in the third principle.


The Twenty-First Principle
"The attributes of Allaah, the Mighty and Magnificent, cannot be enumerated, since every name comprises an attribute as has preceded, and Allaah's names cannot be enumerated since from them are those which Allaah has retained with Himself in the knowledge of the Unseen."


NOTES
[1] 'Aqeedatus-Salaf Ashaabul-Hadeeth of as-Saaboonee, p. 4, Majmoo'ul-Fataawaa, 3/3, 4/182, 5/26, 6/38 and 515.
[2] Al-'Aqeedatut0Tadmuriyyah, of Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 55, Al-Jawaab Saheeh Liman Baddala Deenal-Maseeh, by him also, 3/139.
[3] Majmoo'ul-Fataawaa, 5/26.
[4] At-Tadmuriyyah, p. 65, Majmoo'ul-Fataawaa, 5/299, 6/36.
[5] Mukhtasarus-Sawaa'iq al-Mursalah, 1/141 and 253.
[6] Soorah Taa haa (20):110.
[7] Manhaj wa Diraasaat li Aayaatil-Asmaa was-Sifaat, of Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shanqeetee, p. 26.
[8] Majmoo'ul-Fataawaa, 6/37 and 515.
[9] Soorah Shooraa (42):11.
[10] Badaa'i'ul-Fawaa'id, 1/162 of Ibnul-Qayyim, Al-Qawaa'idul Muthlaa fee Sifaatillaah wa Asmaa'ihil Husnaa, p. 30 of Ibn 'Uthaymain.
[11] Majmoo'ul-Fataawaa, 5/206, Mukhtasarus-Sawaa'iq al-Mursalah, 1/232 and Badaa'i'ul-Fawaa'id, 1/168.
[12] Soorah Ibraaheem (14):27.
[13] Al-Qawaa'idul Muthlaa, p. 30.
[14] Al-Qawaa'idul-Muthlaa, p. 35.
[15] Soorah Taa Haa (20):5.
[16] Soorah as-Sajdah (32):22.
[17] Majmoo'ul-Fatwaawaa, 6/143 and 229, and see Sharhus-Sunnah of al-Baghawee (1/185-187) and some of them differentiate between swearing an oath by an attribute pertaining to an action and one pertaining to His Self, and they say, 'It is not permissible to swear (check?) by an attribute pertaining to an action.'
[18] Al-Kalaam 'alas-Sifaat of al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadee, p. 20, Al-Hujjah fee Bayaanil-Mahajjah of Qawaamsu-Sunnah (al-Asbahaanee), 1/173, At-Tadmuriyyah (p. 43) and Majmoo'ul-Fataawaa, 5/330 and 6/355.
[19] At-Tadmuriyyah, p. 31 and Majmoo'ul-Fataawaa, 5/212.
[20] Al-Jawaab as-Saheeh liman-Baddala Deenal-Maseeh,3/145, Majmoo'ul-Fataawaa, 9/290, Majmoo' Fataawaa wa Rasaa'il ibn 'Utahimain, 1/166.
[21] Mukhtasarus-Sawaa'iqul-Mursalah, 2/332, 412 and 43.
[22] For a reply to the doubts and claims of similarity refer to, Ar-Risaalatut-Tadmuriyyah, Munaazaatul-'Aqeedatil-Waasitiyyah, Ar-Risaalatul-Hamawiyyatul-Kubraa and Ar-Risaaltul-Marraakhashiyyah, all of them within Majmoo'ul-Fataawaa, 3/1-128, 1/160-194, 5/5-121 and 5/133-193, and all of them have also been published separately.
[23] At-Tadmuriyyah, pp. 43-44, Majmoo'ul-Fataawaa, 5/36-42, Mukhtasarus-Sawaa'iqul-Mursalah, 1/238 and 2/106 -.
[24] At-Tadmuriyyah, p. 65, Majmoo'ul-Fataawaa, 5/295 and Daqaa'qut-Tafseer, 5/245.
[25] I.e., about Allaah and His actions.
[26] Badaa'I'ul-Fawaa'id if Ibnul-Qayyim, 1/162.
[27] Sha'nud-Du'aa of al-Khattaabee, p. 111.





________________________________________Asma’ul husna


Islam said that we should make Du'a using Asma'ul Husnaa, for example: Yaa Razzaq, give me food for this day.
Yaa Hayiyyu Sittiir please cover my sins and bad characters.
Yaa Hayiyyu Kariim please regain my honour in Islam etc.

Rasulullah said that whoever memorise (ahsahaa) 99 of these will enter Jannah.
And when going to do Du'a, call Allah with these names.

Source: Qawa'id Al Mutsla by syaikh ibn Al 'Utsaimin
Syarah Asma' wa Shifat Allah 'Azza wa Jalla by Sa'ad bin Wahf Al Qahtani
Syamsuddin ibn Q.Al Jauziyyah in Asma'ul Husna
Shifatullah Waaridah Fi Kitab wa Sunnah by syaikh 'Alawi bin Abdul Qadir As Segaf

1.Rahmaan{The Most Compassionate} QS.(2):163.

2.Rahiim{The Most Merciful}, QS.Al Baqarah(2):163.

3.Ra’ufur Rahiim{The Full of pity and Most Merciful}, QS. Al Baqarah(2):143, At Taubah:117, An Nahl(16):7

4. Ar Ra'uf {The Full of pity},QS.Al Imran(3):30

5.Rahiimil waduud{The Most Merciful and Most Loving) lagi Maha Mencintai}, Al Huud:90

6.Rahiimil Ghafuur{The Most Merciful and Oft Forgiving lagi}, from Al Qur’an

7.Rahiimil ‘Affuw{The Most Merciful and Most Benign}, from Al Qur’an

8.’Aziiz{The exalted in Might}, {Al Hasyr(24):23}

9.’Aziizul Hakim {The All Mighty and All Wise},QS.Al Baqarah(2):209, Al Ma’idah:118, Al Hasyr:24

10.’Aziizul Ghafur{The All Mighty and Most Forgiving lagi Maha Pengampun}, QS.Al Faathir(35):28

11.’Aziizil ‘Alim{The All Mighty and All Knowing}, QS.Al Ghaafir(40):1-2, An Naml(26):6, Al An’aam(6):96

12.’Aziizir Rahim{The All Mighty and Most Merciful}, QS.Asy Syu’aara(26):9 and 68

13.Aziizul Hamid{The All Mighty and Most Praiseworthy}, QS.Saba’ (34):6

14.Aziizul Muqtadir{The All Mighty and Able to do all things}, QS.AL Qamar (54):42

15.Aziizul Wahhab{The Exalted in might and The Bestower}, QS.Shad (38):9, 66

16.Al Muqtadir (The Omnipotent), Al Kahfi(18):45

17.Qaadir{The Able}.

18.Qadir{The Able}, Al Imran(3):26

19. Wahhab{The Bestower},QS.Al Imran(3):8, Shaad:35

20. Al Haliim {The Most Forbearing},QS.Al Baqarah(2):235

21.Halimil Rahim{The Most Forbearing and Most Merciful}, from Al Qur’an

22 Halimil Ghafur{The Most Forbearing and Most Forgiving},from Al Qur’an

23. Al Waduud{The Loving}, from Al Qur’an, QS.Al Buruuj:14

24.As Sayyid{The Lord},HR.Ahmad IV/24, Abu Daud (4806), Shahih Al Jami’(3594) declared as Shahih by syaikh Nashir Al Albani.

25. Al Ghafuur (The Oft Forgiving),QS.Al Hajj (22):60

26.Al Ghaffar {Always Ghafuur},QS.Tha Haa:82

27.Ghafuurur Rahiim{The Most Forgiving and Most Merciful}, QS.Ibrahim:36, Az Zumaar(33);53, HR.Bukhari (6236) Kitab Ad Da’awat bab 58, Muslim kitab
Dzikr (2705)

28.Ghafuurun Wadud{The Most Forgiving and Most Loving}, QS.Al Buruuj:14

29.Ghafuurur Halim{The Most Forgiving and Most Forbearing}, QS.Al Baqarah(2):225, 235

30.Ghafuurun Syakur{The Most Forgiving and Most Responsive}, QS.Faathir:34

31. Al Ghaniyyu {The one free of all needs} QS.Faathir:15

32.Ghaniyyul Hamid{The one Free of all needs and worthy of all praise}, QS.Faathir:15, Al Baqarah(2):267

33.Ghaniyyul Karim{The one Free of all needs and Supreme in honour }, QS.An Naml(27):40

34.Ghaniyyul Halim{The one Free of all needs and Most Forbearing} ,QS.Al Baqarah(2):263

35. ’Alim {The All Knowing},QS.Al Anfal(8):75, Al Ma’idah:97, HR.Bukhari 6382

36.Alimul Hakim{The one perfect in knowledge and Most Wise},QS.Al Yusuf(12):100

37.Alimul Halim{The one perfect in knowledge and Most Forbearing},QS.Al Ahzab:51, An Nisaa(4):12

38.Alimun Qadir{The one perfect in knowledge and Able to do all things},QS.Ar Rum(30):54

39.’Alimul Khabir{The one Perfect in knowledge and well aware },QS.Luqman(31):34

40. Al Hakam (The Arbiter),declared as Shahih by syaikh Nashir Al Albani in HR.Abu Daud(4955), An Nasa’i VIII/226-227, Al Bukhari in Adabul Mufrad (811) and Tarikh Al Kabir VIII/227-228, Al Irwa’(2615), and by syaikh Syua’ib Al Arnauth in Syarhus Sunnah Al Baghawi (XII/344)

41.Hakimil Hamid{The Most Wise and worthy of all praises}, QS.Al Fushilat(41):42

42.Hakimul Khabir{The Most Wise and the well aware}, QS.Al An’aam(6):18}

43. Hakimil ’Alim{The Most Wise and the perfect in knowledge},QS.Al An’aam:18, AdzDzaariyat:30

44. Al Hamiid {The Praiseworthy},QS.Huud:73

45.Hamidum Majid{The Praiseworthy and glorious}, QS.Huud:73

46. Al Majiid {The Glorious},QS.Huud:73

47. Al Fattah {The Judge},QS.Saba’:26

48. Fattahul ‘Alim {The Judge and All Knowing},Saba’:26

49. Malik{The Sovereign},Al Mu’minun: 116, HR.Muslim (2827)

50. Malikul Mulk{The owner of sovereignty},HR.Shahih Jami’ush Shaghir

51.Malikul Quddus{The Most Holy king}, in Alhadits

52.Malikul Haq{The Most Righteous King },QS.Al Mu’minun:116

53.Malikul Muqtadir{The King who Able to do all things},QS.Al Qamar:55

54.Quddus{The Holy },QS.Al Hasyr:23

55. Salam{The Perfect}, QS.Al Hasyr:23

56. Mu’min{The Preserver of savety}, QS.Al Hasyr:23

57. Muhaimin{The guardian}, QS.Al Hasyr:23

58.Jabbar{The Compeller}, QS.Al Hasyr:23

59.Mutakabbir{The Proud}, QS.Al Hasyr:23

60.Muqaddim{The Retarder}, HR.Muslim kitab Al Musafir bab Ad du’a fish Shalat al Lail wa Qiyamuh (771) (201) from ‘Ali radhiyallahu ‘anhu, Bukhari (
1120) from ibn Abbas radhiyallahu ‘anhu and Abu Awanah.

61.Mu’akhkhir{The Advancer}, HR.Muslim and Abu Awanah

62.’Awwal{The Beginning of all things}, QS.Al Hadid:3, HR.Muslim (2713)

63.Akhir{The Last of all things}, QS.Al Hadid:3, HR.Muslim (2713)

64. Thayyib{The Good},HR.Muslim kitab Zakat bab Qabulush Shadaqat Minal Kasbi Ath Thayyib wa Tarbiyatuha (1015) (65)

65. Al A'laa {The Most High}QS.Al A’laa:1, HR.Bukhari (4351), Muslim (1064), Muslim (537), Ahmad (5/447)

66. Muta’aali {The Most High in characteristics, might and place}.QS.Ar Ra’d:9, HR.Bukhari (4351), Muslim (1064), Muslim (537), Ahmad (5/447)

67.’Aliyyul 'Azhim{The Most High and The Immense}, QS.2:255

68.‘Aliyyul Kabir{The Most High and The Greatest},QS.Al Hajj(22):62

69.’Aliyyun Hakim{The Most High and Most Wise},

70.‘Aliyyul Khabir{The Most High and The All Cognisant},

71.’Affuwwun Qadir{The Most Benign and The Able},QS.An Nisaa(4):149

72.Affuwwun Ghafur{The Most Benign and Most Forgiving}, QS.An Nisaa(4):43,99, Al Hajj(22):60, 58(Al Mujadalah):2

73. Khaliq {The Creator},QS.Al Mukminun:14

74.Khallaaqul ‘Alim{The Creator and All Knowing},QS.Al Hijr(15):86

75. As Sami' {The All Hearing},QS.Al Baqarah(2):186

76.Sami’un Qarib{The All Hearing and (ever) near},QS.Al Baqarah(2):186

77.Sami’ul ‘Alim{The All Hearing and All Knowing},QS.Al Imran(3):33-34, Al A’raf(7):200

78.Sami’ul Bashir{The All Hearing and All Seeing},QS. An Nisa:134, Thaa Ha:46, Al Mujaadilah:1, Al Ghaafir(40):56,

79. Tawwab {The Oft Returning}

80.Tawwabur Rahim{The Oft Returning and Most Merciful},QS.Al Baqarah(2):128

81.Tawwabun Hakim{The Oft Returning and Most Wise},

82. Tawwabul Ghafur{The Oft Returning and Most Forgiving},

83.Asy Syakiir {The Apreciative}

82. Asy Syakuur {Mubalaghah of Asy Syakir}, QS.At Taghaabun:17

83. Syakiirun Halim{The Apreciative and Most Forbearing},QS.At Taghaabun:17

84. Syakiirul ‘Alim{The Apreciative and All Knowing},QS.Al Baqarah(2):158

85.Qaabidh{The one who narrow the sustenance of Makhluq} from Anas bin Malik in HR.Abu Daud (3451), Tirmidzi (1314), Ibn Majah (2200), Ad Darimi II/249, Ahmad /156 &286, Thabarani in Al Kabir XXII/125 from Abu Juhaifah, Ghayatul Maram (323).

86.Musa’ir{The one who control sustenance for His Makhluq}, from Anas bin Malik in HR.Abu Daud (3451), Tirmidzi (1314), Ibn Majah (2200), Ad Darimi II/249, Ahmad /156 &286, Thabarani in Al Kabir XXII/125 from Abu Juhaifah, Ghayatul Maram (323).

87. Baasith{The one who expand the sustenance of Makhluq}, from Anas bin Malik in HR.Abu Daud (3451), Tirmidzi (1314), Ibn Majah (2200), Ad Darimi II/249, Ahmad /156 &286, Thabarani in Al Kabir XXII/125 from Abu Juhaifah, Ghayatul Maram (323).

88.Syafii{The Healer of all Makhluq},HR.Bukhari kitab Ath Thibb, bab “Ruqyah An Nabi(5732), Muslim kitab As Salaam, bab Istihbab Ruqyah Al Maridh (2191) (46)

89.Thabib{The docter of all Makhkluq},HR.Shahih Abu Daud (3544), Imam Ahmad (7109,7110)- Syakir, Ibn Hibban (5995), Silsilah Hadits Ash Shahihah 1537, Shahih Adabul Mufrad of Al Bukhari

90.Jawwad{The Most Generous}, Silsilah Hadits Ash Shahihah (IV/170), Shahih Al Jami’ (1796)

91.Sayyid{The True Leader of all Makhluq},HR.Ahmad IV/24, Abu Daud (4806), Shahih Jami’ (3594).

92.Sittiir{The One close the sins and mistakes of human and Jin},

93.Rafiq{The Most Compassionate}, HR.Muslim in kitab Birr wa Shilah bab Fadhlu Ar Rifq (2593) (77)

94.Muhsin{The Cherisher}, Muslim (1995), Silsilah Ash Shahihah (469), Shahih Al Jami’ (1819,1823, 1824).

95.Dzal Jabaruut wal Malakuut wal Kibriya wal ‘Azhamat{The Supreme owner of sovereignty and greatest things and supreme glory}, HR.Shahih Abu Daud (776), An Nasa’i and others.

96.Al Hayyu {The Living}, Shahih in HR.Abu Daud (1495), An Nasa’i (III/52), Ahmad, Al Bukhari in Adabul Mufrad, Ibn Mandah in At Tauhid (44/2, 67/1, 70/1-2).

97. Al Qayyum {The Self subsisting and eternal sustainer}, Shahih in HR.Abu Daud (1495), An Nasa’i (III/52), Ahmad, Al Bukhari in Adabul Mufrad, Ibn Mandah in At Tauhid (44/2, 67/1, 70/1-2).

98.Hayyul Qayyum{The Living and self subsisting and eternal sustainer},QS.Al Baqarah(2):255, Shahih in HR.Abu Daud (1495), An Nasa’i (III/52), Ahmad, Al Bukhari in Adabul Mufrad, Ibn Mandah in At Tauhid (44/2, 67/1, 70/1-2).

99. Lathif {The Subtile},QS.Al An’aam(6):103.

100. Lathiful Khabir{The Subtile and All-Cognisant},QS. Al Luqman(31):16, Al Mulk(67):14

101. Dayyan{the One who decide someone's fate}, from Hadits Shahih.

102. Barr {The Most Benevolent}

103. Barrur Rahim{The Most Benevolent and Most Merciful}

104. Allah {The one and only God which we worship and to whom our love, fear and hope}

105. Al Ilah {The only God which we worship and love}

106. Al Bashiir {The All seeing}, QS.Al Faathir:45

107. Al Haafizh {The Preserver },QS.Al Yusuf(12):64

108.Al Hasiib {The Reckoner},QS.An Nisaa(4):6

109.Al Hafiyy {The Most Friendly},QS.Maryam:47

110.Al Mubiin {The One Explain Things Essentially},QS.An Nuur(24):25

111. Al Haq (The Truth},QS.Al Hajj(22):62

112. Hayiyy {The Most Shy} Shahih, in HR.Abu Daud (1488), At Tirmidzi (3551), Ibn Majah 3865,Ibn Hibban (2399 and 2400), Al Hakim I/497, Fathul Bari I/497, Syarhus Sunnah Al Baghawi V/186, Shahih Jami’ 1753.

113. 'Azhimil Halim{The Immense and Most Forbearing},Musnad Imam Ahmad, Takhrij Kalimuth Thayyib by syaikh Nashir Al Albani

114. Al Maula{The Best Patron},QS.Al Anfal(8):40

115. Al Akram{The Supreme in honour}

116.Kariim (The Supreme in honour),HR.Shahihul Jami’ (1796)

117.Wahid (The One),QS:Al Baqarah(2):163

118.Wahidul Qahhar{The One and the Irresistable},QS.Al Yusuf(12):39

119. Witr{The Odd},HR.Bukhari kitab Ad Da’wat bab”Lillahi Min Ismin Ghairu Wahid (6410)”, Muslim kitab Adz Dzikr wa Ad Du’a, bab Fi Asma’illah Ta’ala wa Fadhlu Man Ahshaha (2677) (5) from ‘Ali, Ibn Mas’ud and Ibn Umar radhiyallahu ‘anhu ajma’in.

120. Ar Raqiib {The Ever watchful} ,QS.An Nisa(4):1

121.Khabir {All Cognisant}

122. Khabirum Bashir{All Cognisant and All Seeing},

123. Qawiyyu (The All Powerful),QS.Al Hajj(22):73-74.

124. Qawiyyul ‘Aziz{The All Powerful and the Exalted in might},QS.Al Hajj(22):73-74.

125 . Ar Razzaq{The Provider}, from Anas bin Malik in HR.Abu Daud (3451), Tirmidzi (1314), Ibn Majah (2200), Ad Darimi II/249, Ahmad /156 &286, Thabarani in Al Kabir XXII/125 from Abu Juhaifah, Ghayatul Maram (323).

126.Ar Raaziq {Ar Razzaq is the mubalaghah of Ar Raaziq}

127. Ash Shamad{The Eternally Besought of All},QS.Al Ikhlash(4):2, HR.Bukhari 4984 kitab Tafsir bab Surat Al Ikhlash, An Nasai 4:112 kitab Al Jana’iz Abu Daud, An Nasai, Ahmad, Ibn Khuzaimah(1/87/1)

128. Al Qahhar{The Irresistable},QS.Ar Ra’d(13):16, Al Mu’min:16.

129.Al Qaahiru {The Irresistable}

130. Al Matiin (The Firm)

131.Al Qariibun (Ever Near) ,

132. Bari{The Originator},QS.Al Hasyr(22):24, Al Baqarah(2):54, HR.Bukhari 6903

133. Mushawwir{The fashioner},QS.Al Hasyr(22):24

134.Jamil{The Beautiful} HR.Muslim, kitab Al Iman Bab Tahrim Al Kibru wal Bayanuh (147) (91)

135.Al Mujiib{The Responder} QS.Al Mu’min:60, An Naml(27)62

136.Zhahir{The Evident},QS.Al Hadid:3, HR.Muslim (2173)

138.Bathin{The Immanent} QS.Al Hadid:3, HR.Muslim (2173)

139.Asy Syahid {The Witness},QS.Al Mujaadalah:6,

140.Al Kabiir (The Greatest in size), QS.Ar Ra’d(13):9

141. An Nashiir{The Best Helper}, QS.Al Anfal(8):40

142.Al Haadi{The Guide},QS.Al Hajj(22):54

143. Al Ahad {The one and Only God},QS.Al Ikhlash(112):1, HR.Abu Daud, An Nasai, Ahmad, Ibn Khuzaimah. Declared as Shahih by Al Hakim and agreed upon by Adz Dzahabi

144.Nuurus Samaawaati wal Ardh {The Light of the sky and the earth},HR.Al Bukhari and Al Fath(XIII/464,XI/116) and Muslim (I/532)

145.Ar Rabb {The Master}, Hasan Shahih, HR.Tirmidzi (3579), Al Hakim I/309, Takhrij Kalimuth Thayyib by syaikh Nashir Al Albani page 48

146.Al Muhiith {The Encompasser},QS.Al Baqarah(2):19

147.Al Muqiita{The Overseer},QS.An Nisaa(4):85

148. Al Waliy{The Protector},QS.Asy Syuura(42):28, Al Jaatsiyah(45):19

149. Al Mannan{The Most Benevolent}, Shahih in HR.Abu Daud (1495), An Nasa’i (III/52), Ahmad, Al Bukhari in Adabul Mufrad, Ibn Mandah in At Tauhid (44/2, 67/1, 70/1-2).

150.Al Wakiil{The Perfect Trustee},QS.An Nisaa (4):81

151.Jami’un Naasi {The Gatherer},QS.Al Imran (3):9

152.Badi’us Samaawaati wal ardhi{The Creator of the skies and the earth}, Shahih in HR.Abu Daud (1495), An Nasai (III/52), Ahmad, Al Bukhari in Adabul Mufrad, Ibn Mandah in At Tauhid (44/2, 67/1, 70/1-2).

153.Al Kaafi{The One Defend His worshipper},QS.Az Zumaar(39):36

154. As Subbuh{The Most Holy from all weakness},HR.Muslim kitab Ash Shalah bab Maa yuqalu Fi ar Ruku’ wa As Sujuud (487) (223)

155.Ar Rafiiq{The Most Kind},HR.Muslim kitab Al Birr wa Shilah, bab “Fadhlu Ar Rifq” (2593) (277)

156. Ad Dahr{The Time},HR.Bukhari kitab At Tauhid bab Qauluhu Ta’ala yuriiduuna an yubdila Kalamallah (7491), Muslim Kitab Alfahz min Al Adab bab An Nahyu ‘An Sabb Ad Dahri (2246)(2), from Abu Hurairah, Silsilah Hadits Ash Shahihah 3

157.Al Mu’thi{The Most Giving}HR.Bukhari kitab Fardhu Al Khumus bab qaalallahu Ta’ala “Fainna lillahi Khumusuhu wa Rasuulihi (3116) and (7312), Muslim (1037) (100), Bukhari in kitab ‘Ilm bab “Man Yuridillahu bihi Khairan,” (71)

158. Al ‘Affuw { Most Benign} An Nisaa(4):149

159. Wasi’{The All Pervading},QS.Al Imran(3):73

160. Waasi’ul ’Alim{The All pervading who is All Knowing},QS.Al Baqarah(2):261

161. Waasi’ul Hakim{The All Pervading wh is Most Wise},QS.An Nisaa(4):130

162. Hayiyyul Kariim{The Most Shy and Supreme in honour}, Shahih, in HR.Abu Daud (1488), At Tirmidzi (3551), Ibn Majah 3865,Ibn Hibban (2399 and 2400), Al Hakim I/497, Fathul Bari I/497, Syarhus Sunnah Al Baghawi V/186, Shahih Jami’ 1753.

163. Hayiyyul Sittir{The Most Shy and The One covers sin and shortcomings} Shahih in HR.Ahmad IV/224, Abu Daud (4012-4013), An Nasai I/200, Al Irwa’ 2793

164. Dzul Jalaal wal Ikram{Possessor of majesty, bounty and honour},QS.Ar Rahman (55):27 and 78, Shahih in HR.Abu Daud (1495), An Nasa’i (III/52), Ahmad, Al Bukhari in Adabul Mufrad, Ibn Mandah in At Tauhid (44/2, 67/1, 70/1-2).




Aqidah Hamawiyyah: What is Obligatory Upon the Slave of Allah Concerning His Religion
Author: Syaikhul Islam Ahmad ibn Halim ibn Taimiyyah

[2802]



It is to follow what Allaah and His Messenger have said, and then the Rightly Guided Khaleefah-s and the Companions, and then those who followed them in goodness.
1.1 FOLLOWING ALLAAH AND HIS MESSENGER (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)
- (7):158

1.2 FOLLOWING THE MESSENGER (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) AND THE RIGHTLY GUIDED KHALEEFAH-S.
- Hadeeth "It is obligatory that you stick to my Sunnah and that of the Rightly Guided Khaleefah-s after me. Stick to that and bite onto that with your molar teeth. And beware of newly invented matters, for every such matter is an innovation and every innovation leads astray."

1.3 FOLLOWING THE COMPANIONS.
- They followed the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in Beneficial Knowledge and Righteous Actions. They have the greatest right to be followed after the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as Allaah chose them to accompany the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) knowing them to be:
- the most complete in Faith.
- the most superior in intellect.
- the most upright in actions.
- the most firm in resolve.
- the most guided on the correct path they were upon.

1.4 FOLLOWING THOSE WHO FOLLOWED THEM IN GOODNESS.
- and the Imaams of the Religion who followed this way who were known for being upon guidance and correctness.

1.5 TO BELIEVE THAT ALLAAH SENT HIS MESSENGER WITH CLEAR PROOFS.
- and the guidance to obligate all to have faith in him and to follow him
The message of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) comprised of [see (61):9]
- Beneficial Knowledge = Guidance [al-Hudaa]
- Righteous Actions = Religion of Truth [Deen-ul-Haqq]


2.1 BENEFICIAL KNOWLEDGE [AL 'ILM-UN-NAFI']
- That which results in good for the Ummah in this world and next.
- The most beneficial is that of Allaah, His Names, Attributes, Actions.
a). It is the essence of Tawheed-ul-Ulooheeyah.
b). It is the essence of the Prophetic call.
c). By it, is the Religion supported.
- It's impossible that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) left it unclearly explained because:

2.1.1 THE MESSAGE OF THE PROPHET (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) CONTAINED LIGHT AND GUIDANCE.
- And Allaah dispatched him as a bringer of glad tidings, a warner and a bright lamp.
- And greatest most lasting light is that which enlightens the heart as a result of recognising Allaah, His Names and Attributes.
- Hence he must have explained it clearly.

2.1.2 THE PROPHET (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) TAUGHT THE UMMAH ALL IT NEEDED TO KNOW.
- He even gave some knowledge of the birds [cf. narration of Aboo Dharr].
- Then surely he taught the knowledge of Allaah, His Names and Attributes.

2.1.3 EEMAAN IN THIS KNOWLEDGE IS:
- The basis of the Religion.
- The essence of what the Messenger called to.
- The most obligatory of knowledge.
- The most excellent of things that the minds should grasp.
- So how could he not teach it when he taught lesser matters?

2.1.4 THE PROPHET (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) WAS:
- The most knowledgeable about his Lord.
- The most sincere to the creation.
- The most eloquent in speech.
- Hence he could not have left this matter of Eemaan in Allaah, His Names and Attributes unclear and doubtful, while this knowledge needed clarification.

2.1.5 AND THE COMPANIONS MUST HAVE CLEARLY CONVEYED THIS KNOWLEDGE.
Or else they were silent or spoke falsely - both are impossible.
2.1.5.1 It's Impossible That They Were Silent
- If so , it meant that they were ignorant of what is obligatory to know with respect to Allaah, His Names and Attributes, or else they concealed this knowledge purposely.
2.1.5.1.1 It's Impossible That They Were Ignorant
- for all hearts with life, consciousness, a desire for knowledge and to worship, would have its most important issue as studying Eemaan in Allaah, His Names and Attributes, and to realise this in terms of knowledge and belief.
- And the Companions - the best of people - had most life in their hearts, and greatest love for goodness, and the most desire to realise beneficial knowledge.
- He (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: "The best of the people is my generation, then those who followed them, then those who followed them."
- And this goodness encompasses their excellence in everything done to bring one closer to Allaah, via words, actions and beliefs.
- And if they were ignorant, then those after them would be more so, as the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used them to convey the religion.
- Hence the saying they were ignorant implies that no one now has this knowledge, and this is clearly impossible.
2.1.5.1.2 It's Impossible That They Concealed the Truth
- for every rational person knows the Companions to have been eager to convey beneficial knowledge to the Ummah.
- Hence it's impossible - especially concerning the most obligatory of things to know.
2.1.5.2 It's Impossible That They Spoke Falsely - i.e. with No Authentic Evidence
- They were the least likely to speak without knowledge of an authentic proof.
- They were the first to obey Allaah's commands: (17):36 and (7):33.
- And the source of false speech is either ignorance or a desire to misguide - both are impossible.
2.1.5.2.1 As for Ignorance
- then that is impossible - see 2.1.5.1.1
2.1.5.2.2 As for Misguiding the Creation
- then this is an evil desire which could not come from the Companions for the Ummah.
- And if true it implies all what they said about the Religion is false and so the whole Sharee'ah is in doubt - And this saying is futile.
2.1.5.3 Hence Once It's Clear That They did Speak the Truth Concerning This
- They did so either via their Minds or via the Revelation
2.1.5.3.1 As for the Mind
- then it can't reach the details of what is obligatory to know of Allaah, His Names and Attributes.
2.1.5.3.2 And that leaves the only source of their knowledge as the Revelation Brought by Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

2.2 RIGHTEOUS ACTIONS [AL 'AMAL-US-SAALIH]
- Those done:
- Solely for Allaah's sake [al-Ikhlaas]
- In accordance with the Sunnah of His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) [al-Mutaaba'ah]

Ahl-us-Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah are those who gather upon adherence to the Prophet's Sunnah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) - outwardly and inwardly; in speech, action and belief.
Their way with respect to Allaah's Names and Attributes is:


3.1 CONCERNING AFFIRMATION
They affirm that which Allaah has affirmed for Himself in His Book or via His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) without Tahreef, Ta'teel, Takyeef or Tamtheel.

3.2 CONCERNING DENIAL
They deny that which Allaah has denied for Himself in His Book or via His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .
At the same time they affirm the opposite in the most perfect sense.

3.3 CONCERNING WHERE AFFIRMATION OR DENIAL IS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED
e.g. al-Jism (body), al-Hayyiz (realm), al-Jihah (direction).
Then their way is:
To halt at the words and neither affirm or deny them.
Then to look into the meaning of those words
- if the meaning is false then they deny this meaning
- if the meaning is correct and not prohibited for Allaah then they accept this meaning.

3.4 THIS WAY (3.1-3.3) IS ESTABLISHED VIA TWO WAYS:
- The Mind
- The Revelation

3.4.1 THE MIND

- It's clear to the mind, that the details of what is obligatory, permitted or prohibited for Allaah can not be reached by the mind.
- Hence one must follow the Revelation - affirming or denying what it affirms or denies, and staying silent where it is silent.
3.4.2 THE REVELATION
3.4.2.1 (7):180 - Proof of Affirmation without Tahreef or Ta'teel for both of these are from Ilhaad.

3.4.2.2 (42):111 - Proof to reject Tamtheel.

3.4.2.3 (17):36 - Proof to reject Takyeef and to obligate us to halt at those terms where affirmation or denial is not mentioned.

3.5 ATTRIBUTES WHICH ARE AFFIRMED OR DENIED FOR ALLAAH

3.5.1 THOSE WHICH ARE AFFIRMED FOR HIM
These are Attributes of Perfection in the most perfect sense without there being any aspect of deficiency.

3.5.2 THOSE WHICH ARE DENIED FOR HIM
- Are attributes of deficiency which contradict perfection.
- Hence they are prohibited for Him.

3.5.2.1 And when Denying These, We Must Affirm the Opposite of it in the Most Perfect Sense because only denying it may be due to a deficiency.
e.g. The poetry the Shaykh quotes.
e.g. to say "The wall does not oppress" - this is not a praise of the wall because it can't oppress!
Examples concerning Allaah:

3.5.2.1.1 Allaah has denied Dhulm - Oppression from Himself, so we deny it from Him, and also affirm its opposite - Justice [al 'Adl] - in the most perfect sense.

3.5.2.1.2 Allaah has denied Lughoob - Fatigue from Himself, so we deny it from Him, and also affirm its opposite - Power [al Qoowah] - in the most perfect sense.

3.6 DEFINITIONS

3.6.1 AT-TAHREEF

3.6.1.1 In the Language - to change or alter.

3.6.1.2 Technically here - to change the texts in wording or meaning. This is of 3 kinds.

3.6.1.2.1 Altering the words so the meaning changes: e.g. What some innovators do to the Saying of Allaah in (4):164 - changing the Dammah on the last letter of "Allaah" with a Fathah, in order to change the meaning to "Moosaa spoke to Allaah..."

3.6.1.2.2 Altering the words with no change of meaning: e.g. changing the Dammah on the last letter of "al Hamd" in (1):2, to a Fathah. This usually occurs out of ignorance.

3.6.1.2.3 Altering the Meaning: taking the meaning of the words away from their most apparent meaning without any proof. e.g. Saying Allaah's Two Hands means "His Power" or "His Blessing".


3.6.2 AL-TA'TEEL

3.6.2.1 In the Language - to discharge and to make empty.

3.6.2.2 Technically here - to reject or deny all or some of that which is obligatory for Allaah regarding His Names and Attributes. This is of 2 types.

3.6.2.2.1 Complete Ta'teel - like the Jahmeeyah who deny the Attributes and some of them deny the Names.

3.6.2.2.2 Partial Ta'teel - like the Ash'areeyah who deny some of the Attributes.
- The first of this Ummah to do this was Ja'd ibn Dirham.


3.6.3 AT-TAKYEEF
- to try to describe "how" an Attribute is. e.g. To say: How Allaah's Hand is, is like this and that, or How His Descending is, is like this and that.
- Takyeef differs to Tamtheel and Tashbeeh in two ways:

3.6.3.1 Takyeef is to Relate How Something is, with Restriction or Not by way of resembling. While Tamtheel and Tashbeeh indicate how something is in a restricted sense, by way of a likeness or resemblance respectively.
- Takyeef is more general.
- All who do Tamtheel, are doing Takyeef. But vice versa is NOT the case.

3.6.3.2 Takyeef is Particular to Allaah's Attributes, while Tamtheel is concerned with His Decree, Description and Self.

3.6.4 AT-TAMTHEEL
To affirm something is alike another in every way.

3.6.5 AT-TASHBEEH
To affirm a resemblance in most attributes.
- Note: The terms Tamtheel and Tashbeeh are sometimes interchangeable.
Tashbeeh is of two kinds:

3.6.5.1 Tashbeeh of the creation with the Creator - to affirm for the creation that which is particular to the Creator
(1) Tashbeeh concerning His Rights - e.g. to say that others have the right to be worshipped alongside Allaah.
(2) Tashbeeh concerning His Lordship - e.g. to say that there are other creators alongside Allaah.
(3) Tashbeeh concerning His Attributes - to give others His Attributes that are particular to Him - e.g. see quoted poetry.

3.6.5.2 Tashbeeh of the Creator with the creation - to affirm for Allaah, concerning His Self and Attributes which are particular to Him, the likes of attributes of the creation.
e.g. to say that Allaah's Two Hands are like the creation's hands. The first of this Ummah to introduce this was Hishaam ibn al-Hakam ar-Raafidee.


3.6.6 AL-ILHAAD [SEE (7):180; 3.4.2.1]

3.6.6.1 In the Language - to deviate, to turn aside.

3.6.6.2 Technically here - to deviate from that which is obligatory to believe in and act upon. This is of 2 kinds.

3.6.6.2.1 Al-Ilhaad in the Names of Allaah

- to abandon the obligatory truth concerning them, and this is of 4 kinds:
1. to deny anything from them or from what is proven of the Attributes - as done by the people of Ta'teel.
2. to make His Names an indication of resembling the creation - as done by the people of Tashbeeh.
3. to name Allaah with names that He has not given Himself - as done by the Christians who call him "Father" and the philosophers who call Him "The Prime Mover."
4. to derive from His Names, names for the idols - as done by the Mushriks who derived al-Laat from His Name al Ilaah and who derived al'Uzzah from His Name al 'Azeez.

3.6.6.2.2 Al-Ilhaad concerning His Verses
- this is of two types:
1. Relating to the Law-Related Verses - to distort them or deny the reports that must be believed in, or to disobey its rulings.
2. Relating to the Decree-Related Verses - to attribute these things to other than Allaah or to believe He has a partner in His acts of Creation and Decreeing.


4.1 THE WAY OF THE SALAF IS INDEED THE ONLY CORRECT WAY
- This is proven from two angles:

4.1.1 THE BOOK AND THE SUNNAH INDICATE THE WAY OF THE SALAF

- Hence their way does conform to the Book and Sunnah.
- They had the best understanding of them, and were the strongest in believing in them and acting upon them.
- After all, they came in their language and in their era.

4.1.2 EITHER THE TRUTH LIES WITH THE SALAF, OR ELSE IT LIES WITH THE KHALAF

The later statement is false because:
- it implies that Allaah, His Messenger, the Companions all spoke falsely concerning the truth which is obligatory to believe in.
- Hence the presence of the Book and the Sunnah is a pure detriment.
- Hence the people were left with no Book or Sunnah that offered them any good.
- All of this is clearly false.
- Hence the truth lies with the Salaf.

4.2 SOME OF THE IGNORANT HAVE SAID:
"The way of the Salaf is safer, but the way of the khalaf is more knowledgeable and more wise."

4.2.1 THERE WERE 2 CAUSES FOR THIS SAYING:

4.2.1.1 That the One Who Said it [Falsely] Believed that Allaah had no Real Attributes that Could be Proven from the Texts

4.2.1.2 That the One Who Said it [Falsely] Believed that the Way of the Salaf was:
- To believe merely the words of the Attributes offered by the text, without believing any meaning for them.
- So he felt that the way of the khalaf - to assign meanings that differed from the most apparent meanings that indicate affirmation of the Attributes - was deeper in knowledge and wisdom than that of the Salaf.

4.2.2 THIS FOOL'S SAYING COMPRISES OF SOME TRUTH AND SOME FALSEHOOD
- The truth - is to say the way of the Salaf is safer.
- The falsehood - the rest of the statement. And it's false for many reasons:

4.2.2.1 It Contradicts His Saying that the Way of the Salaf is Safer
- Knowledge is a cause of safety and wisdom is how to use it.
- There is no safety without knowledge and wisdom.
- The way of the Salaf is safer, more knowledgeable and more wise.

4.2.2.2 His belief that the Texts Do Not Prove any Real Attributes for Allaah is False, being based on evil doubts, and the opposite is proved by the intellect, the Fitrah, and the Sharee'ah.

1. The intellect - All that exists have attributes of either perfection or deficiency.
- The second possibility is false for the Perfect Lord who indeed points out the deficiencies in the false gods in order to show that it's futile to worship them.
- Hence the first is only possible - that Allaah has affirmed for Himself Attributes of perfection.
- And indeed we see the completeness of His creation.
- Hence the One who gave these complete attributes is all the more Complete and Perfect.

2. The Fitrah - All pure souls love, honour and worship Allaah because all pure souls naturally love, honour and worship that which possesses Attributes of Perfection.

3. The Sharee'ah - There are many proofs:
- The Qur'aan (59):22-24; (30):27; (2):255
- Hadeeth "O people ... indeed you are calling upon the Hearer, the See-er ..."

4.2.2.3 His Belief that the Salaf Believed in Hollow Words with No Meaning is also False
- They were the most learned of the Ummah, regarding the words and meanings of the texts.
- They were the first to affirm meanings that befit Allaah - in accordance to what He and His Messenger wanted.

4.2.2.4 The Salaf were Inheritors of the Prophets and Messengers, learning from the Message of Tawheed-ul-Ulooheeyah, and from the true realities of Faith.
- But the khalaf learned from the Magians, Polytheists, Jews and Greeks and their offspring.
- So how can the khalaf be more knowledgeable and wise than the Salaf bearing in mind their respective sources of knowledge?

4.2.2.5 The Leaders of Khalaf Admitted that They Themselves were Confused about this Matter
- refer to the poetry and quote from ar-Raazee.
- So how can those who were in a state of misguidance and confusion [i.e. the leaders of the khalaf] be more knowledgeable and wise than the followers of the Prophets who knew the true realities of Faith and knowledge [i.e. the Salaf]?

4.2.3 HENCE:
- The way of the Salaf is safer, more knowledgeable and more wise


5.1 SOME OF THE PEOPLE SAY:
"The way of the Salaf regarding Allaah's Attributes is to leave the texts as reported, while believing that the most apparent meaning is not the intended meaning"
- This statement hinges on what is meant by "most apparent" [Dhaahir].

5.1.1 IF WHAT IS MEANT BY THIS IS THE MOST APPARENT MEANING, BEFITTING HIS MAJESTY, WITHOUT MAKING ANY RESEMBLANCES, THEN THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT.
- Hence the above statement is a lie against the Salaf.

5.1.2 IF WHAT IS MEANT BY THIS - AS IS THOUGHT BY SOME - IS TO RESEMBLE ALLAAH TO HIS CREATION, THEN THIS IS NOT WHAT IS MEANT.
- Hence with this meaning, the above statement is correct.
- But this possibility is impossible as resembling the Creator to the creation is prohibited so how can "the most apparent" meaning be something impossible?

5.1.3 HENCE THE MEANING OF 5.1.1 IS THE ONLY VALID ONE AND HENCE THIS STATEMENT IS A LIE AGAINST THE SALAF.


6.1 SOME OF THE PEOPLE SAY:
"There is no difference between the way of the Salaf and of the people of Ta'teel [i.e. the people of Tahreef], for all of them agree that the verses and hadeeths do not indicate Attributes for Allaah, but then the people of Ta'teel thought there would be some benefit in giving an explanation, because of the pressing need for it, and so they specified the intended meaning, while the Salaf held back from specifying anything in case they specified the wrong meaning."
- This is a clear lie upon the Salaf for the following reasons:

6.1.1 THE SALAF CLEARLY SPECIFIED ATTRIBUTES FOR ALLAAH
- they never denied texts proving Attributes for Him, befitting His Majesty, and instead they rejected anyone who would deny the Attributes. e.g. the statement of Nu'aym bin Hammaad al-Khuzaa'ee.

6.1.2 THE PEOPLE OF TA'WEEL WERE THE ADVERSARIES OF THE SALAF
- they accused the Salaf of Tashbeeh and Tajseem.
- So how could they have been in agreement when they were adversaries? Indeed the people of Ta'teel opposed the Salaf because the Salaf believed in the Attributes, with meanings befitting Allaah, without Tashbeeh or Tajseem.

7.1 "LEAVE THEM ALONE AS THEY WERE REPORTED, WITHOUT [RELATING] HOW"
- Related from Makhool, az-Zuhree, Maalik bin Anas, Sufyaan ath-Thawree, al-Layth bin Sa'd and al-Awzaa'ee.
7.1.1 IT REFUTES THE PEOPLE OF TA'TEEL.
i.e. the part saying "Leave them alone as they were reported"

7.1.2 IT REFUTES THE PEOPLE OF TASHBEEH
i.e. the part saying "without [relating] how"

7.1.3 IT PROVES THAT THE SALAF DID CONFIRM THE CORRECT MEANINGS BEFITTING ALLAAH
For the texts dealing with the Attributes, from two angles:

7.1.3.1 The Part Saying "Leave them Alone as they were Reported" Means: to leave alone the meanings.
- And if they believed there was no meaning to the words, they would have said: "Leave the words alone and don't delve into the meaning"

7.1.3.2 The Part Saying "Without [relating] How" clearly shows affirmation of the real meaning.
- Otherwise they would not need to deny asking or relating how.

7.2 "WE BELIEVE IN THEM AND AFFIRM THEM, WITHOUT [RELATING] HOW AND WITHOUT MEANING"
-Related by al Imaam Ahmad concerning the hadeeth of Allaah's descending and the like.

7.2.1 SO WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE PART: "WITHOUT HOW?"
There is a "how" concerning Allaah - but it is unknown to us.
It can only be known by way of:
- Seeing directly or
- A report of someone truthful
- And none of these exist concerning how Allaah's Attributes are.

7.2.2 SO THE MEANING OF "WITHOUT HOW" IS "WITHOUT RELATING HOW"
- And it does not mean to deny any "how" for Allaah's Attributes, for that would be pure Ta'teel.
- So what's the meaning of the part "without meaning"?
- Ahmad is talking about the twisted meanings of the people of Ta'teel who adopted non-apparent meanings. This is also shown by what Ibn Taymeeyah says: "All the scholars ... are agreed upon having Faith in ... without giving explanation..." He means the explanation of the people of Ta'teel.
- Hence the word "meaning" or "explanation" is of two kinds:

7.2.2.1 The Acceptable Meaning/Explanation - which the Companions and their followers were upon i.e. the most apparent meanings which befit Allaah's Greatness.

7.2.2.2 The Unacceptable Meaning/Explanation - which the Companions and their followers were not upon.

Allah is MOST HIGH(‘Aliy,’Uluw). This is split into two categories:


8.1 ALLAAH'S ATTRIBUTES ARE MOST HIGH [AND PERFECT]
i.e. Allaah possesses every Attribute of perfection, in the highest and most perfect form.

8.2 ALLAAH HIMSELF IS MOST HIGH AND EXALTED ABOVE HIS CREATION
Proved by the Book, Sunnah, the Companions, the intellect, and instinct.

8.2.1 THE BOOK AND SUNNAH

8.2.1.1 Directly Mentions Him Being Above His creation - e.g. (2):255, (87):1, (16):50, (20):5, (67):16, and hadeeth: "... and the throne is above that and Allaah is above the throne" [at-Tabaraanee and Ibn Khuzaymah - authentic] and "And that you don't believe in me even though I am the trustworthy one of He who is above the heavens?"

8.2.1.2 Mentions Things Rising to Him - e.g. (35):10, (70):4, (4):158, and hadeeth: "Nothings ascends to Him except that which is good and pure" and: "the actions of the night rise to Him before the actions of the day and the actions of the day before the actions of the night."

8.2.1.3 Mentions Things Descending from Him - e.g. (69):43, (16):102, and hadeeth: "Our Lord descends to the lowest heaven when the last third of the night remains" [al-Bukhaaree and Muslim].

8.2.1.4 Altogether this fact is established via Mutawaatir proofs

8.2.2 THE CONSENSUS
All the Companions, their students and the scholars of Ahl-us-Sunnah are agreed upon this.
- al-Awzaa'ee stated it during the time of Jahm.
- None of them said the contrary to this.

8.2.3 THE INTELLECT
The clear mind proves this from two angles:
- Highness is an attribute of perfection and to Allaah belongs all perfection, so He must possess this Attribute.
- The opposite of this is lowness - an attribute of deficiency, which Allaah is free of - so He must possess the opposite i.e. Highness.

8.2.4 THE IN-BORN INSTINCT
- All the creation, when doing worship, directs itself to that which is High and Exalted, and turns their faces up and not to any other direction.
- Even Aboo al-Mu'aalee (a person of kalaam) had to accept this.

8.3 VERSES THAT THE JAHMEES TRY TO USE TO REFUTE THIS FACT

8.3.1 (6):3
Actually means either of the following two possibilities:
- He is the only One who is to be worshipped in the heavens and earth.
- Or firstly Allaah says He is above the heavens; then He says He knows all we do in the earth, and His Highness above the heavens does not prevent Him from having this knowledge.

8.3.2 (43):84
- Means that Allaah's right to be worshipped is established in both the heavens and the earth, although He is above the heavens, in the same way it is said that so and so is a leader in two cities - i.e. his leadership extends over two cities although he himself is only in one of them.
We neither affirm or deny the word 'direction' [al Jihah] to Allaah, but look to see what is meant by it.


9.1 IF WHAT IS MEANT IS THE DIRECTION OF LOWNESS:
- Then this is to be denied from Allaah, because He is the Most High and has made Highness obligatory for Himself and His Attributes.

9.2 IF WHAT IS MEANT IS THE DIRECTION OF ABOVE AND HE IS SURROUNDED BY THIS DIRECTION
- Then this is to be denied from Allaah.
- He is too Mighty and Majestic to be surrounded by anything created.
- And indeed, His [created] foot-stool extends over the heavens and the earth.
- Also refer to Qur'aan (39):67.

9.3 IF WHAT IS MEANT IS THE DIRECTION OF ABOVE, BEFITTING HIS MAJESTY AND GREATNESS, WITHOUT BEING SURROUNDED BY THIS DIRECTION
- Then this is correct and obligatory for Him and is to be affirmed for Him.
- refer to quote from 'Abdul-Qaadir al-Jeelaanee.


9.4 IF SOMEONE WERE TO SAY:
"If you deny that anything of Allaah's creation can surround Him, then what do you say about ... that Allaah ... is "in" [fee] the sky [or heaven] [as-Samaa].
- Then the reply is that Him being "in" the sky does not necessarily mean He is surrounded by the sky/heaven. Especially when knowing that He is the Full Master of everything and the Qur'aan (39):67.
- So the meaning of "in the sky [or heaven]" is of two possibilities:

9.4.1 THAT "SKY" MEANS "ABOVE"
i.e. that Allaah is in the above - i.e. the direction of above.
- This meaning for "sky" as "above" is established in the Qur'aan (30):24 - as rain comes from the clouds and not the sky.

9.4.2 THAT "IN" MEANS "UPON"
i.e. that Allaah is upon the sky - i.e. upon the heaven.
- This meaning for "in" as "upon" is established in many places in the Qur'aan e.g. (9):2


10.1 THE MEANING OF AL ISTIWAA

10.1.1 IN THE LANGUAGE
Its meanings revolve around perfection and completion, and it is used in 3 ways in the Qur'aan:

10.1.1.1 In an Unrestricted Manner - e.g. in (28):14 - i.e. that Moosaa became complete [in manhood and strength].

10.1.1.2 Bounded with "Ilaa" "to" - e.g. in (2):29 - i.e. that He turned to it with full attention OR "Ilaa" means "'Alaa".

10.1.1.3 Bounded with "'Alaa" "upon" - e.g. in (43):13 i.e. meaning "above".

10.1.2 HENCE ALLAAH'S ISTIWAA UPON HIS THRONE MEANS:
- That He is above and established upon it in a manner that befits Him.
- It is one of His Attributes that pertain to His Actions.
- And this is proved by the Book, the Sunnah, and the Consensus of the Salaf.

10.1.2.1 The Book - e.g. (20):5

10.1.2.2 The Sunnah - e.g.. the hadeeth of Qataadah ibn an-Nu'maan reported by al-Khallaal (Saheeh).

10.1.2.3 The Salaf - e.g.. The statement of 'Abdul Qaadir al-Jeelaanee; and that not one of them said He is not upon His throne; and Ahl-us-Sunnah agreed that He is upon His throne.

10.2 MAALIK'S STATEMENT
"al Istiwaa is not unknown, and how it is cannot be comprehended, and Faith in it is obligatory and asking about is innovation."
- (The likes of it has also been reported from his teacher Rabee'ah ibn Abee 'Abdir-Rahmaan)

10.2.1 "AL-ISTIWAA IS NOT UNKNOWN"
i.e. not unknown in the language - for it means to be above.

10.2.2 "HOW IT IS CAN NOT BE COMPREHENDED"
i.e. by the minds, nor does the Revelation describe it - so how it is, is unknown.

10.2.3 "TO ASK ABOUT IT IS INNOVATION"
i.e. it was not known in the time of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or his Companions.

10.2.4 THIS STATEMENT IS A GENERAL RULE FOR THE ATTRIBUTES
Allaah has affirmed Himself or via His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) - Allaah informed us of the Attributes - but not how they are.

10.2.5 TALKING ABOUT ALLAAH'S ATTRIBUTES FOLLOWS ON FROM TALKING ABOUT HIMSELF
- If we affirm Allaah Himself without asking how, then we should do the same for His Attributes.

10.3 WHAT THE INNOVATORS SAY:

10.3.1 IF A JAHMEE ASKS:
"How does Allah descend to the lowest heaven?" Then reply: "He informed us that He does descend - but He did not inform us how!"

10.3.2 IF ANOTHER ASKS:
"How is one of Allaah's Attributes?"
- Then reply: "How is His Self?!" - And the Jahmee will not be able to answer. So say: "In the same way you can't describe how His Self is, neither can you do the same with His Attributes, because attributes follow on from the One who possesses them!"

10.3.3 IF ANOTHER SAYS:
"If His Istiwaa upon the throne means He is upon it, then that means he is bigger or smaller or the same size as the throne. And this must mean He has a body and this is prohibited for Allaah." Then reply: "None of your baseless deductions are correct. No doubt Allaah is greater than any of the creation, but He is far removed from your false deductions."

10.3.3.1 Concerning if Allaah has a "Body" [al-Jism]
Then the word is not mentioned in the Revelation or by the Salaf - so we neither affirm or deny the word. But we look at its meaning.
1. If it means a newly assembled group of parts which are in need of each other, then this is prohibited for Allaah.
2. If it means something that exists by itself, having attributes befitting it, then this is not prohibited for Allaah because He exists by Himself and has Attributes of perfection that befit Him.

10.3.4 IF ANOTHER SAYS:
"If you have explained His Istiwaa upon His Throne as He is above and upon it, then that means He needs the throne to support Him."
- The reply: "All who recognise His Greatness and Power would never even think this for one moment - especially when He is free of all need while all the creation is in absolute need of Him. Hence your deduction is false."

10.3.5 IF A PERSON OF TA'TEEL SAYS:
"Because of all these deductions, al-Istiwaa must mean al-Isteelaa - i.e. that Allaah conquered or over powered His throne." Then reply:" No this is not correct for several reasons:

10.3.5.1 If the False Deductions were Correct, then that would still not prevent al-Istiwaa having its intrinsic meaning.

10.3.5.2 Using this meaning for Istiwaa Leads to False Conclusions e.g.:
1. Differing with the consensus of the Salaf.
2. It would lead to saying He did Istiwaa upon the earth, while Allaah is far above this.
3. It would lead to saying He had not conquered, or had no power over, the throne until after He completed creating the heavens and earth.

10.3.5.3 This Meaning is Not Possible in the Arabic language!

10.3.5.4 Since this is a Figurative Meaning, then its Only Acceptable after Fulfilling 4 Conditions:
1. An authentic proof is needed to take the meaning away from the natural one to the figurative one.
2. This figurative meaning must be possible in the language!
3. This figurative meaning must be valid in this context.
4. A proof is needed to say that this figurative meaning is the correct one out of all the possible figurative meanings.


10.4 THE 'ARSH

10.4.1 LINGUISTICALLY
Means the throne of a king, e.g. (12):100; (27):23.

10.4.2 AS FOR THE 'ARSH UPON WHICH ALLAAH DID ISTIWAA
- it is a mighty throne which encompasses all the created things, being higher than them and greater than them.
- refer to the hadeeth of Aboo Dharr related by Aboo Haatim, Ibn Hibbaan, Ahmad and others - Saheeh.

10.5 THE KURSEE

10.5.1 LINGUISTICALLY
Means the throne upon which one remains.

10.5.2 AS FOR THE KURSEE WHICH ALLAAH HAS APPELLED TO HIMSELF:
- it is the place of His Feet.
- refer to the statement of Ibn 'Abbaas (mawqoof) related by al-Haakim.
- As for narrations from the Salaf, that it means the 'Arsh or it means knowledge, then these are not authentic, as mentioned by Ibn Katheer.

11.1 ALLAAH HAS AFFIRMED THIS FOR HIMSELF
-Qur'aan (57):4;(8):19;(20):46.
- Hadeeth: "Do not grieve - Allaah is with us" [Bukhaaree and Muslim (Eng. Vol. 4 H7150)]
- And there is ijmaa of the Salaf concerning this.

11.2 THE MEANING OF MA'EEYAH

11.2.1 IN THE LANGUAGE
- indicates an unrestricted association and companionship.
But what its meanings imply will differ according to the word appended or connected to it, or according to the context or situation.
For instance, it can mean:

11.2.1.1 To mean to actually mix or mingle.
e.g. I mixed the water with the milk.

11.2.1.2 To imply help and support.
e.g. The one who is helping may say: I am with you

11.2.1.3 To imply a threat and warning
e.g. The punisher may say to the criminal: Go - but I am with you.
Hence it's meaning are in agreement and so it's a Mutawaatee word; although its implications and rulings differ according to whatever it is appended to.


11.2.2 AL MA'EEYAH WHICH IS ASCRIBED TO ALLAAH

11.2.2.1 - It's used in it's real sense and not figuratively, except the Ma'eeyah of Allaah with His creation is not like the Ma'eeyah of the creation with the creation.
- His Ma'eeyah is a higher more perfect form.
- And that which is deduced from the Ma'eeyah of the creation with the creation can not be applied to the Ma'eeyah of Allaah with His creation.

11.2.2.2 - On the other hand, some of the Salaf explained it to mean His Knowledge of His creation.
- This refutes the Huloolee Jahmee- s who say that Allaah Himself is in every place.
- Hence these Salaf explained that this Ma'eeyah affirmed for Allaah, does not mean that He Himself is with us.
- As that would be absurd, contradicting the mind & Sharee'ah; it would contradict His 'Uloow which is obligatory for Him; and it implies that the creation surrounds Him.


11.3 THE MA'EEYAH OF ALLAAH IS OF TWO CATEGORIES

11.3.1 THE GENERAL SENSE
He encompasses all His creation - in terms of His knowledge, Omnipotence etc. and other aspects of Him being the only Lord and Sustainer (Ruboobeeyah).
This category, obligates its believer to have complete fear and awareness of Allaah.
- Examples (57):4; (58):7.

11.3.2 THE SPECIFIC SENSE.
He assists and supports all who are entitled to be supported, from the Messengers and their followers.
This category obligates its believer to have complete courage and persistence.
- Examples (16):128; (9):40.


11.4 IS AL MA'EEYAH AN ATTRIBUTE THAT RELATES TO ALLAAH'S SELF OR TO HIS ACTIONS?

11.4.1 WHEN USED IN THE GENERAL SENSE
It's an Attribute that relates to His Self, as it has always existed and will always exist.

11.4.2 WHEN USED IN THE SPECIFIC SENSE
It's an Attribute relating to His Actions, as it occurs when the causes for it exist, and ceases when it's causes are absent.
[e.g. it occurs when the believers need the help and not when no help is needed.
e.g. it occurs for the believers and not the disbelievers].


12.1 FIRSTLY THE SHAYKH POINTS OUT A BENEFICIAL POINT:
(Mentioned by the author of al- 'Aql wan- Naql p.43- 4 vol.1):
If there is a contradiction between two proofs, then there are three possibilities:

12.1.1 A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN TWO DEFINITE [QAT'I] PROOFS.
- i.e. even the mind can definitely affirm their meanings.

12.1.1.1 Hence there can be no contradiction
Because if there was a contradiction, then one of them would have to be eliminated, but the Qat'i proof must be accepted. And if both are accepted, then this too is absurd - if they do contradict - as it leads to accepting two contradictory things.
- Hence there can be no contradiction.

12.1.1.2 Hence if it is thought that there's a contradiction: then it's
Because in reality one or both are not Qat'i.
Or because there is no contradiction, in that either of them can be interpreted in another way.

12.1.1.3 And there's no contradiction between an abrogated text and the abrogating text:
- As the abrogated text no longer exists and is not valid.
- And nothing can oppose the abrogating text.

12.1.2 A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN TWO LESS DEFINITE [DHANEE] PROOFS
- i.e. they are Dhanee in their meaning [Dhalaalah] and/or their authenticity [Thuboot].
Hence the stronger one is sought and it will take precedence.

12.1.3 A CONTRADICTION BETWEEN A QAT'I PROOF AND A DHANEE PROOF
The Qat'i proof takes precedence.

12.2 IN THIS CASE BOTH SETS OF TEXTS ARE QAT'I
- The texts affirming His 'Uloow and those affirming His Ma'eeyah are Qat'i in meaning and authenticity.

12.3 AND ALLAAH HAS COMBINED THESE TWO ATTRIBUTES IN THE VERY SAME AAYAH:
- Qur'aan (57):4
Hence there can be no contradiction, for several reasons.

12.3.1 THE TEXTS THEMSELVES HAVE COMBINED THE TWO!
- See above verse.
And the texts would never produce something contradictory and absurd.

12.3.2 AL MA'EEYAH DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY MIXING OR BEING INCORPORATED IN A PLACE.
- See previous chapter: for something can be above and with us;
- e.g. "We continued to travel while the moon was with us." And this phrase makes perfect sense - even though the moon is in the sky and not on the earth next to the travellers.
- Hence if we can combine 'Uloow and Ma'eeyah concerning the creation; then it's all the more permitted concerning the Creator.

12.3.3 EVEN IF WE ASSUMED THERE WAS A CONTRADICTION
i.e. between the 'Uloow and Ma'eeyah of the creation. Then this does not mean the same applies to the Creator.
- As there is nothing like Him in all His Attributes.
So His 'Uloow and Ma'eeyah need not be like that of the creation.

12.4 SIMILARLY WE CAN COMBINE THE TEXTS AFFIRMING HIS 'ULOOW AND HIS BEING INFRONT OF THE ONE WHO IS PRAYING.

12.4.1 THE TEXTS THEMSELVES HAVE COMBINED THEM.
And the texts would never produce contradictions and absurdity.

12.4.2 BEING HIGH NEED NOT CONTRADICT BEING INFRONT.
- e.g. "The Sun is in front of my face" [while a man looks at it rising]
And this phrase is correct in the language and makes sense.
Hence if we can combine these two concerning the creation, then we can, all the more, do so concerning the Creator.

12.4.3 EVEN IF WE ASSUMED THERE WAS A CONTRADICTION:
- i.e. between being "high" and being "infront" concerning the creation.
Then the same need not be the case for the Creator.
- There is nothing like Him in all of His Attributes. So His Being High and Infront need not be like that of the creation.


13.1 AHL- US- SUNNAH ARE AGREED ABOUT HIS NUZOOL
- Hadeeth in Bukhaaree and Muslim [Eng. Vol. 1/H1656-1661 gives some very similar narrations] from Aboo Hurairah and about 27 other companions (ra): "Our Lord descends to the lowest heaven in the last third of the night..."
- His Nuzool is one of His Attributes that pertain to His Actions. It is real in a manner befitting His Majesty.

13.2 IT DOES NOT MEAN HIS COMMAND DESCENDS
- Nor does it mean His Mercy or one of His angels descends - for several reasons:

13.2.1 IT DIFFERS FROM THE APPARENT MEANING OF THE HADEETH.
- For what is most apparent is that the Nuzool is ascribed to Allaah.

13.2.2 IT WOULD MAKE IT NECESSARY TO SAY THAT THERE IS AN OMISSION IN THE HADEETH.
- While the principle is that nothing is omitted.

13.2.3 HIS COMMAND AND MERCY DESCEND ALL THE TIME.
- and they don't only descend during the last third of the night.
If it is said:
"It is the descent of a special command or special mercy that descends only during that part of the night."
Then the reply is: "The hadeeth says that the limit of the descent is to the lowest heaven. So what is the point of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) informing us of a mercy that reaches the lowest heaven and not to us on the earth?"

13.2.4 THE ONE DESCENDING CAN ONLY BE ALLAAH.
For the one descending says, in the hadeeth: "... who is seeking pardon so that I should pardon him..." - And only Allaah can say all this.

13.3 COMBINING THE FACT THAT ALLAAH IS HIMSELF ABOVE [AL 'ULOOW] AND THAT HE DESCENDS [AN- NUZOOL] TO THE LOWEST HEAVEN.
- These two facts are not contradictory because:

13.3.1 THE TEXTS THEMSELVES HAVE MENTIONED BOTH.
- And the texts would never produce contradiction or absurdity.

13.3.2 NOTHING IS LIKE ALLAAH IN ALL HIS ATTRIBUTES
- His Nuzool is not like the descent of the creation.
- So His Nuzool need not be contradictory in anyway, to His 'Uloow.

14.1 ALLAAH HAS A REAL FACE BEFITTING HIS MAJESTY

14.1.1 QUR'AAN (55):27

14.1.2 HADEETH:
Du'aa in the Prophet's Prayer Described (Eng.) P87- 88 reported by an- Nasaa-ee: "I ask you for the joy of looking at your Face..."
It's an Attribute that pertains to His Self.

14.2 IT'S NOT CORRECT TO DISTORT THE MEANING TO "REWARD"
- i.e. ath-Thawaab - for several reasons.

14.2.1 IT DIFFERS FROM WHAT IS APPARENT FROM THE TEXTS.
- So a proof is needed to use a non-apparent meaning. And no such proof exists.

14.2.2 THE "FACE" IS ATTRIBUTED TO ALLAAH.
So either it is:
(1) An Attribute of His, or
(2) It is not an Attribute but exists by itself - e.g. The House of Allaah.
So "reward" [ath-Thawaab] is a creation which is separate from Allaah.
And the Face is one of His Attributes.
So how can one be explained to mean the other?

14.2.3 THE "FACE" IS DESCRIBED SUCH THAT IT CAN NOT MEAN "REWARD"
- Hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim (Eng.): Vol.1:H343: "The splendour of His Face would burn any of the creation which His Sight extends to"


15.1 ALLAAH HAS TWO HANDS THAT BEFIT HIM.
- Both being from His Attributes that pertains to His Self being in a manner that befits Him.

15.1.1 QUR'AAN: (38):75

15.1.2 HADEETH:
al- Bukhaaree, (Eng.) Vol.9, H515; Muslim (Eng.) Vol. 2., H2179, "The Hand of Allaah is full and gives continuously."

15.2 IT DOES NOT MEAN "POWER" [AL- QOOWAH] OR "BLESSING" [AN- NI'MAH]

15.2.1 IT DIFFERS FROM WHAT IS APPARENT FROM THE TEXTS.
- And there's no proof for these figurative meanings.

15.2.2 THESE MEANINGS ARE IMPOSSIBLE IN THE LANGUAGE.
- As in Arabic, it's impossible to say that "Two Hands" means "Two Powers" or "Two Blessings".

15.2.3 POWER OR BLESSING IS NEVER FOUND IN THE DUAL FORM.
- While Hand is found as dual - i.e. the Two Hands of Allaah.
- So how can the former be meanings for the latter?

15.2.4 IF WE ASSUMED IT DID MEAN "POWER"
- Then referring to (38):75, it could then be correct to say that Iblees was also made by Allaah's Hands [i.e. Power, according to this false belief]. This is absurd!
- And Iblees would have argued against Allaah via this, as he would claim to be the same as Aadam - both being created by His "Power" - according to this false interpretation.
15.2.5 THE HANDS ARE DESCRIBED SUCH THAT THEY CAN ONLY BE HANDS.
- The texts have described a Palm for Allaah [al Kaff] and has affirmed Fingers [al- Asaabi'] and that His Hand Grasps [al Qabd] and Shakes [al Hazz]
- Hadeeth: al-Bukhaaree (Eng.) Vol. 9, H604; Muslim (Eng.) Vol. 4, H6699: "Allaah will grasp the heavens with His Hand and the earth with the other, then He will shake them ..."


16.1 ALLAAH HAS TWO EYES THAT BEFIT HIM.
- Ahl-us- Sunnah has agreed upon this - He Sees by them - them being real, not resembling the eyes of the creation.
- They are Attributes that pertain to His Self.

16.1.1 QUR'AAN (54):14

16.1.2 HADEETH:
Muslim Vol. 4, H7006: ""AND your Lord is not one-eyed"; and hadeeth quoted in 14.2.3

16.2 IT DOES NOT MEAN "KNOWLEDGE" OR "THE ABILITY TO SEE"
i.e. al 'Ilm or ar-Ru'yah, for several reasons.

16.2.1 IT DIFFERS FROM WHAT IS APPARENT FROM THE TEXTS.
- And there's no proof for these figurative meanings.

16.2.2 THE EYES ARE DESCRIBED SUCH THAT THEY CAN ONLY BE EYES.
- Refer to hadeeth quoted in 16.1.2



17.1 IN THE SINGULAR FORM:
i.e. One Hand or One Eye.
- e.g. (67):1 and (20):39

17.2 IN THE PLURAL FORM
i.e. Hands and Eyes.
- e.g. (3):71; (54):14.

17.3 IN THE DUAL FORM
i.e. Two Hands and Two Eyes.
- e.g. (5):64 - and hadeeth in Mukhtasar-us-Sawaa'iq of Ibnul Qayyim: "When the slave stands in Prayer, he stands between the Two Eyes of ar- Rahmaan." [But the Shaykh points out that Ibnul-Qayyim does not have a full chain for this, nor a reference.]

17.4 ALL THESE FORMS ARE NOT CONTRADICTORY.

17.4.1 THE SINGULAR COVERS THE DUAL AND PLURAL.
- As this is correct in the language.
[e.g. Man is singular but is used for all of 'mankind' (used in the generic sense)].

17.4.2 IF THE SMALLEST PLURAL IS TWO
- Then there's no contradiction between the dual and plural.

17.4.3 IF THE SMALLEST PLURAL IS THREE [THE USUAL DEFINITION]
- Then refer to (54):14 - "Our Eyes".
- In Arabic, the plural can be used to show honour and praise. Hence Allaah says "Our Eyes" instead of "My Eyes", to show this Honour for Himself.
- And "Eyes" is also plural - agreeing with the plural pronoun of "Our".
- Hence when the possessor of the attribute and the attribute itself are in the plural forms - then an even greater and more intense form of praise is implied.

18.1 THE BELIEF OF AHL-US-SUNNAH.
- They're agreed that He Speaks - this Attribute is real, being affirmed for Him in a manner that befits Him.
- He Speaks with letters [harf] and sound [sawt], however He chooses and however He chooses. His Speech contains words and meaning.
- His Speech is an Attribute that pertains to His Self - He's always had this Attribute.
- And His Speech is an Attribute that pertains to His Actions - it also occurs at specific, new instances.

18.1.1 PROOFS FROM THE BOOK
- (7):143 - His Speech is connected to His Will, occurring at new instances.
- (3):55 - His Speech contains letters as the spoken words have letters.
- (19):52 - His Speech contains sound as a call can only occur with sound.

18.1.2 PROOFS FROM THE SUNNAH.
- Hadeeth: "Allaah the Most High said: O Aadam, So he'll say: Labbayka wa Sa'dayka. So Allaah will call with a sound ..." [Bukhaaree: Book of Hajj and Muslim: Book of Eemaan - the last two hadeeth-s are similar].

18.2 THE BELIEFS OF THE INNOVATORS
The Karaameeyah - their saying is like that of Ahl- us- Sunnah, except they say: "It's something that newly occurred after not being there," to try to flee from occurrences which have no beginning.
The Kullaabeeyah - "It's a meaning that's established with Him, existing with Himself, like His Knowledge and Life, but is not connected to His Will. The letters and sounds are just an account which He created of the meaning which is with Him. It has four meanings - an order, a prohibition, a report and an inquiry."
The Ash'areeyah - like the saying of the Kullaabeeyah except they say that all the four meanings are one and the same. "So His speech has no categories, but consists of attributes. So the Tawrah, Injeel and the Qur'aan are exactly the same, except for the expression used." And the Ash'arees say the letters and sounds are just "an expression" of the Speech, as opposed to "an account".
The Saalimeeyah - "It's an attribute that exists with His Self, persisting with Him, as His Life and Knowledge does, but is not connected to His Will. It's words and sounds are combined - none precedes the other. Hence His Speech has always existed."
The Jahmeeyah and Mu'tazilah - "It's created and not one of His Attributes." Some deny the Speech completely. Others affirm but say it's created.
The Philosophers - Who basically say that His Speech is something imagined by the minds.
The Ittihaadeeyah - "All existence is one so all speech is His Speech."
All of these sayings contradict the Book, Sunnah and intellect.

18.3 THE QUR'AAN IS THE SPEECH OF ALLAAH

18.3.1 THE BELIEF OF AHL-US-SUNNAH.
- The Qur'aan is the Speech of Allaah, sent down and not created. It began from Him and will return to Him. He Spoke it - it being real - delivering it to Jibreel who brought it upon the heart of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .

- See (9):6; (38):29; (26):193-195.
- See hadeeth "Is there any man who will take me to his people, so that I may convey the Speech of my Lord" [Aboo Daawood and at-Tirmidhee].
- See hadeeth "When you take to your bed, say: O Allaah, I have submitted myself to You ..." [Muslim (Eng.) Vol 4., H6546].

18.3.2 THE SAYING OF THE SALAF.
- 'Amr bin Deenaar said: I have known the people for 60 years, and they've been saying that: "Allaah is the Creator and everything else is created except the Qur'aan which is His Speech being uncreated. It began from Him and will return to Him."
"It began from Him" - i.e. He Spoke it initially - refutes the Jahmees who say, "He created it in the form of something else."
"It will return to Him" - i.e. Only Allaah is to be described as speaking it. And it will raise up to Him, being removed from the hearts and mushaf-s when the people stop acting upon it. [as-Saheehah 1/127, No.86].

18.4 THE RECITATION OF THE QUR'AAN
- If what is meant is the servants act of reciting - then this is created.
- If what is meant is what is being recited - then this is the Qur'aan, the Speech of Allaah which is uncreated.
- Imaam Ahmad said: "Whoever says that his speech of the Qur'aan is created, meaning the Qur'aan [is created], then he's a Jahmee."


19.1 IT'S APPEARANCE

19.1.1 AL JA'D BIN DIRHAM.
- at-Ta'teel became widespread after the passing of the first three generations of Muslims, although it's origin emerged at the end of the era of the second generation of Muslims.
- The first to speak with this was al Ja'd bin Dirham who said: "Indeed Allaah did not take Ibraaheem as a friend nor did he directly speak to Moosaa."
- Because of this evil saying, Khaalid bin 'Abdullaah al-Qasree the governor of 'Iraaq, executed him on 'Eed- ul Adhaa 119H.

19.1.2 AL JAHM BIN SAFWAAN
- He took the saying of al Ja'd and spread it.
- From him is the name of the Jahmeeyah sect derived.
- He was executed by Saalim bin Ahwaa in Marw in 128H.

19.1.3 THE GREEK AND ROMAN BOOKS
- Their books on philosophy were translated into Arabic within the second century. Hence their ideas spread.

19.1.4 BISHR BIN GHIYAATH AL MAREESEE
- During the third century these ideas became widespread as a result of this man and his like.
- The Imaams are agreed that these people are to be censured and some of them have ruled these to be Kaafirs. See ad- Daarimee's book refuting the kufr of Mareesee's ideas.
- Many later people took the ideas of Mareesee, eg. as ar- Raazee, al Ghazaalee & Ibn 'Aqeel.

19.2 IT'S ORIGIN
- at-Ta'teel came from the Jews, Mushriks, Saybeans and Philosophers.
- al Ja'd took his ideas from Abaan bin Sam'aan who took if from Taaloot, who took it from Labeed bin al A'sim, the Jew who casted magic on the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) .
- al Ja'd live in Harraan where there were many Saybeans and philosophers - and this environment certainly affected him.

19.3 THE BELIEFS OF THESE DENIERS.
- They believed that Allaah had no attributes that could be affirmed for Him; as they falsely claimed that affirming Attributes of Perfection for Him, leads to at-Tashbeeh.
- They only affirmed attributes relating to denial (the Salabeeyah), or those that are relative (the Idaafeeyah) or those that were both.

19.3.1 THE SALABEEYAH ATTRIBUTES
- i.e. they deny things that are not befitting for Allaah.
- e.g. They say that Allaah is One (Waahid) - meaning that any share of Him in terms of quantity, speech or partners, is to be denied. [Hence they've affirmed nothing and instead have just denied things].

19.3.2 THE IDAAFEEYAH ATTRIBUTES
- i.e. describing attributes in a relative sense.
- eg. They say they He is "The Originator (Mubaddi) and the Cause ('Illah)" meaning all things originate from Him, and not that He has affirmed Attributes of Beginning and Causing. [Again they affirm nothing and instead only deny things].

19.3.3 THE ATTRIBUTES THAT ARE SALABEEYAH AND IDAAFEEYAH :
- e.g. When they say that Allaah is "The First"
- Hence it's from the Salabeeyah in that any limits are denied from Him.
- And it's from the Idaafeeyah in that all other things come after Him.

20.1 THEIR FALSE WAY
- The criteria with them is the intellect. What it considers necessary to affirm, then it is to be affirmed. And what it considers necessary to deny, then it's to be denied.
- They then differ as to what the intellect does consider necessary to deny or affirm.
- So most of them deny them, explaining them figuratively.
- Some stop and resign knowledge of them to Allaah, but at the same time they deny that the relevant texts do indicate any attribute.
- And they claim that this way reconciles the texts and the intellect. But this is false as both the texts and the intellect agree in affirming attributes of Perfection for Allaah, but the intellect can not understand the details.

20.2 THEIR WAY RESEMBLES THOSE MENTIONED IN (4):60-62.
- They claim to be believers in the Revelation, but they don't accept all he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) brought.
- They, when called to the Book and Sunnah, in terms of affirming Attributes of Perfection for Allaah, they turn away in aversion.
- They have their own Taaghoot-s which they blindly follow and prefer over what the Messenger brought. And they go to these for rulings instead of to the Book and the Sunnah.
- They claim to only desire good and reconciliation of the texts and the intellect.

20.3 THE FALSE IMPLICATIONS WHICH FOLLOW ON FROM THEIR WAY.
- Their way implies that the Book and Sunnah clearly state disbelief and call to it as they are filled with texts that affirm Allaah's Attributes - while they say that to affirm these is at- Tashbeeh and Kufr.
- It implies that the Book and Sunnah do not make the truth clear, as nothing in it indicates denial of His Attributes of Perfection. While they think that denying them is the truth. They may use (19):65 and (112):4 to prove their way - but anyone with intelligence knows these show that nothing resembles Him in His Attributes and does not show that denial is obligatory.
- It implies that the Salaf spoke falsehood, or concealed the truth or were ignorant as there are mutawaatir reports from them affirming His Attributes of Perfection. And there's not a single report from them making denial obligatory.
- It implies that, if His Attributes of Perfection are denied, then attributes of deficiency must be affirmed. Hence these deniers go to something worse than what they were fleeing from.

20.4 THE DOUBTS AND FALSE IDEAS THESE DENIERS DEPEND ON.
- False claims, for instance that there's a consensus of what they say.
- False analogies leading to say that affirmation implies Tashbeeh.
- They dwell on words which have meanings that may or may not be correct for Allaah. Hence they end up completely denying them instead of determining which meanings are correct e.g. with respect to al Jism, al Hayyiz, al Jihah, etc.
Note: With respect to al Hayyiz - a restricted realm; then we halt at the words and look to the meaning. If what is meant is that the creation confines Him, then this is prohibited. If what is meant is that He is distinct and separate from the creation, then this is correct.
- Then they embellish these false arguments with fine words and fancy terms, to try to fool the ignorant.

20.5 ARGUMENTS THAT REFUTE THESE FALSE IDEAS.
- Their ideas are contradictory as what they affirm necessarily forces them to also affirm what they flee from and deny.
- Each group of them will contradict each other - one will say the mind makes obligatory that which another will say the mind makes prohibited! Even a single one of them will contradict himself in different places. This contradictory nature is one of the strongest proofs of their falsehood.
- Their denial necessarily leads to falsehood (see 20.3).
- The relevant texts offer no scope for ta'weel and if there was some scope, there's no proof to prefer the figurative meaning over the most apparent one.
- Interpreting the Attributes away is like how the Qaraamitah and Baatineeyah interpret away Salah, Sawm and other worships.
- The clear, uncorrupted mind does not try to turn or change the texts which affirm the Attributes. It does affirm Attributes of Perfection for Allaah, but cannot comprehend the details.
- The prominent ones of the deniers did recognise that the intellect can not reach the details of Tawheed, so we must accept the texts without distorting them.

21.1 DEFINITIONS
21.1.1 THE MU'ATTIL
- is the one who does Ta'teel - i.e. denies anything from Allaah's Names or Attributes. E.g. the Jahmeeyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'areeyah etc.

21.1.2 THE MUMATHTHIL
- is the one who does Tamtheel - i.e. affirms attributes for Allaah through likening Him with His creation. E.g. the Raafidee-s [Shee'ah], etc.

21.2 THE TAMTHEEL DONE BY THE MU'ATTIL.
The only reason why the Mu'attil does Ta'teel is because he believes that affirming the Attributes necessarily involves doing Tashbeeh, and so he denies the Attributes in order to flee from that. So he does Tamtheel first and then Ta'teel.


21.3 THE TA'TEEL DONE BY THE MUMATHTHIL.
He does this in three ways:

21.3.1 HE HAS DENIED THE TEXTS THAT AFFIRM THE ATTRIBUTES BY TAKING THEM AWAY FROM WHAT THEY MUST INDICATE
Which is that Allaah has Attributes that befit Him and which do not resemble those of the creation.

21.3.2 BY LIKENING ALLAAH TO THE CREATION, HE HAS DENIED EVERY TEXT THAT PROVES HE IS NOT LIKE THE CREATION, e.g. (42):11; (112):4.

21.3.3 BY LIKENING ALLAAH TO THE CREATION, HE HAS DENIED THE PERFECTION WHICH IS OBLIGATORY FOR HIM
By likening the Lord who is Perfect in every way, with the defective creation.


22.1 DEFINITION.
Ilm-ul Kalaam [theological speech] is what the Mutakillimoon [theologians] invented, claiming it to be a part of the principles of the Religion, although it's away from what the Book and Sunnah brought.

22.2 SOME NARRATIONS FROM THE SALAF.
Refer to the sayings of Ahmad and also Ash-Shaafi'ee who stated that they should be publicly beaten.

22.3 THE TWO ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE PEOPLE OF KALAAM.

22.3.1 PUNISHMENT
- so that they should repent to Allaah and that others will not follow their way. This attitude relates to Allaah's Law.

22.3.2 SYMPATHY
- as we see the confusion Shaytaan has covered them in and we praise Allaah for saving us from their predicament. This attitude stems from Allaah's Decree.

22.4 THOSE OF THE PEOPLE OF KALAAM WHO ARE MOST PRONE TO BE MISGUIDED.
- They are those who enter this, but not into its extreme depths.
- This is because those who did enter the extreme depths of these beliefs, did realise the falsehood involved and so returned to the Book and the Sunnah.
- E.g. Some of their most prominent figures [refer to Chapter 4].

22.5 THE AUTHOR QUOTES MUCH ON THE SUBJECT FROM THE PEOPLE OF KALAAM.
And he did this to explain the truth against the people of Kalaam by using the sayings of their own leaders and prominent figures.

23.1 THE CORRECT WAY.
This is the way of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his Companions and those who followed them in goodness.
Anyone who follows their way with knowledge and justice will come to know this.
And this is because they attained the true reality of Eemaan in Allaah and the Last Day, acknowledging that to be true and real, being sincere in their actions and following the Sharee'ah without any Shirk, innovation, Tahreef, or denial.

23.2 THE THREE ASTRAY GROUPS .

23.2.1 THE PEOPLE OF TAKHYEEL [IMAGINED CONCEPTS].
E.g. the philosophers, Baatineeyah, people of Kalaam etc. The essence of their way is:

23.2.1.1 Whatever the prophets brought concerning Eemaan in Allaah and the Last Day, are simply likenings or concepts which are not actually real. And so the intent behind all this is to simply benefit the common masses, who upon hearing all the descriptions of Allaah and the Last Day, would then follow the desired way of life.

23.2.1.2 The Extreme Ones claim that the prophets did not know the realities of these matters, and further claim that through their philosophy and through whom they claim to be awliyaa, one is more knowledgeable about these matters than the prophets! Hence these judged the messengers to be ignorant.

23.2.1.3 The Less Extreme of them say that the prophets did know the true realities of these matters, but related imagined unreal things to the people, in order to benefit them. Hence these judged the messengers to be liars.

23.2.1.4 When it Comes to Actions, some of them consider them to be real matters that all are obliged to do. But others take them symbolically claiming that only the common people are obliged by them, while the "special" people are not. E.g. they misinterpret the Salaah to mean their secret thoughts and conversations and Hajj to mean travelling to visit their shaykh-s, etc.
And the falsehood of their way is clear via the intellect, the senses and the Sharee'ah.
- Indeed we all witness that there are so many signs that Allaah exists and has perfect Attributes. And the order of the creation shows that behind it all is One who is Wise, Fully-in-Command and All-Powerful.
- And all the revealed Laws have proven Eemaan in the Last Day, which is a necessary consequence of Allaah's far-reaching Wisdom.
- And indeed most of the people are not upon these false beliefs, due to the natural aversion from such ideas. Hence there's no great need to refute these people of Takhyeel.

23.2.2 THE PEOPLE OF TA-WEEL [MISINTERPRETATION].
E.g. the People of Kalaam from the Jahmeeyah, Mu'tazilah, etc. The reality of their way is:
The texts concerning the Attributes are not to be understood according to their most apparent meaning, and the so the intended meaning is something contrary to the most apparent meaning. And they claim that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) knew this but left the people to use their minds in order to derive the meanings, by diverting the most apparent meanings towards these derived meanings, with his aim being to test the people's minds. So one could hope for more reward according to the extent to which one tried to divert the meanings away from the most apparent meanings, and instead understand the texts in terms of the more irregular aspects of the language.
And this is what most of the people are upon, being confused and self-contradictory.
And these people outwardly show themselves to be aiding the Sunnah. But Allaah has exposed their screens, for many of the scholars did refute them. And Ibn Taymeeyah and others did engage in refuting these people more than any other, because most of the people are deceived by them as a result of their false display of upholding the Sunnah.

23.2.2.1 Their Way Concerning the Texts Dealing with the Hereafter is: That they have Eemaan in it, believing it to be real and not doing Ta-weel of these texts.

23.2.2.2 Hence the people of Takhyeel have surpassed them here, because they point out that the people of Ta-weel are in contradiction for using Ta-weel on the texts dealing with the Attributes, while not using it for the texts dealing with the Hereafter.
[While the people of Takhyeel are at least consistent in giving figurative meanings to both the Attributes and the Hereafter].
Indeed the people of Ta-weel will say: "We recognise that by necessity, the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) came affirming the Hereafter and we know the falsehood of any evil arguments that prevent such affirmation, hence it's obligatory to agree to affirming it."
23.2.2.3 The Proof Against the People of Ta-weel.
Their own words above are the decisive argument against them, for these words are correct not only concerning the Hereafter, but also for the texts concerning the Attributes.

Hence by this, it's clear that the people of Ta-weel are in clear self-contradiction

23.2.3 THE PEOPLE OF TAJHEEL [THOSE WHO ATTRIBUTE IGNORANCE TO THE SALAF].
They belong to many of those who claim adherence to the Sunnah and the Salaf. The essence of their way is:

23.2.3.1 The Texts Dealing with the Attributes are Unknown Words with unknown meanings such that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) spoke about the Attributes without knowing the meanings.
On top of this, they say that the mind has no scope concerning the Attributes, hence they conclude that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) , his Companions and the Salaf had no textural or intellectual knowledge of this matter. And this is one of the most baseless of all sayings!

23.2.3.2 Hence Concerning the Attributes: They pass by the words doing Tafweedh - resigning knowledge of the meaning to Allaah.
But some then contradict themselves by adding that the meaning is something different to what is most apparent from the texts. So they first claim only Allaah knows the meaning, and then say "but the meaning is different to the most apparent meaning"!!

23.2.3.3 Their False Proof for Engaging in Tafweedh.
They use (3):7, saying:
(1) That the aayaat dealing with the Attributes are amongst those unclear matters mentioned in the above aayah.
(2) That the hidden meanings mentioned in the above aayah are those resulting from diverting the meaning away from the most apparent one.
Hence they conclude that the aayaat of the Attributes have meanings which only Allaah knows, where the meanings are different to what's most apparent.

23.2.3.4 The Arguments that Refute Their Belief.
(1) When they say the meaning [Ma'naa] is in doubt, they are wrong, for the meanings of the Attributes are clear. As for the full reality [Haqeeqah] and how [Kayfeeyah] the Attributes are, then none knows this except Allaah.
(2) Their claim that the hidden meaning [Ta-weel] mentioned in the above aayah, is that it's a meaning that differs from what's most apparent, is wrong. For the Ta-weel mentioned in the above aayah has two meanings:
(a) It could mean Tafseer - i.e. an explanation of the meaning. Ibn 'Abbaas said that he was on of those firmly grounded in knowledge, who knew the Ta-weel. Hence with this meaning many of the Salaf paused after {and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge.} in the above aayah.
(b) It could mean the Haqeeqah and Kayfeeyah - i.e. the full reality and how something is. And none knows this except Allaah. Hence with this meaning, most of the Salaf paused after {and none knows the meaning [Ta-weel] except Allaah} in the above aayah.
(3) Allaah sent the Quraan to be pondered over, and so the people are to contemplate all of its meaning. Hence the aayaat dealing with the Attributes (and other matters) do have meanings that can be arrived at through contemplation. And those who had the closest understanding of this was the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his Companions.
(4) Abu Abdir-Rahmaan As-Sulamee narrated how the Companions, and they themselves would learn ten aayaat and not go further until they had learned them in terms of knowledge and action. And all this can not be possible if they were ignorant of the meanings, especially those concerning the Attributes which are the most important of matters.
(5) What the people of Tajheel say, implies that in the Book are hollow words, which don't clearly convey the Truth, while all this contradicts Allaah's Wisdom in sending the Book.

23.3 THE MEANING OF TA-WEEL.
It has two meanings:

23.3.1 IT MEANS TAFSEER
- i.e. an explanation of the meaning [See 23.4 also]. And this is used by most of the Mufassirs [those who present explanations of the meanings of the Quraan]. And this Ta-weel is known by the scholars.
This meaning of Ta-weel is found in the hadeeth where the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) prayed for Ibn 'Abbaas saying: ((O Allaah, give him understanding of the Religion and knowledge of Ta-weel.))

23.3.2 IT MEANS THE HAQEEQAH AND KAYFEEYAH
- i.e. the full reality and how something is. When concerning the Attributes, then none knows this Ta-weel except Allaah.
This meaning for Ta-weel is found in (7):53; (4):59; etc.

23.4 THE MEANING OF TAFSEER.
Ibn 'Abbaas explained that Tafseer is of four kinds:

23.4.1 THE TAFSEER WHICH IS KNOWN THROUGH THE ARABIC LANGUAGE.

23.4.2 THE TAFSEER WHICH ALL ARE OBLIGED TO KNOW.
Such as knowing the tafseer of Allaah's Names & Attributes, Salaah, Zakaah, etc.

23.4.3 THE TAFSEER WHICH IS KNOWN BY THE SCHOLARS
Because they have access to the relevant knowledge and understanding.

23.4.4 THE TAFSEER WHICH NONE BUT ALLAAH KNOWS.
Such as concerning the Haqeeqah and Kayfeeyah of Allaah's Attributes or of the Hereafter.

23.5 THE 'MEANING' AND THE 'TRUE REALITY'.
E.g. We understand the meaning of Istiwaa, but we don't know the true reality of it, or how it is.
E.g. We understand the meaning of honey, milk, fruit and the other things mentioned to be in Paradise; but we do not know their true reality - refer to (32):19.
Hence all the meanings can be reached by us, but the full reality of the Unseen matters can not.
And if it was true, that the meanings of these matters in the Book and Sunnah, are impossible to reach [as is claimed by some of the astray groups mentioned earlier], then what would be the benefit of them being mentioned to us, in the first place?

24.1 AHL-UL QIBLAH
- are those who pray towards the Qiblah [of Makkah] and associate themselves to Islaam. They fall into six groups when faced with the above matter.

24.1.1 TWO OF THEM APPLY THE TEXTS ACCORDING TO THE MOST APPARENT MEANING .

24.1.1.1 The Mushabbihah [Who do Tashbeeh] - they ascribe attributes for the Creator, but declare them to be the same as those of the creation. Their way is false and is rejected by the Salaf.

24.1.1.2 The Salaf - who left the texts according to the most apparent meaning, in a manner befitting Allaah the Mighty and Majestic. Their way is certainly correct - see Chapters 3 & 4.
The difference is that the first engages in Tashbeeh, while the second rejects Tashbeeh. E.g. the Mushabbihah will say: "We can't understand any Knowledge, Descending, Hand, etc. except by way of likening them to those of the creation.

24.1.1.3 Arguments that Refute the Mushabbihah.
(1) The Revelation and the Intellect proves the Creator is different in all His Attributes. E.g. from the Book, refer to (42):11; and from the intellect it can be said: "How can the Creator Who is perfect in every way, be likened to the creation which is deficient?!
(2) When you ask the Mushabbihah about whether Allaah has a Self which resembles none of the creation, then they'd certainly accept this. So similarly they should also accept that His Attributes are different to those of the creation, for His Attributes follow on from His Self.
(3) We see all around us that even the attributes of the creation are different among themselves. For instance the hand of a man is not like the hand of an animal. Hence if this difference is exists within the creation, then the difference between the Creator and the creation will be even greater.

24.1.2 TWO OF THEM APPLY THE TEXTS ACCORDING TO WHAT IS CONTRARY TO THE MOST APPARENT MEANING.
And then they deny all of Allaah's Attributes, while some of them deny only some of them, while others only affirm events or situations [but not Attributes].

24.1.2.1 The People of Ta-weel - from amongst the Jahmeeyah and others who misinterpret the texts dealing with the Attributes to non-apparent meanings derived by themselves. E.g. they misinterpret His Hand to be His Blessing or Power etc.

24.1.2.2 The People of Tajheel - the Mufawwidhah who do Tafweedh, saying: "Allaah knows best what He meant by the texts dealing with the Attributes, but we do know that they do not indicate affirmation of any real attribute for Him." Yet their saying "but we do know..." contradicts Tafweedh, as Tafweedh is where one withholds having any knowledge.
The difference is that the first affirms a meaning but says it's different from what is most apparent from them; while the second deny knowledge of the meaning but still say that affirmation is not meant. Both of these are wrong.

24.1.3 TWO OF THEM HALT SHORT OF THE MATTER.

24.1.3.1 Those who say that the texts dealing with the matter may or may not affirm Attributes befitting Allaah.

24.1.3.2 Those who say absolutely nothing about the matter, doing no more than reciting the aayaat and hadeeth-s.
The difference between these is that the first permits both affirmation and denial, while the second says absolutely nothing. Both of these are wrong.

Every prophet was given enemies who rejected the Truth and opposed it through all the means they had.
One of those means was through wrongfully branding the people of the Truth with evil names to try to scare other people from following them. [It should be noted that the names Ahl-us-Sunnah have given the innovators, are because they do indeed engage in the innovations. So Ahl-us-Sunnah do this justly, to warn the muslims from innovation and it's people].
Hence the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his Companions faced this from the Mushrik-s - see (3):186.
They called him a magician, madman, fortune-teller, liar etc.
And similarly, the people of Knowledge and Truth have also faced this from the Innovators who wrongfully branded names of defamation and mockery onto them.
Some did so out of ignorance, thinking themselves to be upon the Truth. Others did so maliciously, to repel people from the Truth, even though they knew it to be the Truth.


25.1 THE JAHMEEYAH
- call Ahl-us-Sunnah "Mushabbihah" claiming that affirming the Attributes according to the most apparent meaning, is Tashbeeh.

25.2 THE RAAFIDHEE SHEE'AH
- call Ahl-us-Sunnah "Naasibee", i.e. adversaries of 'Alee, because they befriend Aboo Bakr and 'Umar. Hence the Shee'ah claim that anyone who befriends these two has automatically declared enmity for 'Alee and the Ahl-ul Bayt!!!

25.3 THE QADAREEYAH
- call Ahl-us-Sunnah "Mujabbirah" claiming that affirming Allaah's Decree implies that the slaves are forced upon the actions they do!!!

25.4 THE MURJI-AH
- call Ahl-us-Sunnah "Shukkaak" - the Doubters, as they say "I am a Believer if Allaah has Willed," while the Murji-ah forbid this saying and insist on only saying "I am a Believer," for they claim that to add "if Allaah has Willed," shows doubt in having Eemaan. [See 26.4.1].

25.5 THE PEOPLE OF LOGIC AND KALAAM
- call Ahl-us-Sunnah "Hashaweeyah" [people with no worth] and "Nawaabit" [weeds] and "Ghuthaa" [scum], as they think that any one who's not upon their logic and theology are unintelligent rabble. However the truth is that their way is not needed by an intelligent man, nor is it useful to a stupid man.


26.1 ISLAAM.

26.1.1 LINGUISTICALLY
means "submission" [al Inqiyaad]

26.1.2 IN THE SHAREE'AH
it means "the surrendering of the slave, to Allaah, both outwardly and inwardly by carrying out its commandments and avoiding its prohibitions." Hence it comprises the whole Religion. See (5):3; (3):85.

26.2 EEMAAN.

26.2.1 LINGUISTICALLY
means "affirmation" [at-Tasdeeq]. See (12):17.

26.2.2 IN THE SHAREE'AH
It means "the affirmation of the heart that necessitates speech and action, i.e. belief of the heart, speech of the tongue, and action of the heart and limbs."
See hadeeth: "Eemaan is that you believe in Allaah, His Angels,...", and hadeeth: "Eemaan consists of seventy odd branches...".
Hence Eemaan comprises the whole Religion, and hence is not different from Islaam, in this context.

26.3 ISLAAM & EEMAAN.
When the two terms are found together then Eemaan is taken to mean the inward submission [affirmation and action of the heart] - which will only eminate from a believer [Mu-min], while Islaam is taken to mean the outward submission [speech of the tongue and action of the limbs] - which eminates from someone who's complete or weak in Eemaan, or even void of it [e.g. a hypocrite].
See (49):14; (8):2-4
Hence the meaning of Eemaan is superior for every Mu-min is a Muslim, but the reverse is not the case.

26.4 THE INCREASE & DECREASE OF EEMAAN.
Ahl-us-Sunnah are agreed that Eemaan increase and decreases. There are many narrations from the Salaf concerning this.
See (48):4 & many others, and hadeeth: "I have not seen anyone more defecient in intellect and religion..." and others.
Two sects have differed from this:

26.4.1 THE EXTREME MUJI-AH
who believe that Eemaan is affirmation of the heart only and this affirmation does not differ. So to them, the Faasiq and the just honest man are the same in terms of Eemaan.

26.4.2 THE WA'EEDEEYAH
from the Mu'tazilah and Khawaarij, who expel any one who has done a major sin from having any Eemaan. So they say Eemaan is either completely there or not, and has no levels.

26.4.3 THE TEXTS AND THE INTELLECT REFUTE BOTH OF THESE:

26.4.3.1 Refuting the Murji-ah.
(1) Saying Eemaan is only the affirmation of the heart contradicts the Book and the Sunnah, for they show that speech and action are also included.
(2) Saying affirmation of the heart does not differ among the people condradicts all sense, for we all know that affirmation is based on knowledge and that the people differ in the amount and quality of knowledge they have, and so the certainty people have as a result of their knowledge must also differ.
(3) Even an individual feels that with different times and situations he strength of certainly changes.
(4) How can any mind accept that the evil sinning Muslim and the obedient pious worshipping Muslim are the same in Eemaan?

26.4.3.2 Refuting the Wa'eedeeyah.
(1) Saying that a person is expelled from having Eemaan due to doing a major sin, contradicts the Book and the Sunnah.
(2) And concerning their belief that no levels of Eemaan exist between having it completely and not having it at all, then this is refuted by points (2) & (4) of 26.3.2.1.

26.4.4 THINGS THAT INCREASE EEMAAN.

26.4.4.1 Knowing Allaah's Names & Attributes.

26.4.4.2 Contemplating over the Aayaat of Allaah that relate to His Decree and His Laws.

26.4.4.3 Doing Acts of Obedience - with Eemaan increasing according to the sincerity and correctness of the action done, the type of deed done [e.g. if obligatory or recommended], and the amount of deed done.

26.4.4.4 Leaving a Sin Due to Fear of Allaah - with Eemaan increasing according to the strength of the temptation being overcome.

26.4.5 THINGS THAT DECREASE EEMAAN.

26.4.5.1 Being Ignorant of Allaah's Names & Attributes.

26.4.5.2 Disregarding & Turning Away From the Aayaat of Allaah that relate to His Decree and Laws.

26.4.5.3 Doing Sins
with Eemaan decreasing according to the type of evil [e.g. if major or not, or if Kufr or Shirk], the amount of sin done, the lack of regret & importance when doing the sin, and according to the lack of temptations calling to the sin [e.g. refer to hadeeth: "Allaah will not speak to or look at or purify three on the Day of Ressurection..."].

26.4.5.4 Leaving off Acts of Obedience
with Eemaan decreasing according to how certain one is that the deed is part of obedience. And one could be punished for this [i.e. where an obligatory act is not done with no excuse from the Sharee'ah], or not punished [i.e. where one has a physical or Sharee'ah proof for not doing the act - e.g. a woman who misses the Salaah when in her periods, or anyone who does not pray Salaat-ud-Duhaa].

26.5 AL ISTITHNAA - TO SAY "I AM A BELIEVER [MU-MIN] IF ALLAAH HAS WILLED".
The people have three different rulings concerning this:

26.5.1 THAT AL ISTITHNAA IS PROHIBITED.
This is what the Muji-ah, Jahmeeyah and others say. The source for this is explained in 25.4.

26.5.2 THAT AL ISTITHNAA IS OBLIGATORY.

26.5.2.1 Some explain this by saying that Eemaan is what one dies upon, and no one knows this except Allaah, so al Istithnaa is obligatory. This false reason is given by the Kullaabeeyah and others, but it's not known that the Salaf used this reason.

26.5.2.2 Others explain this by saying that complete Eemaan comprises of acting upon all the ordered deeds and abondoning every prohibited deed, and no one can be certain of this. And if some was certain of this he'd be basically claiming to be a person of Paradise - and that is not correct. And some of the Salaf did give this as a reason for making al Istithnaa obligatory.

26.5.3 THAT DETAIL IS FIRST NEEDED.

26.5.3.1 If the Phrase is Said Due to Having Doubt in the Very Presence of the Basis of Eemaan, then this prohibited, and indeed is Kufr, for Eemaan is something to be certain about.

26.5.3.2 If the Phrase is Said from Fear that One's Heart is Not Pure and that one's testification has not reached the reality of complete Eemaan in terms of speech, action and beleief, then this is correct and obligatory.

26.5.3.3 If the Phrase is Said to Seek Blessings by Mentioning Allaah's Will and that it's a way of entertaining hope in being a Mu-min and that it's a way of saying that whatever exists of Eemaan is dependant on Allaah's Will, then this is permitted.

26.5.3.4 And Connecting Allaah's Will is this Way is Not Wrong - it does not contradict the certainty of what one is hoping for - e.g. (48):27.
Reply

Keltoi
12-29-2008, 04:56 PM
That might be the longest post I've ever seen.
Reply

Zamtsa
12-29-2008, 05:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
That might be the longest post I've ever seen.
Thanks, I take that as a reality he he.
Reply

Follower
12-29-2008, 05:45 PM
I wonder why GOD didn't just make Adam's body and let his spirit find the right one to posses?

LOL! Seriously were the disciples the walking dead, zombies before Pentacost?

No really, serious now!! The following verse shows that the Holy Spirit is somehow some way of a different substance then the spirit that we received at our birth and Adam received at his creation. Please see the part I made bold.

John 20

19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."


Our spirit whether having lived before our physical birth or not, are not holy, able of being in the presence of GOD. It is not until we are given the gift of Grace.
Reply

Follower
12-29-2008, 05:55 PM
http://www.gotquestions.org/human-so...-immortal.html

"While all souls are immortal, it is important to remember that we are not eternal like God is. God is the only truly eternal being in that He alone is without a beginning or end. God has always existed and will always continue to exist. All other sentient creatures, whether they be human or angelic, are finite in that they had a beginning. While our souls will live forever once we come into being, the Bible does not support the concept that our souls have always existed."
Reply

Follower
12-29-2008, 06:05 PM
Fedos -
007.172
YUSUFALI: When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): "Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?"- They said: "Yea! We do testify!" (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: "Of this we were never mindful":
PICKTHAL: And (remember) when thy Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their reins, their seed, and made them testify of themselves, (saying): Am I not your Lord? They said: Yea, verily. We testify. (That was) lest ye should say at the Day of Resurrection: Lo! of this we were unaware;
SHAKIR: And when your Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their backs, their descendants, and made them bear witness against their own souls: Am I not your Lord? They said: Yes! we bear witness. Lest you should say on the day of resurrection: Surely we were heedless of this.

But does this make the spirits of man eternal, according to the Quran? It is after Adam is created.
Reply

Imam
12-30-2008, 11:11 AM
Note :

I'm not discussing the spirit according to Islam ,it is according to the Bible
and I skip any post offtopic...

format_quote Originally Posted by Follower

The following verse shows that the Holy Spirit is somehow some way of a different substance then the spirit that we received at our birth and Adam received at his creation.

.


The holy spirit,as depicted in the Bible It is simply (a force )
A tool for miraculous things eg, virgin pregnancy


Which God sends to earth for a purpose and turns it back if he wants.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jewishencyclopedia
Though the nature of the Holy Spirit is really nowhere described, the name indicates that it was conceived as a kind of wind that became manifest through noise and light. As early as Ezek. iii. 12 it is stated, "the spirit took me up, and I heard behind me a voice of a great rushing," the expression "behind me" characterizing the unusual nature of the noise. The Shekinah made a noise before Samson like a bell (Soṭah 9b, below). When the Holy Spirit was resting upon him, his hair gave forth a sound like a bell, which could be heard from afar. It imbued him with such strength that he could uproot two mountains and rub them together like pebbles, and could cover leagues at one step (ib. 17b; Lev. R. viii. 2). Similarly Acts ii. 2 reads: "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting" (it must be noted that this happened at Pentecost, i.e., the Feast of Revelation). Although the accompanying lights are not expressly mentioned, the frequently recurring phrase "he beheld ["heẓiẓ"] in the Holy Spirit" shows that he upon whom the spirit rested saw a light. The Holy Spirit gleamed in the court of Shem, of Samuel, and of King Solomon (Gen. R. lxxxv. 12). It "glimmered" in Tamar (Gen. xxxviii. 18), in the sons of Jacob (Gen. xlii. 11), and in Moses (Ex. ii. 12), i.e., it settled upon the persons in question (see Gen. R. lxxxv. 9, xci. 7; Lev. R. xxxii. 4, "niẓoẓah" and "heẓiẓ"; comp. also Lev. R. viii. 2, "hitḥil le-gashgesh"). From the day that Joseph was sold the Holy Spirit left Jacob, who saw and heard only indistinctly (Gen. R. xci. 6). The Holy Spirit, being of heavenly origin, is composed, like everything that comes from heaven, of light and fire. When it rested upon Phinehas his face burned like a torch (Lev. R. xxi., end). When the Temple was destroyed and Israel went into exile, the Holy Spirit returned to heaven; this is indicated in Eccl. xii. 7: "the spirit shall return unto God" (Eccl. R. xii. 7). The spirit talks sometimes with a masculine and sometimes with a feminine voice (Eccl. vii. 29 [A. V. 28]); i.e., as the word "ruaḥ" is both masculine and feminine, the Holy Spirit was conceived as being sometimes a man and sometimes a woman.
With the death of the last three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit ceased to manifest itself in Israel; but the Bat Ḳol was still available. "A bat ḳol announced twice at assemblies of the scribes: 'There is a man who is worthy to have the Holy Spirit rest upon him.' On one of these occasions all eyes turned to Hillel; on the other, to Samuel the Lesser" (Tosef., Soṭah, xiii. 2-4, and parallels). Although the Holy Spirit was not continually present, and did not rest for any length of time upon any individual, yet there were cases in which it appeared and made knowledge of the past and of the future possible (ib.; also with reference to Akiba, Lev. R. xxi. 8; to Gamaliel II., ib. xxxvii. 3, and Tosef., Pes. i. 27; to Meïr, Lev. R. ix. 9; etc.).
The Holy Spirit rested not only on the children of Israel who crossed the Red Sea (Tosef., Soṭah, vi. 2), but, toward the end of the time of the Second Temple, occasionally on ordinary mortals; for "if they are not prophets, they are at least the sons of prophets" (Tosef., Pes. iv. 2). The Holy Spirit is at times identified with the spirit of prophecy (comp. Seder 'Olam, 1, beginning; Targ. Yer. to Gen. xli. 38, xliii. 14; II Kings ix. 26; Isa. xxxii. 15. xl. 13, xliv. 3; Cant. R. i. 2). Sifre 170 (to Deut. xviii. 18) remarks: "'I will put My words into his mouth,' means 'I put them into his mouth, but I do not speak with him face to face'; know, therefore, that henceforth the Holy Spirit is put into the mouths of the Prophets." The "knowledge of God" is the Holy Spirit (Cant. R. i. 9). The division of the country by lot among the several tribes was likewise effected by means of the Holy Spirit (Sifre, Num. 132, p. 49a).



format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
Our spirit whether having lived before our physical birth or not, are not holy
.

If that is true the text would be like that:

(Job xii. 10). Through His unholy spirit all living things are created; and when He withdraws it they perish.

And that is nonsense


format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
While our souls will live forever once we come into being, the Bible does not support the concept that our souls have always existed..
Chapter and verse for such claim ,plz.?

Where does it says in the bible that the spirit of God which he breathed into Adam and other creatures is created?
Reply

Keltoi
12-30-2008, 11:35 AM
In Genesis God does say "Before you were born I knew you." Not sure that points any particular way though.
Reply

Zamtsa
12-30-2008, 02:43 PM
The big problem to Muslim who already read the Bible, they realised that the Church fathers were someone like Constantine, Eusebius, Arius. Then you go on having the Athanasius creed and some meeting before that and after that.

Christians never ask about Gospel of Nazorean, separate from Gospel of the Ebionites and Gospel of the Holy Twelve.

The Christian Bible only include the story of Jesus when he was 30 Years old. That's weird, because in there you won't find about "how he look like."

A Muslim will find about the characteristics of Almasih Jesus Ibn Maryam and how he look like in Al Hadits. Also of Muusa 'Alaihi Salam.

When you think that TRINITY is from reality of God. Then I say that it was fruit of Philosophy thinking. After Nuh 'alaihi Salaam's time, the people were worshipping Wadd, Suwa', Yaghuts, Yauq and Nashr. These people were the Pious people in their time who had died, so the simplest thinking of UMMAH at that time was that they were worshipping them so that those Pious will pray to Allahu Ta'ala, or so that they will be near to Allah as they ask help to them. Or they will ask Allah's mercy by using the position of those Pious men, they thought.

As time goes by, the worship getting worse, that was worshipping the LEADERS of their nation, as they thought that God will strengthen their nation by doing so. This was in the time of Pharaoh or Fir'aun which began before Muusa 'alaihi Salaam and after Yusuf 'alaihi Salaam, in Egypt.

Then there was the worship of SACRIFICING virgins, as these came from the thinking that ADULTERY is a sin, and a virgin must be sacrifice to God, so that He won't be jealous again of people who had many concubines, because He already got His. They thought God liked virgins.

Then came the Greek who liked to worship God and family of God.

The conclusion is that every Kafir people liked to affirm "God has families,"
so many of them,
for example: Osiris(father), Isis (mother), Horus(son). Horus even got twin brother: Seth (Syaithan).
Father of Krishna, Mother of Krishna and Krishna
God the Father, Mary, Jesus
God the Father, Holy Ghost, Jesus
Zeus (father), Hera (mother), Apollo (son)
etc

What is "Laa ilaha illallah."?
In Arabic the way to write Laa ilaha illallah is " لا اله الا الله "
See the ا (alif) in the word Allah there? The Alif could be erase, but why was it written in there? Because it is Alif lam makrifat, means that what Muslim meant by the word "Allah" is definite, not indefinite and not abstact (Nakirah).

That means Allahu Ta'ala is only the Creator, the Cherisher, the Sustainer, and the One God who owns the Asma'ul Husna which He made known through His Kitab, and through His messengers, and which He keep inside His knowledge which is Ghaib (not known but by Him).

If the writing is like this " لا اله الا لله " the alif before the lafazh Allah is erase, then it is becoming Allah the abstract, which won't be Al Ilah, the word Allah was derived from Al Ilah " ال اله" not "اله" the rule in Arabic is that when the word written the form of Nakirah means abstract, while when written in the form of Makrifat (with Al : ال) means that it is a DEFINITE noun (Isim).

So forever, Islam will never worship duality of Allah as one or Oneness of Allah in duality, or Trinity of Allah in 1 or oneness of Allah in Trinity.
Only Allah the Al Ilah, Ilah means 1 God, if 2 God: Ilahaini.


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (May peace be upon who follow the guidance)
Reply

Follower
12-30-2008, 11:28 PM
During the time of Jesus to be considered a person with authority and knowledge you had to be older. In other words don't trust anyone under 30.

Christians know about the Apocrypha and other spurous books that you mention. They are available through every Library and on line. They were never burned or destroyed to hide them from people. These other books could not measure up to the standard and were left out of the Holy Bible, no big conspiracy. Funny Muslims always bring this up and do not understand what their Quran has gone though to get to where it is today.

I personally don't think you can even begin to understand the Trinity without the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is so easy for me to understand but I know that I can talk until I tuen blue, but a person without the Holy Spirit will never understand it.

I have said this before that I do not like the term Trinity naming the concept that is in the Bible. It holds up so many, turns so many away from all the other TRUTHS that are in the Bible.

Ahmad - Most Christians do not believe that GOD has a family- I do believe the Mother of GOD thing stated by some is a huge misleading mistake that confuses the issue further. This was never a part of the definiton of the Trinity and is a mistake in the Quran.

Do you worship the Unity of Allah?

Not sure of you point with:

Job 12
10In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind

Keltoi I understand that to mean GOD knows us while in the womb before our actual birth. I think we do have our spirit at conception- sad when you think of abortions.
Reply

Zamtsa
12-31-2008, 07:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower
During the time of Jesus to be considered a person with authority and knowledge you had to be older. In other words don't trust anyone under 30.

Christians know about the Apocrypha and other spurous books that you mention. They are available through every Library and on line. They were never burned or destroyed to hide them from people. These other books could not measure up to the standard and were left out of the Holy Bible, no big conspiracy. Funny Muslims always bring this up and do not understand what their Quran has gone though to get to where it is today.

I personally don't think you can even begin to understand the Trinity without the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is so easy for me to understand but I know that I can talk until I tuen blue, but a person without the Holy Spirit will never understand it.

I have said this before that I do not like the term Trinity naming the concept that is in the Bible. It holds up so many, turns so many away from all the other TRUTHS that are in the Bible.

Ahmad - Most Christians do not believe that GOD has a family- I do believe the Mother of GOD thing stated by some is a huge misleading mistake that confuses the issue further. This was never a part of the definiton of the Trinity and is a mistake in the Quran.

Do you worship the Unity of Allah?

Not sure of you point with:

Job 12
10In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind

Keltoi I understand that to mean GOD knows us while in the womb before our actual birth. I think we do have our spirit at conception- sad when you think of abortions.
To Muslim, Jesus already became Prophet since he was a very little boy and Allahu Ta'ala made him talk to people when he was a baby to who thought that he was a baby born of adultery.

This is inviting Iman from Christian:

QS19:29 Then she pointed to him. They said How can we talk to one who is in the CRADLE, a young boy?
30 He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet,
31 And hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive,
32 And (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest.
33 Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!
34 Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt.
35 It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
36 And lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path.
37 The sects among them differ: but woe unto the disbelievers from the meeting of an awful Day.
38 See and hear them on the Day they come unto Us! Yet the evil-doers are today in error manifest.
39 And warn them of the Day of anguish when the case hath been decided. Now they are in a state of carelessness, and they believe not.
40 Lo! We inherit the earth and all who are thereon, and unto Us they are returned.


And for information, the Christians knew that most of the Gospel of Nazorean's fragments were lost, and that it was not Gospel of The Holy 12 or Gospel of The Ebionites, it's 3 separated Gospels. Furthermore, the contents of those 3 were longer than your Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I believed that many Christian are only a blind follower of their Priests at all times.
When their Priests chose Rahbaniyyah (Priesthood/unmarried), they are silenced, and even when the Priest made lists of sins that could be paid as well as the prices, they obey this without questioning.

And when we direct them to Gospel of Nazoreans, they only said "Your Al Qur'an deals with the same problem, as abrogation and stuff."

The answer "Al Qur'an came in 7 letters (7 types of pronouncing the words with the same meaning and contents). About abrogation, there were no abrogated verses but Allahu Ta'ala substituted it with better verses or similar verses, with the same contents."


QS.Al Baqarah (2):106 None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something BETTER or SIMILAR; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?

For instance the verses about "Rajam (stoning to death)" when someone saw this verse of Kalamullah:

QS.59:7 ...So take what the Apostle assigns to you and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is strict in Punishment.

Rajam was Sunnah of Rasulullah and even the Sunnah of Khulafa 'Urasyidin (Abu Bakar, 'Umar, Utsmaan and 'Ali radhiyallahu 'anhum ajma'in).

This even proven that Rasulullah never hide any revelation sent down he accepted from Allahu Jalla Jalaaluhu.



Assalam manit taba'al huda (May peace be upon who follow the guidance).
Reply

Imam
12-31-2008, 11:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Follower


I have said this before that I do not like the term Trinity naming the concept
.
I agree with you ,we shouldn't call it Trinity...

If it is composed of :

God the father
and
God the son
and
God the holy spirit

should be named its true name

Trithism

without putting the false mask (trinity) on its face.....



format_quote Originally Posted by Follower


Job 12
10In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind

.

yes that is true ,our souls in God's hand ,not in the hand of Jesus:


"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spiritLuke 23:46
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-06-2012, 08:05 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-01-2010, 11:32 AM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-11-2006, 08:10 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!