How the Salaf (Not the Salafi Sect) viewed the attributes of Allah

[MuslimManMe]

@Sheikh Sufi @Lord @The Inquisitive

 

[MuslimManMe]

@AdoonkaAlle

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

If i'm not mistaken the brother is ashari ? my view regarding asharisim is that they also have mistakes when it comes to the sifaat of Allah among other things. Their labelling of salafis of falling into anthropomorphism or anyone who differs from their own understanding is also another excessiveness on their behalf

When you read about the historical development of asharism, their utilisation of ilmu kalam to prove the existence of god and later on how the same theology ended up affecting their understanding on not only how to interpret the sifaat but also in issues like Qadr. The only conclusion one is left with after this is to acknowledge that too have problems in their understanding. This is my position with regards to asharism

Despite being different both asharism and salafism suffer from similar problems ie they both are based on the teaching of their founders who had different interpretation & understanding when it came to certain topics in islam.

 

[MuslimManMe]

If i'm not mistaken the brother is ashari ? my view regarding asharisim is that they also have mistakes when it comes to the sifaat of Allah among other things. Their labelling of salafis of falling into anthropomorphism or anyone who differs from their own understanding is also another excessiveness on their behalf

When you read about the historical development of asharism, their utilisation of ilmu kalam to prove the existence of god and later on how the same theology ended up affecting their understanding on not only how to interpret the sifaat but also in issues like Qadr. The only conclusion one is left with after this is to acknowledge that too have problems in their understanding. This is my position with regards to asharism

Despite being different both asharism and salafism suffer from similar problems ie they both are based on the teaching of their founders who had different interpretation & understanding when it came to certain topics in islam.

What do you think are their gaps in understanding specifically?

From my understanding, the Ash'aira did ta'wil where necessary to prevent anthropomorphic misunderstandings that not only are not applicable to Allah but that also may be grossly misunderstood by non-Arab and recent revert populations. Imagine explaining the face of Allah to West african tribesman that were just worshipping a mask deity.

Asha'ira was actually a blessing for the early Ummah because it allowed them to truly come to the correctu nderstanding of Allah without falling into the Christian trap..

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

What do you think are their gaps in understanding specifically?

From my understanding, the Ash'aira did ta'wil where necessary to prevent anthropomorphic misunderstandings that not only are not applicable to Allah but that also may be grossly misunderstood by non-Arab and recent revert populations. Imagine explaining the face of Allah to West african tribesman that were just worshipping a mask deity.

Asha'ira was actually a blessing for the early Ummah because it allowed them to truly come to the correctu nderstanding of Allah without falling into the Christian trap..

It's not more about gaps but more to do with understanding and interpretation of theirs like for example i never understood why it was hard for asharis to affirm eg face of Allah that transcends our material experience meaning the similarity of what we understand the face of Allah to mean and the meaning of face in general is simply in the name only. Since we don't know the reality of the face of Allah we shouldn't try to interpret the meaning of it based on what we understand from the meaning face in our material experience.

The problem i see is that they can't think of "face of Allah" without likening it to the way we understand it ie a face that doesn't have the attributes of this world. Which is why in their mind they believe it to be anthropomorphic if one accepts face of Allah without ta'wil. In their minds face has already the meaning that we know which is based on how we define it in our world that's why ta'wil has to be done otherwise one risks likening Allah to His creation.

Similarly with issue of where Allah is, asharis say we can't ascribe place to Allah as this would entail that He is confined but as muslims we believe that Allah exists and we will meet Him they say Allah is where He has always been but when you ask where this is they aren't able to answer. More importantly by answering that Allah is where He has always been proves that they themselves are thinking of "place" otherwise they wouldn't be able to say the above.

Despite thinking of "place" they won't affirm it as they're convinced that this leads to confining Allah and the problem continues. It's for this reason i never found their argument or understanding convincing nor do i believe that this is how the Prophet peace be upon him or sahaba understood it.

In their attempt to not liken Allah to His creation they end up making mistakes which forces them to have a different understanding. They then interpret the sifaat based on this understanding.

 

[MuslimManMe]

It's not more about gaps but more to do with understanding and interpretation of theirs like for example i never understood why it was hard for asharis to affirm eg face of Allah that transcends our material experience meaning the similarity of what we understand the face of Allah to mean and the meaning of face in general is simply in the name only. Since we don't know the reality of the face of Allah we shouldn't try to interpret the meaning of it based on what we understand from the meaning face in our material experience.

The problem i see is that they can't think of "face of Allah" without likening it to the way we understand it ie a face that doesn't have the attributes of this world. Which is why in their mind they believe it to be anthropomorphic if one accepts face of Allah without ta'wil. In their minds face has already the meaning that we know which is based on how we define it in our world that's why ta'wil has to be done otherwise one risks likening Allah to His creation.

Similarly with issue of where Allah is, asharis say we can't ascribe place to Allah as this would entail that He is confined but as muslims we believe that Allah exists and we will meet Him they say Allah is where He has always been but when you ask where this is they aren't able to answer. More importantly by answering that Allah is where He has always been proves that they themselves are thinking of "place" otherwise they wouldn't be able to say the above.

Despite thinking of "place" they won't affirm it as they're convinced that this leads to confining Allah and the problem continues. It's for this reason i never found their argument or understanding convincing nor do i believe that this is how the Prophet peace be upon him or sahaba understood it.

In their attempt to not liken Allah to His creation they end up making mistakes which forces them to have a different understanding. They then interpret the sifaat based on this understanding.

Im gonna give you a response on Sunday inshaAllah akhi

 

[MuslimManMe]

It's not more about gaps but more to do with understanding and interpretation of theirs like for example i never understood why it was hard for asharis to affirm eg face of Allah that transcends our material experience meaning the similarity of what we understand the face of Allah to mean and the meaning of face in general is simply in the name only. Since we don't know the reality of the face of Allah we shouldn't try to interpret the meaning of it based on what we understand from the meaning face in our material experience.

The problem i see is that they can't think of "face of Allah" without likening it to the way we understand it ie a face that doesn't have the attributes of this world. Which is why in their mind they believe it to be anthropomorphic if one accepts face of Allah without ta'wil. In their minds face has already the meaning that we know which is based on how we define it in our world that's why ta'wil has to be done otherwise one risks likening Allah to His creation.

Similarly with issue of where Allah is, asharis say we can't ascribe place to Allah as this would entail that He is confined but as muslims we believe that Allah exists and we will meet Him they say Allah is where He has always been but when you ask where this is they aren't able to answer. More importantly by answering that Allah is where He has always been proves that they themselves are thinking of "place" otherwise they wouldn't be able to say the above.

Despite thinking of "place" they won't affirm it as they're convinced that this leads to confining Allah and the problem continues. It's for this reason i never found their argument or understanding convincing nor do i believe that this is how the Prophet peace be upon him or sahaba understood it.

In their attempt to not liken Allah to His creation they end up making mistakes which forces them to have a different understanding. They then interpret the sifaat based on this understanding.

Okay Akhi, I had more time than expected.
The position of the Asha'irah with respect to the ayahs that are anthropomorphic stems from three factors. The first is from the actual nass of the Qur'an, where Allah (SWT) states that
"There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing" (Ash-Shura, 11). This means that Allah (SWT) is unique in his essence. The second factor is the Messenger (SAWS)'s statement that "Do Not Reflect on the Essence of Allah, but Rather reflect on his creation". The third, and VERY IMPORTANT, fact is that many of the anthropomorphic phrasings of the Qur'an have meanings in the Arabic expression (as well as other languages) that have perfectly suitable and contextually suitable non physical meanings.

A perfect example of this is the following ayah "And the Jews say, "The hand of Allah is chained." Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills" (Al Maedah, 84). It is clear from this ayah that neither the Jews nor Allah is speaking of a physical hand (or anything resembling a physical hand) that comes from the heavens and gives provision to the people directly such that we could say "This is a Hand in the literal sense of a Hand". Rather, the Hand of Allah refers to the directive of Allah to spend or restrict anything. How do we know this? Because the arabic expression "Chained Hands" means someone who is tightfisted. Even the word "Tight Fisted" does not mean a literal "Tight Fist" but a stingy person. This is obvious in this modern era where someone can be tightfisted and never open his hand to spend (strictly paypal and CashApp).

Similar appropriations can be found in the following ayahs
And to Allah belongs the east and the west. So wherever you [might] turn, there is the FACE of Allah. Indeed, Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.
Baqarah, 215

Lest a soul should say,1 "Oh, [how great is] my regret over what I neglected in regard to (THE SIDEBONE OR JAMB of) Allah and that I was among the mockers."
Zumar, 53

Put him in the casket, and cast it into the river. Then the river will cast it on the bank, and he shall be picked up by an enemy of Mine and an enemy of his.” And I made you endearing, and that you might be reared under MY EYE.
Taha, 39

All of this have appropriate non-anthropomorphic explanations not just in the Arabic language but in the rational context of the Qur'an and the Sunnah and - sad to say it - just plain old common sense.

The Ashaira did enough to not delve into the mutashabihat (such as what you asked about the meeting or seeing of Allah - which is affirmed by Ahlus Sunnah as being possible to see Allah in this life and the next life). But they also did what was necessary to prevent people from blatantly misunderstanding the intended ma'naa (meaning) of the ambiguous Qur'an verses. We see that the Salafis, who are close to but not quite anthropormophists, are the natural result of trying to take every single word of the Quran literally even when that understanding goes against what the Salaf themselves understood that word to mean in that context.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Okay Akhi, I had more time than expected.
The position of the Asha'irah with respect to the ayahs that are anthropomorphic stems from three factors. The first is from the actual nass of the Qur'an, where Allah (SWT) states that
"There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing" (Ash-Shura, 11). This means that Allah (SWT) is unique in his essence. The second factor is the Messenger (SAWS)'s statement that "Do Not Reflect on the Essence of Allah, but Rather reflect on his creation". The third, and VERY IMPORTANT, fact is that many of the anthropomorphic phrasings of the Qur'an have meanings in the Arabic expression (as well as other languages) that have perfectly suitable and contextually suitable non physical meanings.

A perfect example of this is the following ayah "And the Jews say, "The hand of Allah is chained." Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills" (Al Maedah, 84). It is clear from this ayah that neither the Jews nor Allah is speaking of a physical hand (or anything resembling a physical hand) that comes from the heavens and gives provision to the people directly such that we could say "This is a Hand in the literal sense of a Hand". Rather, the Hand of Allah refers to the directive of Allah to spend or restrict anything. How do we know this? Because the arabic expression "Chained Hands" means someone who is tightfisted. Even the word "Tight Fisted" does not mean a literal "Tight Fist" but a stingy person. This is obvious in this modern era where someone can be tightfisted and never open his hand to spend (strictly paypal and CashApp).

Similar appropriations can be found in the following ayahs
And to Allah belongs the east and the west. So wherever you [might] turn, there is the FACE of Allah. Indeed, Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.
Baqarah, 215

Lest a soul should say,1 "Oh, [how great is] my regret over what I neglected in regard to (THE SIDEBONE OR JAMB of) Allah and that I was among the mockers."
Zumar, 53

Put him in the casket, and cast it into the river. Then the river will cast it on the bank, and he shall be picked up by an enemy of Mine and an enemy of his.” And I made you endearing, and that you might be reared under MY EYE.
Taha, 39

All of this have appropriate non-anthropomorphic explanations not just in the Arabic language but in the rational context of the Qur'an and the Sunnah and - sad to say it - just plain old common sense.

The Ashaira did enough to not delve into the mutashabihat (such as what you asked about the meeting or seeing of Allah - which is affirmed by Ahlus Sunnah as being possible to see Allah in this life and the next life). But they also did what was necessary to prevent people from blatantly misunderstanding the intended ma'naa (meaning) of the ambiguous Qur'an verses. We see that the Salafis, who are close to but not quite anthropormophists, are the natural result of trying to take every single word of the Quran literally even when that understanding goes against what the Salaf themselves understood that word to mean in that context.

Had ashari opposition been solely based on the quran & hadith then i don't think there would've been issues, classical athari scholars for example wouldn't have warned against them etc. Even before the advent of miaw and his dawah, asharis were labelling all those who were against their aqeedah regarding the sifaat as anthropomorphist, now the question is who were these people ?

I don't know how familiar you're with ashari aqeedah but their opposition stems from their utilisation of ilm kalam in proving the existence of god, what is termed as kalam cosmological argument. So in order to grasp a good understanding of ashari aqeedah you need to first understand the rational principles that they use to establish the existence of god. I would suggest that you read up on asharite atomism, yasir qadhi has a good lecture that deals with the origins of the sifaat debate.






This rational proof that they establish is what they then use to determine which sifaat they would either affirm or deny. According to them god can not move, speak, be in place, etc as this would imply that he is created as all the above qualities are qualities present in created beings. It's also for this reason that they can never affirm face etc to god as only created beings have bodies, so affirming a face would mean affirming a body to god making him a created being as well.

The greatest blessing Allah will reward the believers in jannah is seeing His face and we've sahih hadith about it, look at the tafsir of yunus ayah 26.