Why Do Some Muslims Deny Where Allah is?

[AlIshaaqi]

@AlIshaaqi I never claimed to be anything dude and that's not relevant at all

Ibn Taymiyyah said that Allah has a physical body (wal iyadubillah).

This is all I need to know to throw this entire aqeedah in the bin.

You can't claim that he didn't liken Allah to his creation when he said that HE IS A PHYSICAL BEING wal iyadubillah. By the way, there was a time when the Kursi didn't exist and only Allah existed pre-eternally so my question to you as with the other guy is this: 'Where' (a stupid question in itself) was Allah before He created the Kursi?

You cannot say He was always established on the Kursi because then you fall into the same error as the people who believe the universe is eternal and always existed which is a quality only held by Allah and nothing else.

We can begin with u proving that IT said Allah is a PHYSICAL BEING whatever that means!

Also it's the ARSH and not the KURSI. Saaxib we don't need to go into this weird questioning of Allah and what Allah said. Allah says he rose over the throne, we accept that! We don't say but oh oh oh what about before or what about this and that?

Allah says:

الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى عَلَى الْعَرْشِ الرَّحْمَنُ فَاسْأَلْ بِهِ خَبِيرًا [الفرقان:59]

˹He is˺ the One Who created the heavens and the earth and everything in between in six Days,1 then established Himself on the Throne. ˹He is˺ the Most Compassionate! Ask ˹none other than˺ the All-Knowledgeable about Himself.

Also that stupid ""Where"" question was asked by the PROPHET himself!


See the word ثُمَّ means something happened after something, so Allah created the heavens and the earth THEN established himself on the throne. This flies in the face of what u where talking about here:

""By the way, there was a time when the Kursi didn't exist and only Allah existed pre-eternally so my question to you as with the other guy is this: 'Where' (a stupid question in itself) was Allah before He created the Kursi?

You cannot say He was always established on the Kursi because then you fall into the same error as the people who believe the universe is eternal and always existed which is a quality only held by Allah and nothing else.""

Allah himself says he wasn't always established on his throne, he did it in a sequence AFTER doing something else. This is something else Asharis deny, Allah acting in ''real time'' or acting in sequence, u guys believe that Allah acts pre eternal(whatever that means). So when u make dua to Allah now for something, he either grants u it or don't grant u it since pre eternally.

 

[Heavy Mountains]

Allah is rose above the throne. I don’t understand how anyone can arrive to a different conclusion to this despite the overwhelming eveidence.

{Allah, it is He Who has created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them in six days. Then He rose over (istawa) the Throne (in a manner that suits His Majesty). You (mankind) have none, besides Him, as a Wali (protector or helper) or an intercessor. Will you not then remember (or receive admonition)?} [As-Sajdah 32:4]

{Surely, your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then rose over (istawa) the Throne (in a manner that suits His Majesty), disposing the affair of all things.} [Yunus 10:3]

{To Him ascend (all) the goodly words, and the righteous deeds exalt it (i.e. the goodly words are not accepted by Allah unless and until they are followed by good deeds).} [Fatir 35:10]

“He is the First (nothing is before Him) and the Last (nothing is after Him), the Most High (nothing is above Him) and the Most Near (nothing is nearer than Him).} [Al-Hadid 57:3]

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “You are the Most High and there is nothing above You…”

The verses which talk about Allah rising above the throne should not be taken literally, its simply an allegorical and the meaning of the verse is that Allah is the creator and sustainer of everything.

Saying that Allah is located in one place implies that Allah is not everywhere else and that would contradict the concept of His omnipotence since you believe there are limitation to His presence.

 

[Awdalite]

The verses which talk about Allah rising above the throne should not be taken literally, its simply an allegorical and the meaning of the verse is that Allah is the creator and sustainer of everything.

Saying that Allah is located in one place implies that Allah is not everywhere else and that would contradict the concept of His omnipotence since you believe there are limitation to His presence.

Space and time are created bodies so for God to be encompassed within the framework of what He created is ludicrous. You're absolutely right in that regard

 

[daljirkadahsoon]

Space and time are created bodies so for God to be encompassed within the framework of what He created is ludicrous. You're absolutely right in that regard

Some people here can't comprehend that time and space are creations of Allah they accuse you of being a 'philosopher' if you say this

 

[Jeghbamjdb]

intresting i ask some people they’ll tell me “he’s everywhere”

Most people don’t question these basics but also the op in the original is probably one of those philosophy islamic bros. It corrupts your islam and can lead you to innnovation. very dangerous


Most people don’t know what ashari is or aqeedah or the different thoughts. Just “Wahhabi”, sufis and shia

Asharis don't say he's everywhere. They say he's not bound by space.

He is neither inside the universe nor outside the universe because this attributes locatedness for Allah and that is something that only applies to contingent things.

 

[Jeghbamjdb]

I've never questioned where Allah is, I've always believed he was above the heavens. With regards to Ashaari vs Athari from looking into Islamic history, at one point the majority of the Ummah were Asha'ri and another time the majority were Athari. This debate isn't new. In the medieval classical period, they would debate each other and write fatwas against each other.

Read Carl sharif al toughie's book on ibn taymiyyah's magnum opus 'Refutation of the 'seeming' contradiction of reason and revelation'

I used to be ashari inclined until I was introduced to ibn taymiyyah's arguments.In matters of Allah's attributes, I'm fully athari.

He's often portrayed as a fanatical scholar but he's actually a unique and sofisticated thinker.

 

[daljirkadahsoon]

Read Carl sharif al toughie's book on ibn taymiyyah's magnum opus 'Refutation of the 'seeming' contradiction of reason and revelation'

I used to be ashari inclined until I was introduced to ibn taymiyyah's arguments.In matters of Allah's attributes, I'm fully athari.

He's often portrayed as a fanatical scholar but he's actually a unique and sofisticated thinker.

Ibn Taymiyyah defies the Qura'nic ayah 'laysa ka mithli shay' that's all you need to about his 'sophisticated' aqeedah.

 

[Jeghbamjdb]

Ibn Taymiyyah defies the Qura'nic ayah 'laysa ka mithli shay' that's all you need to about his 'sophisticated' aqeedah.

Between the God of the Prophets and the God of the Philosophers: Reflections of an Athari on the Divine Attributes - Anna’s Archive

Hatem al-Haj The apophatic god of negative theology is the areligious philosophers’ preferred god; a god which is Independently published

annas-archive.gs

Read this to get some perspective brother. I used to think the same thing, but there isn't any tashbih going on here.

One of the main reasons why I turned to the athari aqeedah was because if what Asharis say is to be believed, then that means that Allah revealed the Quran in a way that would mislead the majority of the Ummah into engaging in tashbih, nad I found that distateful.

 

[daljirkadahsoon]

Between the God of the Prophets and the God of the Philosophers: Reflections of an Athari on the Divine Attributes - Anna’s Archive

Hatem al-Haj The apophatic god of negative theology is the areligious philosophers’ preferred god; a god which is Independently published

annas-archive.gs

View attachment 333396


Read this to get some perspective brother. I used to think the same thing, but there isn't any tashbih going on here.

One of the main reasons why I turned to the athari aqeedah was because if what Asharis say is to be believed, then that means that Allah revealed the Quran in a way that would mislead the majority of the Ummah into engaging in tashbih, nad I found that distateful.

No there is no misleading that's just ignorance and not giving due consideration.

Those ayah are literally called mutashabihaat- i.e unclear and not to be taken literally. The Qur'an also has the isolated huruuf by the way as another example of something the meaning of which is not obvious. Even English has the same use of majaz and allusion in a sense- no one takes the statement 'do you need a hand' to mean that I will present to you a human hand on its own cut off from someone.

If we go down this path of, oh I don't immediately know something let's throw it out you might as well throw out usul al fiqh, etc, anything requiring study because none of those things are self evident.

The Qur'an is a book whose revelation doesn't stop. It has endless meanings. You could spend 1000 years and you would still get new insights. I'm sorry but this isn't an argument and just su al dhann on the part of those people.

 

[Jeghbamjdb]

The Qur'an is a book whose revelation doesn't stop. It has endless meanings. You could spend 1000 years and you would still get new insights.

I agree.

I'm sorry but this isn't an argument and just su al dhann on the part of those people.

Not really.

The rationale behind rejecting certain attributes of Allah is that it likens Allah to his creation.

Why is it that when you read about Allah's love and mercy, you don't automatically resort to tawil or tafwid al ma'na? You recognize that there is a shared meaning behind our attribute of love and Allah's attribute of love and mercy but also recognizing that the modality of these attributes are not the same. If we didn't think about it like that then these descriptions of Allah would be empy words without any relevance to a human audience.

If we can recognize shared meaning between certain attributes of Allah and humans(like love and mercy) without diving into the modality of it, then why can't we do it with all His attributes?

Allah's Hand is a hand, but not like the hand of creation. There is a shared meaning to be found in the hand that is found in creation and the Hand of Allah but the modality is not similar.

You might ask, what is a hand that is unlike the hand found in creation? Well, in order for us to answer that question, we would have to see the Hand of Allah(hopefully when we go to jannah, we'll see not only His hand Hand bu His Face as well). My hand and the hand of a clock have a shared meaning that links them(otherwise, the word hand wouldn't be used for clock hand). The shared quality is that both hands point to things. We can recognize this quality because we can actively see both these hands, but without being able to see the Hand of Allah, we won't know what the actual shared quality is in this life. Obviously, we affirm this without tashbih. The atttributes of Allah and that of humans having a shared quality isn't tashbih. If it was then that would compeletely make us unable to understand Allah AT ALL. If there is no shared quality between my love and the love of Allah(different modalities), then how am I supposed to understand Allah's love and mercy? Why would he mention qualities of his that are completely incomprehensible to us?


That's why Atahri engage in tafwid al kayf(resigning the howness/modality of the attribute to Allah) as opposed to tafwid al ma'na(resigning the meaning of the attribute to Allah). The later renders the text absolutely meaningless.