Now Allah is Al-Sam’ but the meaning is All-Hearing that He Hears unlike our Hearing right?
Both meanings apply to humans ?
Why don’t we do tafweed of all Allah’s Attributes ?
The problem with saying “hand unlike our hands” is that it gives the impression that it is a limb, just an unfamiliar one.
Why is saying Allah has Hand unlike the creation tashbeeh and why isn’t not when saying Allah Hears unlike the creation ?
This is a singular narration of course, so it is not for establishing beliefs, and it is an act, not a saying, so it has no automatic general application.
Moreover, he did not teach us why he did that, so any claim in this regard is no more than an opinion.
Al-Harass thinks it means that Allaah has an eye to see with, because he believes Allaah is like a human being.
Ibn Ĥibbaan said it was to bring attention to the fact that Allaah sees without an eye, because He does not resemble anything.
Al-Bayhaqiyy and Abu Daawuud said it means that it was to point to the fact that these are attributes other than knowledge, in refutation of the Jahmiyyah, who denied these attributes altogether. Without explicit explanation from the most eloquent human that ever lived, these remain guesses. If he wanted to teach any of those thinks he is more than capable of doing so without resorting to hand gestures.
Even Abu
Hurayrah, who made the observation, did not even attempt
explaining it. Maybe it was for none of these reasons. Maybe there is
some special secret in making this gesture. One thing is for sure: it
was not intended to affirm bodyparts to Allaah, unlike what this
silly Al-Harass thinks,
because we already know from the Qur’aan that Aļļaah does not
resemble His creation, so how could the Prophet have meant “like
this ear,” or “he has an
ear” or the like by his pointing?
Even
though the wahabis think
of Aļļaah as a body, they
still say about Aļļaah’s attributes “we
do not know how.” So this is in complete
contradiction to this saying of theirs.
Quote:
Doesn’t the faculty of hearing imply the necessity of a specialized sensory organ, just as a hand implies a limb? Isn’t the concept and act of hearing also physical? You hear because of vibrations picked up by the auditory system in your ears, therefore hearing has a [physical] meaning.
What
is heard is physical, i.e. the soundwaves are
physical vibrations.
The hearing of them, however, is not
necessarily physical.
This is despite the fact that our
hearing has a physical aspect.
Our hearing is physical in
the sense that we hear through an instrument (our ear) which senses
sound by vibrating in reaction to these soundwaves.
This
is our way of hearing. It is hearing with a kayf, with a modality,
i.e. with several steps and elements involved, or a physical
description.
Allaah’s
hearing, however, is without kayf, without modality,
and accordingly, not based on vibrations of an
instrument.
Note that we say that it
must be that Allaah hears everything, and at the same time that it is
impossible that Allaah should have ears.
It is impossible,
because that would mean that He is composed of parts, and something
composed needs something to put it together, i.e. it needs a
creator.
Moreover, Allaah’s hearing cannot be based on a
reaction to the vibration of soundwaves, because reaction is
imperfection.
Furthermore, Allaah’s
hearing is not sequential (hearing one thing after another,) because
Allaah is not in time (and whenever you have sequences of events, you
have time….) The explanation of why this must be so is as follows:
The
nature of sequential hearing is that it is possible. That
is, if a being hears something, then in the minds eye, the being’s
hearing of a subsequent sound is a possibility, and not an intrinsic
must. This is because the hearing of the sound did not exist
previously, and whatever is not existent and then becomes existent
cannot be said to necessarily exist.
Rather, it
must be brought into existence. In other words, in the case
of sequential hearing, hearing the next sound and not hearing it are
equally possible in the mind’s eye. This means that the hearing of
it needs a reason to become existent, so that the possibility of
hearing is no longer equal to not hearing. This again tells us that
the hearing of the next sound needs a creator to provide it with
existence. Therefore, since Allaah’s hearing is not created, it is
not sequential.
If we were to get even deeper into this explanation, I would even contest your claim that our hearing is completely physical. Part of it is about vibration, yes, and there are electrical signals in the brain produced by the vibrations in the ear, but is that our perception of hearing itself?
If
it was, then a microphone would have hearing, but we do not
say that a microphone, or even a recording device hears do we?
In
fact, a person who sleeps will have vibrations in his ears and
electrical signals generated from those in his brain, but if he does
not wake up from sounds, we do not say that he is hearing them do
we?
No, our hearing is more than that,
it needs the perception of what is heard in the mind, and this
perception is not physical.
In fact, we do not
know what this perception is exactly. The perception of what is heard
itself is not vibrations, nor is it electrical signals, it is
something beyond physical. It is still created, however, because it
changes, develops and has sequence. Moreover, it needs specification,
because we only perceive a very limited number of sounds at any point
in time.
Note that
it is not the vibrations that create our perception of what we
hear.
Vibrations do not have such power.
The
recognition of these sounds is caused by the sounds in the sense that
they provide something hearable that vibrates in the ear and then
becomes electrical signals.
Again, however, our
perception of them in ourselves are not these vibrations or
electrical signals themselves, but something that belongs to the
abstract world of the mind and meaning. These vibrations provide a
bridge between our minds and the world outside, but this is a created
bridge, because we need Allaah to create for us the perception of
them in our minds. Vibrations cannot do that by themselves. The ear
then, is not a necessity for hearing, but a normal prerequisite. That
is, Allaah has created the ear as a sign for the ability to hear, and
as a prerequiste for it, in created beings, but He could have created
our perception of hearing without any of them.
Since
we do not know excactly what our hearing is, beyond the observation
of soundwaves and electrical signals, which are actually just
observations of what is heard in different forms, and not hearing
itself, which is the perception by our minds, it is no wonder then,
that we do not know the reality of Allaah’s hearing.
We
cannot know what the reality of Allaah’s hearing is, all we can
know is that He hears everything without modality, sequence,
reaction, or an instrument, and that His hearing is a necessary
attribute, and not merely a possibility. That is, Allaah’s hearing
is not an act, or an ability, as our hearing is, but a necessary
attribute of His. In other words, it absolutely must be that Allaah
hears everything without an instrument.
---
As
for wajh, which he has a
again translated into a misleading word, namely face, is not said to
be an attribute by all sunnis.
Many said that wajh means
the deeds that are done for Aļļaah’s sake.
Other’s
said that it refers to Aļļaah Himself, and not an attribute of His.
The translation of wajh as face is even worse than the translation of “yad” as “hand”. “Face” has no meaning in English I can think of that befits Aļļaah, whereas “hand” sometimes means “power” or “control” such as in “the decision is not in my hands.”
Add to all this that non-literal meanings of words are interpreted according to context. I.e. the linguistic tool for knowing whether a literal or figurative meaning is meant is to look at the context. So if I say “the guy is a lion,” you know I am speaking figuratively, because a “guy” is a human being, and thus the meaning of “lion” here is something like “fierce” or “brave.” On the other hand, if I said “lions are a type of cat,” you know I am speaking literally. So when one translates “yad” as “hand” then one has strongly implied that the literal meaning of “yad” is meant, by the contextual clue of this translation, and this adds to the danger of being misleading.
----------------
Allaah’s hearing and seeing are not in themselves physical, not dependent on rays or vibrations, and not through an instrument, and are not sequences of events or change.
We are not accountable to know more than that.
--------------
Allaah’s hearing is not His knowledge and His knowledge is not His hearing.
Allaah sees without an eye and without the intermediary of light.
Allaah sees the sun just as He sees a black ant, walking on a black rock in a dark night.
This
is because Allaah does not see with an eye and nor does He see with
the intermediary of light.
Likewise Allaah does not hear with ears and nor does He hear with the intermediary of vibrations.
Rather Allaah sees all seeable things and hears all hearable things. It might be helpful to understand this issue better by noting the fact that had Allah willed, we would see with our ears and hear with our eyes, this is a proof that to hear it is NOT a must for one to have ears and to see it is NOT a must to have eyes. More so, in relation to Allaah – Allaah sees without an eye, hears without an ear and knows without a mind.
Q&A on interpreting “Yad” and tafwiiđ
1) what does it mean that the mutazilah and the jahmiyyah negated allahs attributes?
Answer: It means that they denied that Aļļaah has the attributes of knowledge, power, etc. They say that He knows without knowledge, creates without power, etc. By the way, the Jahmiyyah is, as far as I know, eradicated as a sect. However, Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers refer to Sunnis as Jahmiyyah, because Sunnis deny that Aļļaah is something with physical dimensions. Ibn Taymiyyah’s followers say that this is to deny Aļļaah’s attributes, and for this reason, that the Sunnis are Jahmiyyah, and that they, the anthropomorphists, are the true Sunnis. This is in an attempt to scandalize the Sunnis, and scare people away from them. Ibn Taymiyyah himself, however, adopted the belief of the Jahmiyyah that the torture of the Hellfire is not eternal, but will eventually end. This is a blasphemous belief by scholarly consensus. As the Imam Asħ-Sĥaafiˆiyy said, “wa-l-junuun funuun,” perhaps best translated as, “madness is of multiple kinds.”
2) did the ashari’s and maturdi’s a sign a single metaphorical meaning to the attributes ie hand = power/authority or did they say any metaphorical meaning consistent with Arabic language and not going against the ijma is acceptable?
Answer: You can find both approaches among them. For example, according to Al-Aamidi, in Abkaar Al-Afkaar, the fact that creating Adam is done with Yad as the aayah states, rules out possibilities of Yad meaning here anything other than an attribute of Allah. He says that there is no undisputable proof, however, to show that it does not simply mean the attribute of power. He adds that the fact that the word is in dual form doesn’t matter, since Arabs do use such this word both in singular and dual forms to mean power. He also gives an answer to those who object to this interpretation, and argue that saying that it means power makes the statement applicable to all the other creations, and doesn’t give Adam any special rank. He says that Adam’s rank is signified as special by having this statement referring to him in the Quran, even if it holds true for other creations as well.
Q&A
Quote:
i.e. although we might use hand in the sentence as a figuative meaning, they are not used for those object that does not have a real hand. its a claim. maybe nonsense. It would be nice if you could bring examples opposing it.
what is kinaayah? are quranic verses kinaayah?
Reply:
The common figurative meanings of “hand,” such as “care,” “control” and “power,” when used for creation refers to things that can have these attributes. These will usually be human beings or other creatures with a mind, such as jinn or angels. Of course, these creatures also have real hands, but that does not mean that this is a prerequisite for the use of the word “hand” in a figurative sense. It simply means that those categories of things that the figurative meanings of hand apply to also have real hands, because things that have care, control and power usually have hands. It is a trick.
Quote:
Imam Ibn Khuzayma says: Some of the Jahmites claimed the meaning of the saying: Allah Created Adam with His Two Hands, i.e. with His power. Hence, they claimed that al-Yad (hand) refers to al-Quwwah (power), and this is also from changing (the wording/meanings).
This is also ignorance of the Arabic language. For power is called al-Ayd in the language of the Arabs, and not al-Yad (a hand). Therefore, the one who cannot differentiate between al-Yad and al-Ayd, he is more in need of education and enrolment in a school, than seeking leadership or a theological debate! (al-Tawhid p. 87)
Reply:
Ibn Khuzaymah was not a scholar of beliefs at all, and made catastrophical statements that included anthropomorphist ideas. At the end of his life he is said to have repented. His claim that yad cannot mean power (if he really claimed that) disagrees with what the linguists of Arabic say.
Quote:
but can’t the salafi’s use Hanafi usul to prove that the texts on sifat should be taken upon the dhahir according to usuli definition? (ie believe that what is mutashabih is the kayfiyyah, not the meaning?
Reply:
can’t the salafi’s use Hanafi usul…
No, the Hanafi usuul states that the meaning of the mutashaabih is not possible to know.
Quote:
Al-Khattaabee (d.388H) said: “The madhab of the Salaf with regard to the Attributes of Allaah is to affirm them as they are with their apparent (dhaahir) meaning, negating any resemblance to the creation and without asking how they are.”
(Al-Ghuniyah ‘an Kalaam wa Ahlihi, as quoted in Mukhtasar al-’Uluww (p.257/no.311). See also al-Asmaa was-Sifaat (2/p.198) of al-Bayhaqee)
The Salaf affirmed them upon their Thaahir but Asha’ira shuyookh believed to negate the Thaahir because it is the apparent meaning. What did the Salaf meant with ‘Thaahir’ ?
Reply:
“Al-Khattaabee (d.388H) said: “The madhab of the Salaf with regard to the Attributes of Allaah is to affirm them as they are with their apparent (dhaahir) meaning, negating any resemblance to the creation and without asking how they are.”….”
This is a perverted translation. The Arabic states:
“كان مذهب السلف فيها الإيمان بها ، وإجراءها على ظاهرها ونفي الكيفية عنها”
Which means: “(كان مذهب السلف فيها) the way of the salaf in this (scripture texts that might make someone ignorant liken Allah to creation) (الإيمان بها) is to believe in them (the texts) (وإجراءها) and to pass them on (على ظاهرها) as they appear, (ونفي الكيفية عنها) and denying any modality from them.” Then he narrated from Az-Zuhriyy and Makĥuul that they said “امضوا الأحاديث على ما جاءت”, which means, “(امضوا) pass on (الأحاديث) the hadiths (على ما جاءت) as they came.” There is no mention of “apparent meaning” in any of these statements. Subĥaana Allaah, if the apparent meaning was meant, then why would the salaf make such a big deal out of it? If the apparent meaning was meant then they would not even have mentioned these ways of dealing with these types of scripture texts.
Who said you can translate “yad” as “hand” in the first place?
Actually Abu Ĥaniifah explicitly forbids the translation of “yad” to Persian. In fact, all scholars agree that the names and attributes of Aļļaah cannot be translated to other languages if the translation is misleading. This talk then, is based on a false premise.
Is there a clear authentic text from the Salaf telling ‘accept them as they appear without meaning’?
Yes, the one I just mentioned two comments above state this clearly. There are also many others like it.
Q&A about the words “hand” and “face.”
I read the following fatwa of an Indian Hanafi scholar. At the end of the fatwa the scholar takes the position of tafwid, consigning the meaning of “yad” etc to whatever Allah meant by it. He also states that tawil is valid to assign a meaning suitable to the word. But in the beginning he sort of corroborates the Salafi aqida saying as well. Could you please comment if the fatwa is correct, or if there are mistakes with it, what the mistakes are?
Question:
Is the following statement correct?
The belief of the Ahle-Sunnat is this that Allaah Ta`ala does have a Hand but it is unlike the hand of the creation. And Allaah Ta`ala has a Face, which is unlike the face of man or any other creation. These are unique to Allaah Ta`ala alone and their condition and comprehension are beyond the understanding of man. Only Allaah Ta`ala alone knows what these actually are.
This is not very precise. First of all, he translates “yad” as “hand”, and this is very misleading. Who said that the meaning of “yad”, when ascribed to Aļļaah is has the meaning of “hand” in English? What he should have said was “Aļļaah has a yad unlike the yad of the creation.”
That would have been more careful. When he translates “yad” as “hand” then he has restricted the possible Arabic meanings of “yad” to the possible meanings of “hand” in English. In other words, he has already engaged in ta’weel, even though he seems to be attempting tafweeđ.
Not only that, he has also translated an Arabic word that is ambiguous in meaning when ascribed to Aļļaah into another language. This is not allowed if the translation result is potentially misleading, as it clearly is in this case. The scholars agreed that words used to ascribe attributes to Aļļaah must be verbatim from scripture texts; either the Qur’aan or highly authentic ĥadiitħs. If they are not, such as when translating, then the words used must connotate glorification and not be misleading at all. These conditions are not met here.
Moreover, many sunni scholars said that “yad” refers to Aļļaah’s attribute of Power.
As for wajh, which he has a again translated into a misleading word, namely face, is not said to be an attribute by all sunnis. Many said that wajh means the deeds that are done for Aļļaah’s sake. Other’s said that it refers to Aļļaah Himself, and not an attribute of His.
The translation of wajh as face is even worse than the translation of “yad” as “hand”. “Face” has no meaning in English I can think of that befits Aļļaah, whereas “hand” sometimes means “power” or “control” such as in “the decision is not in my hands.” Add to all this that non-literal meanings of words are interpreted according to context. I.e. the linguistic tool for knowing whether a literal or figurative meaning is meant is to look at the context. So if I say “the guy is a lion,” you know I am speaking figuratively, because a “guy” is a human being, and thus the meaning of “lion” here is something like “fierce” or “brave.” On the other hand, if I said “lions are a type of cat,” you know I am speaking literally. So when one translates “yad” as “hand” then one has strongly implied that the literal meaning of “yad” is meant, by the contextual clue of this translation, and this adds to the danger of being misleading.
Quote: Answer (fatwa):
Yes, it is right. The Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaah scholars of Hadith and Ulama hold the same belief about the Hands etc. It implies that Allah does have Hands, Face etc but not like His creatures, He is above all these similarities. Allah says: (لیس کمثلہ شئ (سورة الشوری، ۱۱ There is nothing whatever like unto him. (42/11)
This is very misleading, as I have explained immediately above. I think most people will think this to mean different shape, color, etc, whereas a Muslim must believe that these are words in Arabic (yad, wajh, etc.) that when refer to an attribute of Aļļaah are not limbs, instruments, physical or limited in any sense. They are attributes without modality, time or place.
Quote:
But, what these words, like Hands and Face, mean? Allah knows best, we only believe in whatever Allah has meant by these words. The scholars of Kalam (Asharia and Maturidiah) are of the opinion that the exact meaning of these words is known only by Allah, but if anyone takes a meaning that is suitable for the high position of Allah (Suhanahu Wa-taala) then it may be allowed e.g. Hand means power and Face means He himself.
He should not have translated yad and wajh as hands and face, for the reasons mentioned earlier.
Quote:
In Fiqh al Akbar, Imam Abu Hanifa [Radiy Allahu Anhu] writes this passage;
God knows, but not as we know; He has power, but not as we have power; He sees, but not as we see; He hears, but not as we hear; and He speaks, but not as we speak. We speak by means of the speech organs and sounds, whereas God Most High speaks with neither organs nor sounds. Sounds are created, and the word of God Most High is uncreated. He is a thing, but unlike other things; by saying “thing,” we intend merely to affirm His reality. He has neither body nor substance, neither accidental property nor limit, neither opposite nor like nor similitude. {He has a hand, a face, and a self (nafs); the mention that God most High has made of these in the Qur’an has the sense that these are among His attributes, and no question can be raised concerning their modality (bila kayf). It cannot be said that His hand represents His power or His bestowal of bounty, because such an interpretation would require a negation of an attribute} Kindly explain the words in brackets.
The translator apparently did not get to the next page, where Abu Ĥaniifah forbids translating the word “yad” to persian, even it is stated with it “without a modality.” Translating yad as hand, and wajh as face is a calamity. What Abu Ĥaniifa is saying is that the words yad and wajh are words referring to attributes, not like ours, and without modality. That is, they are not something that can be pointed at, as they are not limbs or parts or in a direction or place, or having a shape.
Quote:
…can you explain how we apply the Qur’anic verse “there is nothing like unto Him” to Allah being All-Seeing and All-Hearing, because some of the creation do see and do hear. I ask this because we use the same verse to (correctly) say Allah does not have a physical “hand” because this is an attribute of some of the creation.
It means that we affirm hearing and seeing that are not like ours. As is true of all of Allaah’s attributes, they are attributes that are not in time or space, or changing, or having a beginning, or being limited in some way. As is true all of Allaah’s attributes, their reality cannot be conceived by our minds .
