Do you believe in the ‘Tawheed’ of Allah (swt)? If you do, then is the essence of Allah (swt) Wajibul Wujood or Mumkinul Wujood?
Belief in: Allah has always been, will always be, has no boundaries or limitations
Belief in: May be Allah has not always been (in existence), may be He might not be forever, and he has boundaries.
Therefore, He has the quality of being Waajibul-Wujood
If Allah (swt) is Wajibul Wujood then what is your belief with regards to Hulool like Maulana Room has written in relation to Bayazeed Bistami:
Baa Mureedaan Aan Fakeere Muhtasham,
Baayazeed aamad ke yek Yazdaal Manam
Give us a detailed account of it.
Meaning, a belief that God can descend in any living being’s body, and so communicate spiritually with the being.
our belief is that being waajibul-wujood has nothing to do with the invalid concept of hulool mainly because the first is necessitated as a divine attribute, that of absolute existence, whereas the second i.e. hulool, defies divinity. Allah does not incarnate or indwell with any one of His creatures, no matter who they be. This very belief is what landed the Christians to become mushriks to begin with, for accepting the premise that Jesus was Allah incarnate i.e. hulool. Well, technically Hulool is synonymous with pantheism. It as well defies Divinity because descending to a beings body is putting constriction and limitation to the Divine. Allah says in an ayah “No vision can grasp Him, yet He grasps all vision”. If vision cannot fully grasp the nature of God, how can a body actually “contain” God? Such logic is essentially absurd.
Do you regard Allah as Aalam (knowledgeable) or Aleem (possessor of infinite knowledge)? If Aalam, then your greatest book after the Qur’an, “Sahih al Bukhari” Volume 6 hadith number 371:
“The Prophet (saws) said, “The people will be thrown into the (Hell) Fire and it will say: ‘Are there any more (to come)? (50:30) till Allah puts his foot over it and it will say ‘Qat! Qat!” (Enough! Enough!)”
Sahih Bokhari, Vol. 6, Hadeeth 371
I ask, while creating Hell, did Allah under estimate its size to such an extent that he deemed it necessary to place his leg in to expand it at a later date?
No one in the history of those who have brains understood that this clausal narration represents Allah’s inability to accurately estimate or proportion the amount of people in hellfire. rather, the obviously understood meaning of the words represented in the riwaya is that the hellfire will call out more (because it is not divine, it does not know), and it will do that UNTIL Allah puts His Foot over it, and then the hellfire will reply “qat qat” therefore signifying that the hellfire will know when enough is enough when Allah does this action, hence the hellfire saying “enough is enough” even a patron in a mental hospital could easily grasp the meaning of this riwaya, but lo, the religion of the rawaafidh is beyond reason and within dementia.
Secondly, let us demonstrate the buffoonery of your logic here. What in the world does placing His Foot over it have anything to do with its “expansion”. The hadeeth says nothing about expansion. The hadeeth is claiming that the hellfire is “asking for more”, thereby signifying that it has already been made to accommodate anything and thereby already expansive enough. Thus there is absolutely no indication grammatically here about Allah “underestimating” its size or the need to expand it. This deduction of yours is completely crackpot analysis not worth the ink used to form it or the data used in cyberspace.
Is Allah not the possessor of the power of ‘Kun Fayakun (everything)? If He is, then why can’t he just limit hell with a simple command?
1. Allah is not questioned while the creation is question. Why as why?
2. Because we believe Allah does what He wishes. We don’t subject Allah to affirm or deny what He should or should not do based on our intellect. This feeble logic of you people reminds me of when Ishaq ibn Rahaweih was told “I disbelieve in a Lord that rises” to which his quick rebuttal was “I believe in a Lord that does what He Wills.
This question is analogous to saying “Why does Allah have to go through the 50 thousand years of judgment. Why can’t He just say ‘kun fayakun” and everything is done without the need of the event to take place.”
“Why couldn’t Allah create Adam by saying “Kun fayakun” instead of creating Him ‘with His Own Hands”
Allah is not questioned as to why He does what He does, rather we are questioned as to why we do what we do.
Thirdly, Allah does not have a dry relationship with His creation, rather His relationship is vivid and full of rich communication. This is called communicative balaagha whereby Allah addresses His creatures not in a dry and lack of communicative feature, but in a relationship whereby He implores towards His creation, not in terms of calling or needing them, but in giving them honor and respect.
Among your beliefs is the fact that good and evil comes from Allah[swt], mean that Allah[swt] is the source of evil as well (astaghfirullah)? Prove this belief intellectually.
Now I know you people are majoosi.
“He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and Who has begotten no son (children or offspring) and for Whom there is no partner in the dominion. He has created everything, and has measured it exactly according to its due measurements. “
( سورة الفرقان , Al-Furqan, Chapter #25, Verse #2)
according to those who have brains and actually use it, everything is everything. Within this verse there is nothing which restricts the term “everything” linguistically, implicitly, or philosophically. “Evil” or “bad” is a thing, it is something created. If evil is not created and allowed by Allah, then the person who subscribes to such a belief by necessity must affirm that there is another source that shares in Lordship with Allah. If evil does not come from Allah, then it means that it comes from other than Allah and therefore evil has a creator outside of Allah, thus nullifying the creed of tawheed in His Lordship. And anyone who believes in this is a mushrik bi llah whose blood is lawful, is not inherited from, is not to be buried with the people of Islam, and whose property is lawful, etc.
Adding to this, whoever does not believe this is a majoosi fire worshipper who opined that there was a God of evil and God of good. Thus, if you do not subscribe to our Islamic belief, then you are basically Zoroastrians rather than Muslims.
You have six Kalimas, the sixth of which is called ‘Radde Kufr’ wherein you do tabarra. Like in:
Fatabarra’tu Minal Kufri wash Shirki wal Kidhb.
I disassociate myself from Kufr and Shirk.
Do you regard the doing of tabarra as permissible?
These are called shuroot of the kalima but they are not kalima of shuhood. A shart is a condition that is accompanied with the shahada. We say what the prophet says that the statement (kalima) that enters one into Islam is “la ilaha ilallah muhammada rasulullah”. Since this is the case then this question
If you deem it permissible then why do you object to the Shi’a? And if you consider it forbidden then why not terminate your sixth kalima wherein you disassociate from Kufr? Would it not be better to simply accept that Tabarra is a means of dissociating oneself from Kufr?
Is obsolete to us. However, we are not absolutei n negation of this tabbarra for in some narrations, some of our companions hold that it is necessary for a Christian, when they become Muslim, to add in the extra clause “And Jesus was a prophet and Messenger”, which is doctrinally sound. What we object to are pagan clauses which in effect negate the shahaada.
‘Laa tudrukuhul absaar’ are Qur’anic words, translate them and clarify the meaning of ‘Lan Taraani’.
nahw is not my fortay, We will research this and update this replay inshallah
When the holy prophet went on Mi’raj, was he blessed with the sight of Allah (swt)? If he was, provide us with a hadeeth with a complete source and reference wherein the holy prophet describes the appearance of Allah (swt).
There are two orthodox stances, or i should say three, but fundamentally two.
1. That he did
2. That he didn’t
Aisha, the one that you hate and reviled, opined in accord to your belief.
We tend to view that his sight was an actual site but that what he saw was nothing but light as occurs in a narration where it was asked to him “how was he like” and to which the prophet alaihi salatu salaam replied “How could I (see Him), He is light (meaning light is the hijaab of Allah)”
If Allah was behind the veil and the holy prophet had just heard His voice then why was the holy prophet deprived of seeing the beautiful appearance of Allah (swt)?
Maybe that is a question you can ask Allah before you are taken to the place that Allah judges for you as to what you deserve best as a residence.
Most likely because the current state of creation cannot literally see the Majesty of Allah Subhaanahu.