Rebutting Heresies @ Addressing Abu Adam’s Contentions

The Ash’ari says

Wahabi said: “If one were to call the arabic language created as it is the action and implementation of the ilm of Allah,
Comment: I do not know anyone who says this. No sect says that Aļļaah’s knowledge has actions. Very strange, it seems he is making up non-existing opponents in order to appear victorious. What is even stranger is the claim that the Arabic language is not created


I should have clarified. The arabic language, the result of its creation was according to Allah’s will for it to be formulated through the experience of men, like all other languages. In other words, we call the creation of the actual airplane to be created. However, with regards to its knowledge (in how it is performed) this knowledge comes from the knowledge of Allah. No one says “Man invented or formed this knowledge” except for the athiests. It is Allah who facilitated this knowledge to various men.

If all of us can concede to this point, then we can move further. If one cannot concede to this point, then please remain behind.

Secondly, I acknowledge an error on my part by not clearly defining what I meant about the Arabic language. Yes, the Arabic language is created, but the knowledge of it is from Allah.

I will quote a short passage from Ibn Taymiyyah in his Kitaabul-Emaan on this point

Ibn Taymiyyah was discussing figurative and majaaz when he continues on the subject saying
“All the forgoing would be correct were it known that arabic lexical items were first established with certain meanings, then later were used in accordance with these same meaning, in which case their established meanings would precede their use. This would only be true in the case of someone who considered languages to be based on an agreed convention, such that a group of sensible , rational individuals had met together and agreed on what everything was to be called, then made such meanings generally applicable to all languages. This is a position that we know no Muslim to have taken prior to Abul-Hashim al-Jubaa’i. Both Abu Hashim and Abu Hasan al-Ash’ari were students of Abu Ali al-Jubaa’i. However, Abu Hasan retreated from the doctrine of the mutazilah as he disagreed with them over matters such as al-qadr wal wa’id,al-asmaa wa sifaat. The contradictions he exposed in their doctrines are well known. Abu Hasan and Abu Hashim disputed over the principle of “mabda’ al-lughat, the origin of languages. According to Abu Hashim, language is istihaaliyyah, i.e. based on established convention, whereas Abu Hasan al-Ash’ari held that language is tawqifiyyah i.e. based on learning and experience. Later on, others have delved into this issue as well, with some claiming that part of the language is based on established convention and part is based on experience. Moreover, there is a forth view known as bil waqf, i.e. non committal”

This is the quote of Ibn taymiyyah

WHAT IS THE SHARH OF this passage


Certain Muslim scholars, especially those of the tenth century, who dealt with the topic of mabda’a al-lughat, the origin of language, have identified several theories.
1. the naturalist theory= claims that language has its origin in munaasaba tabi’iyya i.e. natural affinity, between expression and the things they signify.
2. The conventional theory= claims that the origin of language is based on social convention i.e. what everyone comes together and agrees upon which is what was stated about Abu Hashim’s theory above
3. the Revelationist theory=and this is the sunni view=this theory is what orthodox Sunni favor the most. It is based on the idea that language was originally revealed to man by God.
4. the non committal theory=claims that language is not absolutely the revelationalist theory nor the conventional theory, but some of both.

So in essence, it is we, the sunni who have always held that classical language is what Allah has given us from His knowledge. Most of the sunnis have adopted the revelationist theory.

In essence, the knowledge of arabic language is from the knowledges of the Ilm of Allah. The knowledge thereof is from Allah

next knee jerk comment to rebuttal is

Wahabi said: then one must as well say that Allah’s act of creating Adam is as well created, and this is essentially absurd.”

Comments: How did he get to this conclusion. He is saying: “If the Arabic language is created then the act of creating Adam is also created.” This is pure nonsense, and I do not know quite how to respond. This is a serious case of jumping to conclusions.


Easy, we do not say that the actions of Allah is created.
As for his analogy is wrong because
the Arabic language is a product of the ilm of Allah whereas the creation of Adam comes from the acts of Allah. IN other words creating, al-khalq, comes from sifaat fi’iliyyah, and not dhaatiyyah. Whereas the Arabic language and other forms of knowledge, like math, comes from the Ilm of Allah, and not from His Actions that He performs.

Wahabi said: the product of the creation is haadith and therefore Adam is created.

Comment: It is a very strange to call “product of creation”, but it points out something important. This is the typical anthtopomorphist line of thinking. They are trying to understand the reality of Aļļaah’s attributes in light of what they see in creation. Therefore, according to them, Aļļaah’s creating is a production process. In the belief of Muslims, however, Aļļaah’s creating is an eternal act that is not in time and does not have a how. He is the creator of all work, processes, production and products. He brought everything emergent into existence. This is what we mean when we say that Aļļaah created everything.

How does the end result i.e. “the creation of a thing” a tajseemi concept. that makes no sense. There is nothing in any of my quotes that state that I or we try to understand His attribute in light of creation, rather it is you who view the acts and attributes of God within this light, and then perform tanzih there from, thereby actually negating what you falsely claim you affirm.

Allah’s creating is removed from time and place and space, or what have you. This is in terms of the perforce of creating in terms of Allah. However, in terms of creation, Allah SPOKE to Musa IN A SPECIFIC TIME, AT THE LOCATION OF MOUNT TUR, WITH A SOUND. Allah will put His Foot over jahannum after all of those deserving of the fire are inside of it, then He will put His Foot on it as the Messenger of Allah says He will. Take note, jahannum exist now, which means Allah’s Foot has not sealed it yet. Does this mean Allah is within time and space. Not to us, it means that when Allah does an act, then it takes affect in time, and in space, and to a specific locality. That is with regard to the creational side of the spectrum whereas within the reality and nature of Allah, He is free from confinement when these actions are performed because when He performs Actions, they are not like ours, He can remain being transcendent while performing these acts whereas we can’t.

But you, you interpret everything, Allah, and existence in one plane field without making any distinguishing factors at all. That is why you cannot picture Allah speaking to Musa at a specific point in time, on mount tur, to a person (Musa), with a SOUND that is heard, in language that Musa understands, with letters that has a beginning and an end. That is why you make t’awil and say ‘Musa was made to “comprehend” Allah’s speech” and quite frankly ridiculous and absurd t’awils that your madhaab is known to perform such clumsy tafseers over.

Wahabi said: However, it is not only Adam that is haadith, it was also the action of creating him by God.

Comment: This is not correct. If you say it is haadith, i.e., it has a beginning, then it is brought into existence, and this means it is created


We say it is haadith in terms of this world. When Allah created Adam, He created him in ????? years ago, in a location i.e. jannah using dirt and water and using His OWN TWO LITERAL HANDS. However, we don’t call the action of creating muhdath, rather you do. That is why your madhaab came up (innovated) the ridiculous theory of Allah has created the entirety of creation in one single instance.

Wahabi said: That action happened by God’s will who could have decided to create or not create. So, you will have to believe that not only Adam was created, but God’s action of creating Adam was also created and that is simply nonsense.

Comment: But this is what you are saying when you are saying that Aļļaah’s act of creating is emergent. You are saying that both came into existence after non-existence. This means that they were both brought into existence, and to bring into existence is to create.


That is because emergent to us has different properties than with Allah

when we speak, it is created. When we act, it is created. When I tell you in a specific point in time “you are wrong” it is with words and letters and it is created.

When Allah speaks to Musa on mount tur, in a specific time and place, with sound that can be heard in the ears of Musa, it is not created. We don’t call the acts of God created even if they are emergent. That is because the properties of creation are not applicable to Allah, and this is essentially what your doctrine cannot get you to understand.

Wahabi said: If you want to believe that Adam was created in eternity, then again you get an eternal Adam, and worse, the oxymoron pre eternal Iblis.”

Comment: Aļļaah willed eternally for Adam to exist at a certain time, and by His eternal and unchanging power this existence happened. What we call “act of creating” refers to this. It does not mean that the act is an event that takes place when Adam comes into existence. It is an act without a how, unlike our acts.


This is absolute sophistry.
That is the problem. We do not refer to the actions that Allah does is nothing more than a mere Will. While everything is based on His Will, that does not conclude for someone to claim that everything only happens by by the mere willing of it. Allah either Wills it, or He ACTS for it to occur. Allah did not “Will” Adam by saying “kun fayakum” rather He created Adam with His Hands using dirt and water. That is the reason why Allah called the angles to bow down to Adam because of His special creation. The “specialness” was Allah’s creating Him with His Two Hands for had He created Him by saying “kun fayakum” then there would be no special aspect to his creation, he would have been like all other forms of creation.

They said

This must be true, because if Aļļaah’s creating was an event, then it would have come into existence after non-existence. This means it would have been brought into existence, i.e. created. If you say this then you need to say that this bringing into existence was either an event or not. If an event, then this event would also need another event to come into existence and so on. The result of this claim then is that for a created event to occur, you need an infinity of events in the past to first be completed, and this is impossible. The only solution is to say that there must be a bringing into existence that is not an event, not haadith.


1. What asl do you operate when you stipulate that if something is an “event” then this event needs another event to come into existence and so one.

if you can bring us the Qur’an and Sunnah to validate this philosophical stipulation and then adding to that, that Allah must comply with this asl, then please, bring forth the evidence.
2. You are implying an impossibility for Allah above past events. Do you know the ghayb to claim this?

Ahmad asked: How would one respond to these contentions? I’m starting to get the feel that people are using different definitions altogether when describing the same thing.

Comment: I hope you see that there is a huge diference. The Wahabis are only changing the words that they use to refer to the same thing. This does not solve the problem, as I have just pointed out. When we say that Adam is created, we mean that he was brought into existence. Then we say that the bringing into existence was not an event, not emergent, not haadith. Why? Because if it was, then it would have to be brought into existence, as it did not exist previously.


So what. The act not existing prior to our perception of it, does not necessitate that the Action of Allah’s creation of the thing is created. You are implying that if it was muhdath, then it is created, therefore your denying that the creation of a thing is muhadth.

We say that it is muhdath and that it is not created because Allah’s act of creating is not like our act of doing a similar thing. When Allah created Adam with His Own Hands, He did that in a specific place, in a specific time,. That is muhdath. But we do not affirm muhdath to be a quality of creation of Allah is the doer of it, we are not mushabiha, like yourselves.

What the Wahabis do is to call one bringing into existence “creating” and the other one “bringing about,” or “willing,” or the like. They say, however, that these are all emergent, all events, so this is only a game with words, and it leads to saying that each and every creation needs infinitely many events to precede it to come into being. This is both silly and mathematically impossible. It is impossible because infinity cannot be completed, and if it cannot complete, then the proposed created event cannot exist. Since there are existing created things, however, we know that there must be a bringing into existence that is not emergent, not an event, not having a beginning, not haadith, not having come into existence after non-existence.


Can any objective observer seriously understand this garbage. what logic mandates that if an event is emergent, then it NEEDS an infinite amount of events prior to it to occur. that is philosophical insanity in the world of common sense.

All of this above discussion would have been avoided by simply admitting that Aļļaah is eternal and does not change, and that He is not like His creation and cannot be imagined. His actions and attributes are neither created nor emergent, and He cannot be imagined.


It was avoided because no one ever claims the opposite EXCEPT for the issue of emergent. Allah does actions with regard to the creation in a point in time and place. He judges US in the time of the day of judgment and not any time before that or after that. He puts His Foot over Hell in a specific time and during the place of jahannum

We will see the Face of Allah in a single point in time. Allah took Ibraheem as a Khaleel in a point in time, Allah spoke to Musa in a point in time, Allah commanded the angels to prostrate to Adam with His kalaam in a single point in time. These, are in your philosophical world of definitions, muhdath i.e. emergent, and no Sunni calls these “emergent” actions of Allah created, but you do, which is why you deny that Allah’s actions are emergent, because to you, emergent means something created, because in your world view, Allah’s actions are bound by your theories of existence, which is why you therefore define your theory of existence, and then proceed to stipulate that this is negated for Allah, thus making your madhaab a jahmification of Abu Hasan’s originally beliefs of ithbaat.

The trick they use is to say that not everything emergent is created. “Rather,” they say, “it is brought about.”


There is no trick, we are blatant and clear. We are not Ash’aris who t’awil everything. Emergent in terms of creation is created because as al-Bukharee said “the actions of the servants are created”. Actions, or what have you are muhdath. They are created. But when we are speaking of Allah we cannot transport this theory to Allah. When Allah does an action in a point in time, we cannot deny its being muhdath by definition. But it does not mean that that muhdath is created. But that is what you all do. you make it an absolute asl that muhdath is created, and then go on to carry out your argument that Adam was created in eternity and willed him into existence.

is how they try to escape when told, “if you say it is emergent, then you are saying it is created.” This does not change anything in terms of meanings, however, and it is also a lie, because the definition of “create” is to bring into existence, as explained at this link. Not only that, but the Salaf was against saying that Aļļaah’s Speech is created, because it would mean that it is emergent!


I have never seen someone who performed this type of deception.

the salafs revilement on His Kalaam being created is not because of it “not being muhdath” rather it was built as a counter offensive from your jahmi argument that the words contained in the mushaf are not the words of Allah.

In light of this our Imaam, not yours, Haafid hat-Tabari basically considers the adherents to your madhaab as kaafirs. This is what he says about the kalaam of Allah

he says

“The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah and is revelation from Him, since it is from the Attributes of His Oneness (tawheed), indeed the correctness from our speech in that which is with us of which we conclude is ‘the Speech of Allah is not created in how it is written and in where it is and in whatever place it is recited, whether above the heavens in its location (law al-mahfoodh), or on the earth where it is preserved, or in the Preserved Tablet (al-Lawh al-Mahfoodh) were it was inscribed, or on a tablet (board, panel) where the youth in primary schools trace it on, or engraved on stone, or if it is written on paper, or if it is preserved in the hearts, whether it is spoken of on the tongue.
And whoever says other than that or claims that the Qur’an that is in the earth or the heavens differs from the Qur’an in which we recite with our tongues and write in our musaahif (copies of the Quran), or he believes other than that in his heart or he conceals it within himself, or he speaks of it with his tongue and accounts with it, then he is a disbeliever in Allah, his blood is permissible, he is clear and free from Allah, and Allah is free and clear from him, for Allah Honored and Exalted be He said

The ash’aris believe that our recital is created. When we recite for example ya ayuhall-adhina amanu (in arabic), then each letter is emergent and did not exist before it, thus created. Therefore the Asharis have heretically cornered themselves to two stances that they must concede to logically if they do not wish to accept our sunni stance. I must note, both stances are kufr
1. If Muhammad alaihi salatu wa salaam’s recital of the qur’an was emergent and therefore created, then that means Allah called His kalaam created BECAUSE after Allah commanded Muhammad to recite, He the Most High, offered the reasoning of
“So that they hear the Word of Allah (hatta yasma’u kalaamullah)”
Therefore, in the long run, they would have to accept that Allah’s actual kalaam is created BASED on this very ayaah, or that Allah lied to us when He said “So that they may hear the kalaam of Allah”
that’s the first stance.
2. If they find themselves needing to escape from the implications of the first stance i.e. kufr, then the only other stance that they can adopt while still not being “wahhabi” is that the speech of Muhammad alaihi salatu wa sallaam is uncreated and thus shares this Divine Attribute with Allah. That might not be bad for sufis though as they pretty much associated Muhammad with a number of other Divine Attributes specific to Allah alone

It is they who make things complicated

No, it is you who made things complicated.

it is your madhab who brought forth theological hair splitting. It is you who began saying that our recital is created. It is you who systematically categorized everything into your Aristotelian theories and then made no distinction between Allah, and the creation, with regards to these theories, by the way, theories that have never been stated by the two sources.

Who is it that is making things complicated?

It is for no reason that your mutakalimoon theologians have called our way “the religion of old ladies” and then later on at the end of their bewildered life in ash’arism, actually recanted and became sunnis like us proclaiming “I have adopted the religion of old ladies” and here is the proofs for the bewilderment of your own greatest Imaams like Ibnul-Juwainee and Ghazaali

insist on trying to understand Aļļaah in human terms


that’s what you do, but as Allah says “We gave them hearing, sight, and hearts, but heir hearing, sight, and their hearts did not benefit them in the slightest because they denied the revelations of Allah and so they were encompassed by that which they mocked at” (suraatu-Ahqaaf 46;26)

and this is what made them fall into their snakepit of kufr and bidˆah. It is they who base their belief system on atheist principles, such as the idea that emergent things are not necessarily created.


What imbecility. You are truly speaking from hawaa

saying that “emergent things are not necessarily created” is not atheism

however, what conforms to the madhaab or ideas of the atheists are such statements like
“Allah is neither inside the world, not outside of it, nor above it, nor below it, nor to the left, nor to the right”

that, is non existentialism i.e. the atheist creed.

that is what Ibnul-Jawzi commented in favor of your madhaab which has been countered here…ds-attributes/