DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Ashraf 'Ali Thanvi: Salaf took literal meaning of sifaat

**vipBrooriErok** · 11-23-2010, 04:21 AM

On page 603 after mentioning that khalaf did ta'weel to avoid the deviancies of mushabbeha and mujassemah (the quote in the fatwa) he said that these deviant sects say that istiwa' means isteqraar and its clear that it means to settle and sit so it became known (according to the anthropomorphists) that Allah is istting upon 'arsh as we sit on the throne. so he is also a bodily thing like us. According to the way of salaf isteqraar is proven (?) but it does not necessitate that He is a body .

As for dhaahir, on page 606, thanvi said that dhaahir is ma'loom al kunh and the umoor necessary for haqaiq, like being a body is necessary for istiwa' and for Yad tarkeeb is necessary, is from dhaahir. he further says on the next page (probably to give tatbeeq in the 'ibaaraat regarding dhaahir and ta'weel in the books of usul) that the ta'weelaat of ahl-e-haq is included in the dhaahir !

Pg 607, The fatwa dated 1st Safar... "Lekin Ijraa Alal Haqeeqah kay saath tanziya ka mahfooz rakhna (to keep the haqiqi meaning while still keeping complete tafweedh) aur ijraa alal haqeeqa ko ijraa alal dhahir ka maghayar samajna (to keep the haqeeqi meaning while keeping it seperate from dhahir) uqool e aama sey arfa' hai (is beyond the mental ability of masses). This is sareeh that the salaf who he is following do NOT take the haqeeqah onto dhahir rather they took to to something where every thing would be made tafweed to Allah.

This was the meaning of him saying. ...kunh mufawadh bilm ta'ala kartay hain...

Otherwise, you chose not to mention Pg 606, ibarah of Nabras, which is yet again absolutely explicit.. "...And the Ulama of Sunnah after their Ijmaa that the its dhahir meaning is not intended..."

And for your explanation of dhahir is malum ul kunh :

Allama Thanvi explains that there are two darajaat of haqeeqah. One is the dhahir ma'lumul kunh (Not that dhahir is malum ul kunh - he didnt say that). And the other is batin majhul ul kunh. The the first darajah is the superficial terms which we attach to those matters. They do NOT necessitate the second level, meaning they have NO bearing on the second level.

It is like when I said to Sister Musleemah that Yad(1) is Yad(2). What is the meaning of it (i.e Yad(2)) is only known to Allah. So the dhahir ma'lum ul kunh is the Yad(2). While the reality is something third which cannot even be explained or begin to explain. This is simply because words and language is makhluq, and makhluq does not have the capacity to explain the khaliq or his sifaat.

These are the two levels of haqeeqah explained. When he says that sifaat are taken on their haqeeqi meaning, it is refering only to the superficial term being used. true Meaning or nature or kunh is not being addressed. Allama Anwar Shah r.a mentioned that Ulama have given leeway of translating yad into hand. I understood after reading this risalah that that statement makes perfect sense since calling yad "hand" will not make it into a limb simply because we make tafweed of the meaning of "hand" as well as its modality. While Salafi say that the meaning IS "hand". The Salaf on the contrary would say that Yad is Yad. And if some salaf make tafseer of it with hand, then too the ihtimaal will remain as to whether the "hand" is the hand we understand as hand, or it is the rhetorical connotation of "hand" or any other meanings.. This is the aspect of jazman. While when they(salafi) affirm the hand, they make ibtaal of the other ta'weel being used for it...hence the many notorious comments on asha'ira for their ta'weelat. That is the difference Allama Thanvi r.a draws.

It also becomes important to differenciate between these two levels of haqaiq while reading ibarah. And this is what he mentioned on begining of Pg 607. that dhahir could be used in contrast to haqaiq or in the contrast to batil ta'weel. Yes you can call it his tatbeeq, but even so what a beautiful way.

All in all, the claim that when he used haqeeqi meaning, he affirms it in the same way the salafi do is not correct. And the he establishes the difference himself, and that was the reason of opening this thread.

11-23-2010, 04:21 AM	#36
vipBrooriErok Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 381 Senior Member	On page 603 after mentioning that khalaf did ta'weel to avoid the deviancies of mushabbeha and mujassemah (the quote in the fatwa) he said that these deviant sects say that istiwa' means isteqraar and its clear that it means to settle and sit so it became known (according to the anthropomorphists) that Allah is istting upon 'arsh as we sit on the throne. so he is also a bodily thing like us. According to the way of salaf isteqraar is proven (?) but it does not necessitate that He is a body . As for dhaahir, on page 606, thanvi said that dhaahir is ma'loom al kunh and the umoor necessary for haqaiq, like being a body is necessary for istiwa' and for Yad tarkeeb is necessary, is from dhaahir. he further says on the next page (probably to give tatbeeq in the 'ibaaraat regarding dhaahir and ta'weel in the books of usul) that the ta'weelaat of ahl-e-haq is included in the dhaahir ! Pg 607, The fatwa dated 1st Safar... "Lekin Ijraa Alal Haqeeqah kay saath tanziya ka mahfooz rakhna (to keep the haqiqi meaning while still keeping complete tafweedh) aur ijraa alal haqeeqa ko ijraa alal dhahir ka maghayar samajna (to keep the haqeeqi meaning while keeping it seperate from dhahir) uqool e aama sey arfa' hai (is beyond the mental ability of masses). This is sareeh that the salaf who he is following do NOT take the haqeeqah onto dhahir rather they took to to something where every thing would be made tafweed to Allah. This was the meaning of him saying. ...kunh mufawadh bilm ta'ala kartay hain... Otherwise, you chose not to mention Pg 606, ibarah of Nabras, which is yet again absolutely explicit.. "...And the Ulama of Sunnah after their Ijmaa that the its dhahir meaning is not intended..." And for your explanation of dhahir is malum ul kunh : Allama Thanvi explains that there are two darajaat of haqeeqah. One is the dhahir ma'lumul kunh (Not that dhahir is malum ul kunh - he didnt say that). And the other is batin majhul ul kunh. The the first darajah is the superficial terms which we attach to those matters. They do NOT necessitate the second level, meaning they have NO bearing on the second level. It is like when I said to Sister Musleemah that Yad(1) is Yad(2). What is the meaning of it (i.e Yad(2)) is only known to Allah. So the dhahir ma'lum ul kunh is the Yad(2). While the reality is something third which cannot even be explained or begin to explain. This is simply because words and language is makhluq, and makhluq does not have the capacity to explain the khaliq or his sifaat. These are the two levels of haqeeqah explained. When he says that sifaat are taken on their haqeeqi meaning, it is refering only to the superficial term being used. true Meaning or nature or kunh is not being addressed. Allama Anwar Shah r.a mentioned that Ulama have given leeway of translating yad into hand. I understood after reading this risalah that that statement makes perfect sense since calling yad "hand" will not make it into a limb simply because we make tafweed of the meaning of "hand" as well as its modality. While Salafi say that the meaning IS "hand". The Salaf on the contrary would say that Yad is Yad. And if some salaf make tafseer of it with hand, then too the ihtimaal will remain as to whether the "hand" is the hand we understand as hand, or it is the rhetorical connotation of "hand" or any other meanings.. This is the aspect of jazman. While when they(salafi) affirm the hand, they make ibtaal of the other ta'weel being used for it...hence the many notorious comments on asha'ira for their ta'weelat. That is the difference Allama Thanvi r.a draws. It also becomes important to differenciate between these two levels of haqaiq while reading ibarah. And this is what he mentioned on begining of Pg 607. that dhahir could be used in contrast to haqaiq or in the contrast to batil ta'weel. Yes you can call it his tatbeeq, but even so what a beautiful way. All in all, the claim that when he used haqeeqi meaning, he affirms it in the same way the salafi do is not correct. And the he establishes the difference himself, and that was the reason of opening this thread.
	Quote