[Apparpsmose]

Assalamualikum wmwbt,
Brother Tawheed u must show respect when ur mentiong Hazrat Thanvi ru.

Pdf file will surely clear up the doubts Inshallah.!!

http://deoband.org/2010/04/hadith/ha...utes-of-allah/
This article might be helpful too..!!

[doogiehoussi]

JazakAllah brother abuhajira.

To make this a discussion two way, i think, you should tell us what is the truest nature of the translation of word ' haqiqi ' in the kalaam of thanvi and what is left after the tafweed of true nature and modality. Rather than asking me this. I have already done what you demanded once.

[vipBrooriErok]

br. Tawheed,
I applauded you translating those lines, showing that either you know how to road urdu, especiallu the classical style, OR showing that you have access to someone who can do so. In either case, you are able to take benefit from the risalah.
In view of the it is not necessary for me or anyone to explain the risalah. Remember that most users here have no interest in discussing this issue as per the wishes of the aslaaf themselves. So my dear brother, this concerns youu, since you wish to have some one discuss the issue.
This leaves me to say two comments. One, perhaps you cannot really understand allama thanvi r.a's kalaam hence instead of showing that ignorance wish me to jump in valiantly defend allama thanvi' and in doing so explain the matter somewhat. This I will not do. Second, the reaspn i will not even bother is because in the past weak, since brought the risalah up, i have gone through it, and three other suplementary writeups by allamah thanvi which explain his position very clearly. Thereafter he presents another writeup by habeebur rahman keranwi r.a further clariifying salaf's stance and how it differs from the khalaf understanding of todays salafies.
So if this is an endeavor into a discussion then you ought to have learnt allama thanvi risalah by now.but if its an endeavor of you own learning, then you need to learn adab of how seek ilm. I believe salih salaf shuyukh will be able to teach you that. You have my duas..

[doogiehoussi]

I made du'a for you before youu uploaded this risalah and also after you did that. Thio shows that i value your efforts.

I know urdu, translated that myself, walhamdulillah and have read the risalah.

I don't know whether anyone, besides you, is interested in this discussion or not. You objected to my point and started participating in this discussion.

My readings of Mufti taqi uthmani's stance on haqiqi meaning further confirmed that deobandis have contradiction over this. Ofcourse i want to learn. I only asked you about objections you raised. You not answering shows that you only want to object and not to explain.

[vipBrooriErok]

The purpose was to show the contradiction in the ranks of deos. Because thanvi said salaf took literal meaning of sifaat while other deos say that salaf didn't.

br. Tawheed,

This was never a discussing thread in the first place. your purpose was to show that there is a contradiction in the ranks of salafs. Only problem with that being that your claim is void as explained in the risalah. So There is no discussion here. I hope you understand that.

Your raising this concern even after reading the risalah and understanding it shows that that either you didnt understand it, or are trying to incite the discussion on something which is not there.

Your question is what is the meaning of literal meaning.. then please read the risalah towards the 3rd last page or so and it explains as it does in almost 4 or 5 other places.

[doogiehoussi]

br. Tawheed,

This was never a discussing thread in the first place. your purpose was to show that there is a contradiction in the ranks of salafs.

wa'alaikum assalam wrhmt wbrkt

huhu. not in the ranks salaf. khalaf especially deobandis.

Your raising this concern even after reading the risalah and understanding it shows that that either you didnt understand it, or are trying to incite the discussion on something which is not there.

These are your own wrong assumptions which you cannot prove that is why you are avoiding to even explain your objections.

[vipBrooriErok]

wa'alaikum assalam wrhmt wbrkt

huhu. not in the ranks salaf. khalaf especially deobandis.

sorry my mistake.. Not salaf or khalaf rather deobandies as pointed out from the your own quotation. The object of the thread you created was NOT to discuss akhi. Why cant you own up to that. It was to gloat about some finding you came across thinking it supports the salafi athari creed. while the whole risalah is establishing the salaf creed of making tafweed in both kunh as well as kayf. And at the same time establishing the athari creed as a part of khalaf (i.e ahl ta'weel) NOT salaf! Please wake up and smell the coffee. If you cannot understand that from the risalah then your understanding is deficient, and thats not my problem.

In anycase, I do not wish to discuss since I feel you are being unreasonable in your intent of this thread. Your purpose and your inciting comments like the one below expose your intent. Why should I entertain you in your endeavor?

These are your own wrong assumptions which you cannot prove that is why you are avoiding to even explain your objections. Read the risalah akhi it all explained there.

I can further help this much that I will scan those suplementary writeups and post them as well. So no one can say that deobandies are hiding something.

[vipBrooriErok]

wa'alaikum assalam wrhmt wbrkt

huhu. not in the ranks salaf. khalaf especially deobandis.

sorry my mistake.. Not salaf or khalaf rather deobandies as pointed out from the your own quotation. The object of the thread you created was NOT to discuss akhi. Why cant you own up to that. It was to gloat about some finding you came across thinking it supports the salafi athari creed. while the whole risalah is establishing the salaf creed of making tafweed in both kunh as well as kayf. And at the same time establishing the athari creed as a part of khalaf (i.e ahl ta'weel) NOT salaf! Please wake up and smell the coffee. If you cannot understand that from the risalah then your understanding is deficient, and thats not my problem.

In anycase, I do not wish to discuss since I feel you are being unreasonable in your intent of this thread. Your purpose and your inciting comments like the one below expose your intent. Why should I entertain you in your endeavor?

These are your own wrong assumptions which you cannot prove that is why you are avoiding to even explain your objections. Read the risalah akhi it all explained there.

I can further help this much that I will scan those suplementary writeups and post them as well. So no one can say that deobandies are hiding something.

[doogiehoussi]

sorry my mistake.. Not salaf or khalaf rather deobandies as pointed out from the your own quotation. The object of the thread you created was NOT to discuss akhi. Why cant you own up to that. It was to gloat about some finding you came across thinking it supports the salafi athari creed. while the whole risalah is establishing the salaf creed of making tafweed in both kunh as well as kayf.

You did not portray the whole picture. He said Salaf took the literal meaning of sifaat. Which goes against the kalamist ash'ari/maturidi aqeedah.

And at the same time establishing the athari creed as a part of khalaf (i.e ahl ta'weel) NOT salaf! Please wake up and smell the coffee. If you cannot understand that from the risalah then your understanding is deficient, and thats not my problem.

Thats why i said in the begining that its a mixture of right and wrong. You should take a bath to wake up akhil kareem

In anycase, I do not wish to discuss since I feel you are being unreasonable in your intent of this thread. Your purpose and your inciting comments like the one below expose your intent. Why should I entertain you in your endeavor?

Its your choice. Mine was a response to your comment, like this:

Your raising this concern even after reading the risalah and understanding it shows that that either you didnt understand it, or are trying to incite the discussion on something which is not there. I can further help this much that I will scan those suplementary writeups and post them as well. So no one can say that deobandies are hiding something.

JazakAllah again.

[vipBrooriErok]

You did not portray the whole picture. He said Salaf took the literal meaning of sifaat. Which goes against the kalamist ash'ari/maturidi aqeedah.

akhi,

see how useless is this? Now you are making another claim that the picture is not whole. But it was for this very clarity I asked you and I quote:

Whats the difference between "true nature" Vs "any modality"? If tafweedh is being made of both of these then what is there left of the "literal meaning"? For this first start by explaining what does "kunh" means? I asked you this above..

Remember as far as I am concerned, your understanding is deficient from the risalah, and its not my perorogative to engage you in the discussion. I do not even wish to have this discussion as the explanation in the risalah plus the supplementary writings is more than sufficient for a taalib. Hence my way to tackling your thread here will by simply probing you to present the info from this risalah which you have understood now. If you are unable to provide it, then it will show your wrong intent. If you present it, then I will rectify any inaccuracy i perceive.

So, Could you please post from the risalah how he explains the tareeq of the gher muqallideen. So that we can have both the views side to side. salaf Vs salafi... This will also assure me that you understood the risalah in its proper context. What you can perhaps do is show where his attribution of the salafi understanding is incorrect. If he has not erred and you wholehartedly agree to the three lined which you translated to be the salaf methodology, then please do let me know. I will not have any qualms with you.

[wheettebott]

further clariifying salaf's stance and how it differs from the khalaf understanding of todays salafies.

Maulana Sahab.

Would you please summarize it in a few lines?

[doogiehoussi]

akhi,

see how useless is this? Now you are making another claim that the picture is not whole.

Thats what you did. You did not mention that salaf took literal meaning rather you only said they did tafweed of kunh and kayf.

But it was for this very clarity I asked you and I quote:

Whats the difference between "true nature" Vs "any modality"? If tafweedh is being made of both of these then what is there left of the "literal meaning"?

For this first start by explaining what does "kunh" means? I asked you this above..

May i repeat myself :

Remember as far as I am concerned, your understanding is deficient from the risalah, and its not my perorogative to engage you in the discussion. I do not even wish to have this discussion as the explanation in the risalah plus the supplementary writings is more than sufficient for a taalib.

Could you please repeat that:

Hence my way to tackling your thread here will by simply probing you to present the info from this risalah which you have understood now. If you are unable to provide it, then it will show your wrong intent. If you present it, then I will rectify any inaccuracy i perceive.

My way is to quote thanvi's statement that salaf took literal meaning. You came to object that the literal meaning is against the truest nature of the translation of the word haqiqi. You need to justify your objection.you need to explain how the tafweed on kunh and kayf serve your purpose not me.

I brought something, translated on demand. You objected something you should explain that, why are you asking me ?

[vipBrooriErok]

akhi tawheed,

you say I and I say I.. lets play the game and see who gets fed up first..

Your claim : haqiqi meaning is literal meaning.
My response : Even this requires further clarity. We are not tackling something from nursery rhymes rather advance aqeedah. To take it as it is shows that one has not read the complete risalah. For example, if Maulana Thanvi r.a affirms taking the mutashabihaat on their literal meaning how you are stressing, and how the salafis normally do, then it would be very unacademic of Allama Thanvi r.a to say on Pg 604 (i.e one page later) that the the Method of Salaf is "Not to discuss in the matter and say that Allah alone knows the knowledge of it. And this should be believed. [he continues] Kalbi says that this is from the hidden secrets which cannot be explained. Makhul, Zuhri, Auza'ee, Malik, Sufiyan, Laith, Ishaq rahimahumullah say about such Ayaat that, leave them as they are revealed" How more sareeh would you want him to be?

While explaining the khalaf and their way to make approriate ta'weel he quotes Hashiya Jamal to establish the salaf's way again (Pg 605). "Istiwaa according to his majesty. This is the way of the salaf that they make tafweed of the knowledge of mutashabihaat to Allahafter turning them away from their dhahir..."

He further explains this aspect of dhahir on the next page, Pg 606 saying that "Conclusively we take these matters on their Haqaiq and not of their Dhahir. And differenciating between the haqaiq and dhawahir is the work of a muhaqqiq. and then he quotes the above statement of jamal again and says that the statement explicitly shows abandoning the dhahir.

But the main issue of differentiating is establishing a meaning for these mutashabihaat "jazman" and not "muhtamilan". That is what Allama Thanvi r.a describes a couple of times. In the mutashabihaat which have multiple ways of translations, the salaf and Ash'ariyeen kept ihtimaal for any of them while affirming their reality. Whereas the salafis affirmed one of those ta'weels and negated the others. etc etc.. The risalah tackles these issues..

These are just little bits to show that There is further explanation to the "haqiqi ma'na" Vs Kunh Vs Kayf. And not being able to even identify these issues shows that the risalah was not read in the way it ought to have been tackled.

I have already expressed my inability to translate most of what is in the risalah simply because i understand the concept but cannot express it. so rather than expressing it defficiently, i chose not to tackle translating it. Moreover, the discussion does not benefit since its intent is only to argue and not to understand as can be seen here.

[Ceakicknunk]

...maulana can you please reply to this question...

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...p?65408-halala...

sorry for going off topic...

[doogiehoussi]

akhi tawheed,

you say I and I say I.. lets play the game and see who gets fed up first..

Your claim : haqiqi meaning is literal meaning.
My response : Even this requires further clarity. We are not tackling something from nursery rhymes rather advance aqeedah. To take it as it is shows that one has not read the complete risalah. For example, if Maulana Thanvi r.a affirms taking the mutashabihaat on their literal meaning how you are stressing, and how the salafis normally do, then it would be very unacademic of Allama Thanvi r.a to say on Pg 604 (i.e one page later) that the the Method of Salaf is "Not to discuss in the matter and say that Allah alone knows the knowledge of it. And this should be believed. [he continues] Kalbi says that this is from the hidden secrets which cannot be explained. Makhul, Zuhri, Auza'ee, Malik, Sufiyan, Laith, Ishaq rahimahumullah say about such Ayaat that, leave them as they are revealed" How more sareeh would you want him to be?

While explaining the khalaf and their way to make approriate ta'weel he quotes Hashiya Jamal to establish the salaf's way again (Pg 605). "Istiwaa according to his majesty. This is the way of the salaf that they make tafweed of the knowledge of mutashabihaat to Allahafter turning them away from their dhahir..."

He further explains this aspect of dhahir on the next page, Pg 606 saying that "Conclusively we take these matters on their Haqaiq and not of their Dhahir. And differenciating between the haqaiq and dhawahir is the work of a muhaqqiq. and then he quotes the above statement of jamal again and says that the statement explicitly shows abandoning the dhahir.

But the main issue of differentiating is establishing a meaning for these mutashabihaat "jazman" and not "muhtamilan". That is what Allama Thanvi r.a describes a couple of times. In the mutashabihaat which have multiple ways of translations, the salaf and Ash'ariyeen kept ihtimaal for any of them while affirming their reality. Whereas the salafis affirmed one of those ta'weels and negated the others. etc etc.. The risalah tackles these issues..

These are just little bits to show that There is further explanation to the "haqiqi ma'na" Vs Kunh Vs Kayf. And not being able to even identify these issues shows that the risalah was not read in the way it ought to have been tackled.

I have already expressed my inability to translate most of what is in the risalah simply because i understand the concept but cannot express it. so rather than expressing it defficiently, i chose not to tackle translating it. Moreover, the discussion does not benefit since its intent is only to argue and not to understand as can be seen here.

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 !

It would be very unaccademic and unjustified of thanvi to refute the dhaahir salafis/atharis take when they do not take the lawazim of dhaahir he explained. neither do they say that istiwa' literally means uluw so Allah did uluw like we do and Allah is a body like His makhlooq.

So you dear brother still did not explain what is left in the literal meaning after tafweed of kunh and kayf and the correct translation of haqiqi.

wassalam

[vipBrooriErok]

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.

[AccusaJalsBub]

Maulana if you do have arabic works on aqidah of Allamah Thanwi could you please upload it.

[rarpAcconavox]

Although it has a mixture of right and wrong

Oh, random nobody on the internet said Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi was wrong! I guess that means I have to become Salafi now.

I also like how your ill mannered method of address allows me to exactly pinpoint your hometurf forum. I guess it tells alot about them (and you) that poor manners reveal them (and you) so easily.

[doogiehoussi]

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.

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.

According to thanvi Salaf took the first level of haqeeqah ?

[vipBrooriErok]

According to thanvi Salaf took the first level of haqeeqah ?

And there is nothing wrong with that as long as you make tafweed of its kunh. That is what his whole risalah is about.

Btw tell me,
What do the salafis take that haqeeqi meaning to be?
When we say yadd the dhahir mutabadir according to you is hand. So do you take the "muraad" of the nass to be "hand" as in the dhahir mutabadr muta'araf just that we make tafweed of its kayf? If you say yes then we are not talking about salaf aqeedah here?

and if you say no then go discuss the issue with other Salafis because they surely have come here to defend those meanings for these mutashabihaat. The whole thread on Dhahir was discussing whether the dhahir mutabadar adh dhahan is the haqeeqi meaning or not..

Thumma Astawa Alal Arsh.. Ya'ni Allahu Mustawiyyun Alal Arsh. Hadha thabit wa nahnu numinu bi dhalika, Wa La na'rifu muraad bidhaak! Fa fassara ba'd as salaf bil ma'na ma' ihtimaal annahu laisa dhalik. Hadha ihtimal dalla ala admi ilmi kunh wal kayf.

See Pg 611 the ibarah of Ruhul Ma'ani. Read the nafi of Ma'ani Muta'arif Mutabadir of Istiwaa Alal Arsh. I think you need to re read the risalah again and try and connect the dots rather than filtering the info to only to notice the points you want to see.

Also read Pg616 to see the address on the differenciating of the sifaat as well. Which can be called mutashabihaat. About Istiwaa, Yadd etc he said that "..Un kay Yadd ko hamaray yadd se, un kay qadm ko hamaray qadm se koi munasabat naheen, is liyay yeh kissi darjay main bhi hamaray fehm mein naheen aatay. Is liyay in ko mutashabiha kaha gya.... more explanation in the text of ruhul ma'ani there.

Then also read Pg 624 under the tarmeem of Surah A'raaf ayah. The difference is drawn clearly that the qiyas in the slightest sense is impossible even having some superficial meaning attached to Istiwaa. e.g between Istiqrar of Zayd on a throne with that of Istiqrar of an opinion on a matter, or the length of a stick with the length of the night! Like a blind cannot distinction the kunh of colors due to defficiency of the eyes, our uqool cannot fathom the disctinction of kunh of these meanings due to defficiency of our minds.

See br. tawheed in the end you have me sitting here explaining the risalah which you ought to have done yourself.. In this you are wasting my time and yours since even if you find that Allama Thanvi r.a is not attributing the salafi method of mutashabihaat to salaf, ALL you have to do is.. Ah.. he is Thanvi.. he is off his aqeedah anyway. And you will then carry on to your next target. So this behes is without any rewards. What I have done so far is enough from my side. If you are not satisfied (which I am sure you are not) can carry on with your discussion on the salafi forums. I am sure you will find hundreds who will become yes sir men and give you that nafsi boost to affirm your interpretation.