Where is Allah

The general position of the Ahl as-Sunnah is

قال أبو منصور رحمه الله وأما الأصل عندنا في ذلك أن الله تعالى قال ليس كمثله شيء فنفى عن نفسه شبه خلقه وقد بينا أنه في فعله وصفته متعال عن الأشباه فيجب القول بالرحمن على العرش استوى على ما جاء به التنزيل ونفي عنه شبه الخلق بما أضاف إليه، إذ جاء به التنزيل وثبت ذلك في العقل ثم لا نقطع تأويله على شيء لاحتماله غيره مما ذكرنا وإحتماله أيضا ما لم يبلغنا مما يعلم أنه غير محتمل شبه الخلق ونؤمن بما اراد الله به وكذلك في كل أمر ثبت التنزيل فيه نحو الرؤية وغير ذلك يجب نفى الشبه عنه والإيمان بما أراده من غير تحقيق على شيء دون شيء والله الموفق

Imam Abu Mansur Abdul Qahir Al-Baghdadi (429 H) in his famous book Usul-al-Din states:

Our principle regarding this (understanding Allah’s attributes) is that Aļļaah Ta’aala said that He does not resemble anything, so He denied that He has any resemblance to His creation. We have in this regard already clarified that He is in His actions and attributes greatly above having a like (such as being in a place or direction, as Abu Mansur stated earlier in this book.) For this reason one must say “Ar-Raĥmaanu ˆala-l-ˆArsħi-stawaa” (Taha, 5) as it came in the revelation, and deny that He has any resemblance to creation in what has been ascribed to Him. This is because it came in the revelation, and it was affirmed by the sound mind (i.e. “istawa” without Him being in a place, direction or location is not judged by the mind as impossible.) Then we do not assign any interpretation to it with certainty, because its actual meaning might be something else of the possibilities we have mentioned, or something different from what has reached us of meanings that do not involve ascribing to Aļļaah a resemblance to His creation. So we believe in the actual meaning of the aayah, and this is the way to deal with anything that has been confirmed as revelation, such as seeing Aļļaah, in which we must deny any resemblance to creation, and believe in the actual meaning, without authenticating a specific meaning over other (acceptable) meanings.

And Allah is the Creator of the ability to obey Him (Kitab-al-Tawhid 74).

References:

–Abu Mansur Abdul Qahir Al-Baghdadi (429 H). Usul-al-Din. Istanbul, Turkey: Daar Al-Funuun Al-Turkiyah, 1346/1928. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Kotob Al-ilmiyah, 1981/1401.

–Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi (333 AH). Kitab-al-Tawhid. Turkey: Markaz al Buhuth al Islamiyyah, Waqf Diyanah Turkiyah.

Shaykh Abu Adam al Naruiji has this posted on his blog and he continues and states:

Surah Taha, 5; its pronunciation is: Al-Rahman `ala l-`Arsh istawa. If someone translated this statement literally, he would say: Al-Rahman (The Merciful) `ala (on) Al-`Arsh (The Throne) istawa (established Himself); “The Merciful established Himself on the throne”.

This is not the meaning of the statement, however, and the Arabic Language is not limited to this meaning. Rather, the verb “istawa” in the Arabic language has some 14 different meanings. Moreover, the word Al-`Arsh does not necessarily mean “throne”, it could also mean “dominion”, and some of the Salaf said that. Abdul Qahir Al-Baghdadi said in his book Usul-al-Din, in summary: “Our colleagues differed regarding this āyah. Some said that it is among the ayahs that are Mutashabihat whose meaning is not known by other than Allah, and this is the saying of Malik (and Abu Mansur Al Maturidi, as seen above). Others said that istawa is something that Allah did to the `Arsh that He called istawa, and this is the saying of Abul-Hasan Al-Ash`ari. Others again said that istawa means that He is attributed with aboveness over the `Arsh without contact (i.e. in status, not physical aboveness.) The correct saying in our view, is that Al-`Arsh in this Ayah means the Dominion and istawa is the Dominion’s action, meaning that the Dominion did not settle in equilibrium for anyone but Him (Usul-al-Din 112-113).”

(End of quote)

There is a hadith of the Prophet (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him) which is recorded in Sahih Muslim:

O Allah, You are the first: there is nothing before You; and You are the last: there is nothing after You. You are the Manifest (al-Zahir): there is nothing above You. You are the Hidden (al-Batin): there is nothing below You.

and Sayyadina Ali (May Allah be Pleased with Him) states in a Sahih Athar:

تفسير مدارك التنزيل وحقائق التأويل/ النسفي
قول علي رضي الله عنه: الاستواء غير مجهول والتكييف غير معقول والإيمان به واجب والسؤال عنه بدعة لأنه تعالى كان ولا مكان فهو على ما كان قبل خلق المكان لم يتغير عما كان.

“al-Istiwa is not unknown, and the modality is altogether inconceivable. To affirm it is obligatory and to ask questions about it is an innovation, this is because Allah was, when there was nothing, and He created place before there was a place, and He is in no need for a place”.

(Reported in Tafsir Madaarik al-Tanzeel wa Haqaa’iq al-Ta’weel by an-Nasafi, under surah Taha (20) ayat (5))


I hope that helps in outlining the position of the Ahl as-Sunnah.

And with Allah is all Success.

Copied from al-ghazalli on ummah.com

No I don't understand it...

I get confused with big words..

Quote :

This is not the meaning of the statement, however, and the Arabic Language is not limited to this meaning. Rather, the verb “istawa” in the Arabic language has some 14 different meanings. Moreover, the word Al-`Arsh does not necessarily mean “throne”, it could also mean “dominion”, and some of the Salaf said that. Abdul Qahir Al-Baghdadi said in his book Usul-al-Din, in summary: “Our colleagues differed regarding this āyah. Some said that it is among the ayahs that are Mutashabihat whose meaning is not known by other than Allah, and this is the saying of Malik (and Abu Mansur Al Maturidi, as seen above). Others said that istawa is something that Allah did to the `Arsh that He called istawa, and this is the saying of Abul-Hasan Al-Ash`ari. Others again said that istawa means that He is attributed with aboveness over the `Arsh without contact (i.e. in status, not physical aboveness.) The correct saying in our view, is that Al-`Arsh in this Ayah means the Dominion and istawa is the Dominion’s action, meaning that the Dominion did not settle in equilibrium for anyone but Him (Usul-al-Din 112-113).”

I read another thread on here about Where Allah is.. It wasn't this one... where's that thread gone? It wasn't the other one in this section either..

Quote :

I get confused with big words..

So do i

Basically it all boils down to the fact that Allaah exists without a place.

Quote :

I read another thread on here about Where Allah is.. It wasn't this one... where's that thread gone? It wasn't the other one in this section either..

your one called "Questions..."?

No it was another... I read it, it made sense aaages ago... now that thread wasn't on this forum? Where did I read it.... =/ It was you, you made the thread, I remember.

Okay so.. can you say Allah is above His throne? Or is that restricting? Shall I forget it and not think too much on the subject now? =o

Quote :

No it was another... I read it, it made sense aaages ago... now that thread wasn't on this forum? Where did I read it.... =/ It was you, you made the thread, I remember.

On ummah?

Quote :

Okay so.. can you say Allah is above His throne? Or is that restricting?

If you mean Allaah is in a direction/place then it's wrong, you see even when you find a statement like "Wa huwa 'alal 'arsh, baa'inun min khalqihi" "And He is upon the 'arsh, free from His creation"

Place, direction, etc are all the creations of Allaah are they not? So the second part of the statement comes to explain the first part and show that Allaah exists without a place.

Oh I really wanna read that thread again because it made sense and it was easy to understand..

It's conflicting because in books like kitaab at-tawhid and kitaabs like that, they say that we understand the istiwaa of Allah literally without asking how or likening to the creation. And that's it, simple dimple, no more no less. I'm not reading these kitaabs by myself, I wouldn't just teach myself, that's a bit silly because I'd get it all wrong.

I want to still make a thread on ummah to have a discussion between salafis and ash'aris on this particular topic Inshaa Allaah.

I found it...

https://darulilm.forumotion.com/aqeedah-f30/how-should-a-muslim-respond-to-where-allah-almighty-is-t707.htm

=o

It was right in this section under my nose and I couldn't find it. =/

everything's created other than Allah
Rememeber one golden rule: Allah is nothing like His creation
that means time space direction ect are all created
that menas Allah existed before they were creation
so he doesn't need, or isn't restricted, by the laws of creation
so to isolate Allah to one set time/place/direction destroys the very essence of God- that he is nothing like his creation

so if some1 asks whereis God? Answer, Allah is wherever Allah is (Allah knows best) to restrict him to the laws of creation makes God imperfect, and no one would worship an imperfect being.

Why make things complicated when Allah has mentioned in the Qur'an where he is?

^ hey you know i found an interesting thing in sayd al khaatir of imaam ibn al-jawzy, you oughta read it sometime, send me your email address and i'll email it to you cos i might not be around again until next month.

Anyhow, in regards to your question, if we have to follow that then what will you say about the aayah wa huwa ma'akum ayna maa kuntum? Is that not Allaah also telling you where he is?

Quote :

Anyhow, in regards to your question, if we have to follow that then what will you say about the aayah wa huwa ma'akum ayna maa kuntum? Is that not Allaah also telling you where he is?

Well, the meaning of that is that he is not there ''bidhaatih'' but with his knowledge, seeing and hearing.

So why are you making ta'weel of it? you claim ta'weel is wrong yet you're doing it right now

I think thats what I read in ibn Katheer

So what do atharis believe where Allah is?

Above the 'Arsh....



The beliefs of the Mu'tazilah, Asha'irah, Maturidis etc are all misguided....

I remember someone said it's similar to salafi so then how comes Admin you're being funny and everything... =/

And I remember something about that ayah from something, ta'weel has to be done cause Allah already mentioned where He is. If you take the literal meaning it would go against the istiwaa ayah... right?


Don't slaughter me >_>

But then a person could say 'I can make ta'weel on the istiwaa ayah but not this one' BUT the understanding of the salaf of these ayaat is what you go with... hah, alright sorry, I don't know..

And the last part I didn't hear it, I just assumed that's what you'd do.. cause it's Qur'an + sunnah + salaf as saleh... + tabi'een = no doubt.

So if the salaf understood the ayah about Allah's istiwaa as literal without asking how or likening then that's our understanding too.. right?

Quote :

The beliefs of the Mu'tazilah, Asha'irah, Maturidis etc are all misguided....

If you had said mu'tazilah alone then i'd have agreed with you, but now i think you should read this of imaam ibn al-jawzy rahimahullaah:

عجبت من أقوام يدعون العلم، ويميلون إلى التشبيه بحملهم الأحاديث على ظواهرها، فلو أنهم أمروها كما جاءت سلموا، لأن من أمر ما جاء ومر من غير اعتراض ولا تعرض فما قال شيئاً لا له ولا عليه.
ولكن أقواماً قصرت علومهم، فرأت أن حمل الكلام على غير ظاهره نوع تعطيل، ولو فهموا سعة اللغة لم يظنوا هذا.
وما هم إلا بمثابة قول الحجاج لكاتبه وقد مدحته الخنساء فقالت:
إذا هبط الحجاج أرضاً مريضة ... تتبع أقصى دائها فشفاها
شفاها من الداء العضال الذي بها ... غلام إذا هز القناة شفاها
فلما أتمت القصيدة، قال: لكاتبه إقطع لسانها، فجاء ذاك الكاتب المغفل بالموسى.
فقالت له: ويلك إنما قال أجزل لها العطاء.
ثم ذهبت إلى الحجاج فقالت: كاد والله يقطع مقولي.
فكذلك الظاهرية الذين لم يسلموا بالتسليم، فإنه من قرأ الآيات والأحاديث ولم يزد، لم ألمه، وهذه طريقة السلف.
فأما من قال: الحديث يقتضي كذا، ويحمل على كذا، مثل أن يقول: استولى على العرش بذاته، وينزل إلى السماء الدنيا بذاته فهذه زيادة فهمها قائلها من الحس لا من النقل.

It goes further, but this is sufficient for now.

Quote :

I remember someone said it's similar to salafi so then how comes Admin you're being funny and everything... =/

There's a difference, there's the 'aqeedah of the salaf, and then there's the salafi interpretation of the 'aqeedah of the salaf, the 'aqeedah of the salaf is as mentioned in my above post, and the salafi interpretation of the salaf is what imaam ibn al-jawzy rahimahullaah is explaining.

Quote :

And I remember something about that ayah from something, ta'weel has to be done cause Allah already mentioned where He is. If you take the literal meaning it would go against the istiwaa ayah... right?

Lets look at it logically this way, Allaah existed before place was created, yes or no?

If you say no then you are claiming that Allaah has a partner which has existed eternally with Allaah.

If you say yes then we move on to the next question.

Allaah existed without needing place, then Allaah created place, does Allaah now become bound by Allaah's creation?

If you say yes then you are denying the fact that Allaah is independent of everything, you are now making Allaah in need of His creation i.e. place.

If you say no then you admit that Allaah existed before place was created, and Allaah is independent of everything, and that Allaah does not change since change only happens to creation (as stated by imaam abu haneefah rahimahullaah who is of the salaf), then how is it that you can say Allaah exists in a place?

That's one way of looking at it, then lets look at another thing, Allaah says He has a yadd and a wajh etc, literally these sifaat implies body parts, yet no one says Allaah has body parts do they? Yet a person could use abu sulaymans same argument and say "Why make things complicated when Allah has mentioned in the Qur'an that he has a hand and a face?" implying thereby that Allaah has a body etc, no one will use such an argument because it is unanimous that the one who attributes a body to Allaah becomes a kaafir.

Do you see the hole in that argument now?

Quote :

But then a person could say 'I can make ta'weel on the istiwaa ayah but not this one' BUT the understanding of the salaf of these ayaat is what you go with... hah, alright sorry, I don't know..

You know those people who claim that Allaah exists everywhere physically? they also use the qur'aan, they say that Allaah says in the Qur'aan "wa huwa ma'akum aynamaa kuntum" etc, which proves that Allaah is everywhere, and it doesn't contradict the aayah of istawaa because the 'arsh would also fall under place and so Allaah would be there too, so they make ta'weel of the aayah of istawaa and make 'wa huwa ma'akum' as a muhkam aayah, the salafis does just the opposite.

Quote :

So if the salaf understood the ayah about Allah's istiwaa as literal without asking how or likening then that's our understanding too.. right?

But who says they understood it as literal (dhaahir)? that's the big question, it's people born yesterday who reads a quote of the salaf and then interpretes it to mean abc, i haven't comes across a statement of the salaf where they say "istawaa bi dhaatihi", if there is then by all means show me and i'll change my view.

Quote :

So what do atharis believe where Allah is?

The atharis do not believe in asking such questions, a person is mubtadi' for asking such a thing, besides "where" is a place, but anyway the position of the atharis is as stated at the end of my first post.

Man you put me on the spot.

But alhamdulillah I answered correctly, I just am left confused. =/

Admin wrote:

Quote :

So what do atharis believe where Allah is?

The atharis do not believe in asking such questions, a person is mubtadi' for asking such a thing, besides "where" is a place, but anyway the position of the atharis is as stated at the end of my first post.

Are you saying that we can't ask that? I thought you can only not as 'how'

I wasn't taking you to task above btw, i was just explaining in general.

Oh well I felt like I had to answer them. =/

It's the use of the general 'you' again. It kinda has that effect on the reader.

Shaikh Haitham Hamdan:

Quote :

Makaan (Place)

The Place (Makaan) of something is merely a concept that exists in our
minds; there is nothing outside the mind that is a Place (Makaan).

For example, if you did not exist, where would your Place (Makaan) be?
The answer is nowhere, you wouldn’t have a Place (Makaan), because you
do not exist.

A Place (Makaan) is a concept that we associate with things that exist
outside the mind. It is a way for us to relate the existence of an
object to the existence of other objects in this universe. It is not
that Allah created a Place (Makaan) for us, and then put us into this
place.

Therefore, it is ridiculous to ask, ‘how can Allah assume a Place
(Makaan) when a Place (Makaan) is from the creation of Allah?’ A Place
(Makaan) is not something that you assume, it is a concept that results
from your existence. A relationship between you and the universe.

The Place (Makaan) of something cannot exist in our minds if that
something did not exist. At the same time, we cannot perceive of
something existing outside out minds and it not having a place. If it
is to relate to other beings then it must have a place, it makes no
sense saying Allah exists without a place. It will result in making
Allah into a mere mental being that has no existence outside the mind.

Waqt (Time)

The relationship between Place (Makaan) and matter is the same relationship between Time (Waqt) and action.

Time (Waqt) is a measure of action, and the measurements of a series of actions makes Time (Waqt).

The duration of an action locates it in Time (Waqt), just as the Place (Makaan) of an object locates it in space.

Time (Waqt) is not something that exists outside the human mind, it is
associated with actions. If there is no action there will be no Time
(Waqt), it (Time) cannot exist without actions occurring.

Allah has always existed, so there was always a Place (Makaan) and He has always acted, so there was always Time (Waqt).

To say that Time (Waqt) and Place (Makaan) are creatures of Allah is
incorrect. They are mental beings that exist as an extension to the
existence of action and matter.

And what reply did 'Sunni'Forum give? Well, keep reading

Quote :

Had the Wahhabis read and pondered the 99 names of Allah then this would have not been an issue.

Allah is Al-Awaal, He is the first before everything

Al-Khaliq, the Creator and everything else is His creation, even your mind and thoughts

Al-Baqi, one who always stays

Al-Qadeem, one who never changes & always remains

Al-Ghani, the All-Independent

So to say that time and space existed along with Him, is to deny He is the Al-Awaal and al-Qadeem.

Allah was the Khaliq before He created, nothing resembles Him, and
those who try to liken Him to the creation will enter Hell fire
disgraced and shamed, may Allah's curse be on the mujasimites, don’t
bring from a rotten forum their arguments here, as you will carry the
weight of any misguidance and pay for it dearly in front of Allah

Perhaps that is the reason why the wahhabis cannot take the 99 names of
Allah, and are its enemies, as it contradicts their false beliefs, and
for this reason we have the likes of the perished al-Albani coming
forward and falsely weakening the hadeeth that speaks of Allah's 99
names and attributes, may Allah give this chief innovator of this age
what he deserves in the afterlife, and may Allah annihilate the wahhabi
mujasim da3wah and their misguidance.

I came across something today, it was a poem

And it's in urdu, I don't have it with me, for me to copy it.

But the words used were regarding Allah

It had the words hadir and nathir and jaha kaha... basically

"Allah is the supervisor and He is present all over"

But I don't know what exactly it meant, could have been with Allah's knowledge or other attributes like hearing and seeing but dunno... I didn't say anything though.. or ask.. =o I'm such a clutz.

I want the poem, when I get it insha Allah soon I shall post it, it has a lot of Allah's attributes in it. I guess I gotta learn it but I dunno.. like.. *shrugs* if it's like okay ... yer gets me.

Please share it when you get it