Where is Allah

And Kasim bhai can translate as it has some high class urdu in it.

it depends how high...as im not a professor either lol

Nah man not super high class, just high for me cause my urdu is weak. ^_^

I didn't know what Hadir and nathir meant. =/

It'll be Monday when/if I can get it.

Haazir means present
And Naazir means watching
So Allah Almighty is both

Admin wrote:

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.

Okay but what about the hadith where the messenger of Allah asked the slave girl three questions? (I think 3 questions...)

I don't have it with me, but they use it as proof in that we CAN ask 'where' ... is Allah. I'm not making it up, I clearly remember it..

And what does literal mean? Like literally take it without any distortions... but then we don't do tamtheel or ask how so.. that's how we understand literal right?

And what is literal in arabic, is that dhaahir? Then what's haqiqi, and what's the opposite of dhaahir and what's the difference between that and the opposite of haqiqi

OR is dhaahir and haqiqi the same and is the opposite of both the same just different terms?

What exactly is 'dhaat' ?

Regarding tashbeeh:

Whilst at madrasah something was being explained, and in my head I thought that was wrong.. but then I remembered later that it probably depends on the person's intentions, right?

Example:

Allah's name and Attributes

Now to explain to a layman about what Allah's names and Attributes mean, as in the word not a name or attribute of Allah.

What was happening was in order to explain how Allah has (perfect) names and attributes, the example of a human.. was given, how he has a name and how he has qualities. You see... so the question is, is it tashbeeh then if you're just explaining? I was listening to something before also, and the speaker was like 'some people may think we're doing tashbeeh, but we aren't, that wasn't the intention, the intention was to explain to those with what is easy for us to understand'

I had assumed that you MUST like say that 'BUT Allah is PERFECT, so Allah is free from being like this creation' and all throughout I was like

?

Kasim wrote:

Please share it when you get it

I have it now, scanned and ready to post, shall I post?

Quote :

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.

Sorry about that, i'll try not to use it again Inshaa Allaah.

Quote :

I have it now, scanned and ready to post, shall I post?

Yes.

Quote :

Shaikh Haitham Hamdan:

His interpretation of place is very weak, if place was as he claims it is then what would the need be for imaam tahaawi rahimahullaah to say "laa ta7weehil jihaatus sittu kasaa'iril mubtadi'aat"?

The problem is quite simple, the problem is that it's modern day people using modern day terms and modern day minds to try and interprete things which have already been interpreted by the 'ulamaa of that time, so there is really no need to look at modern peoples interpretations.

As for sunni forums response, i'm not surprised at it, but i can't exactly talk myself until my aadaab is the way it's supposed to be

Quote :

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.

You have to watch out for asian works where 'aqeedah in concerned because many of their books are full of wahdatul wujood, hadhir nathir is another one of those things, what they mean by that statement is that Allaah is that Allaah is everywhere, some say Allaah is just everywhere and they don't go any deeper than that, others say no Allaah is physically everywhere.

Quote :

Okay but what about the hadith where the messenger of Allah asked the slave girl three questions? (I think 3 questions...)

That hadeeth has a number of different wordings, the narration of imaam maalik doesn't use the term "where is Allaah".

Quote :

I don't have it with me, but they use it as proof in that we CAN ask 'where' ... is Allah. I'm not making it up, I clearly remember it..

Who are these people that say this? The quote of imaam maalik rahimahullaah is a prrof against them where he says in reply to the man asking about the istawaa of Allaah "and asking about it is bid'ah"

Quote :

And what does literal mean? Like literally take it without any distortions... but then we don't do tamtheel or ask how so.. that's how we understand literal right?

And what is literal in arabic, is that dhaahir? Then what's haqiqi, and what's the opposite of dhaahir and what's the difference between that and the opposite of haqiqi

OR is dhaahir and haqiqi the same and is the opposite of both the same just different terms?

This in depth things i can't tell you, you'll have to ask al ghazalli for that, he should know it.

Quote :

What exactly is 'dhaat' ?

The "self" or "being", like the dhaat of Allaah.

Quote :

Regarding tashbeeh:

Whilst at madrasah something was being explained, and in my head I thought that was wrong.. but then I remembered later that it probably depends on the person's intentions, right?

Can you explain more?

Quote :

What was happening was in order to explain how Allah has (perfect) names and attributes, the example of a human.. was given, how he has a name and how he has qualities. You see... so the question is, is it tashbeeh then if you're just explaining? I was listening to something before also, and the speaker was like 'some people may think we're doing tashbeeh, but we aren't, that wasn't the intention, the intention was to explain to those with what is easy for us to understand'

I had assumed that you MUST like say that 'BUT Allah is PERFECT, so Allah is free from being like this creation' and all throughout I was like

hmmmm Allaahu a'lam.

But i suppose if you are not making a likeness to Allaah by using a man as an example then it won't be wrong to do it.

Nooo! I thought the quote by imam Malik was asking HOW - asking how is a bid'ah because the istiwaa is known, right? I have it let me go read it.. oh I can't even find it now.

I was saying with regards to the question, like 'where is Allah' and then you point the person to the Qur'an not how or anything..

I didn't think even asking that question is a bid'ah? Maybe I misunderstood? =(

Here's the poem, I don't know what it all means, so I would appreciate a translation if possible.

Someone's bound to have done it before. =/




I think it was just the hadir nathir part. *shrugs* don't even know what else it means, or and that house part I didn't understand.

And I heard in a lecture my Sheikh Feiz that the angel Izraeel alayhis salaam is not the one that takes the soul by Allah's command, that's based on a weak narration, it's malikul mawt that takes it. ?

There's no saheeh narration that can be relied on that says his name is Azraeel/Izraeel...
Allah called him "Malak al-Mawt" in the Qur'an so it's best to stick to taht....

Quote :

Nooo! I thought the quote by imam Malik was asking HOW - asking how is a bid'ah because the istiwaa is known, right? I have it let me go read it.. oh I can't even find it now.

I was saying with regards to the question, like 'where is Allah' and then you point the person to the Qur'an not how or anything..

I didn't think even asking that question is a bid'ah? Maybe I misunderstood? =(

Where is part of how is it not?

Anyhow, in the book "at-tabseer fid deen wa tamyeezu firqatin naajiyati 'anil firaqil haalikeen" there's a narration where a person asked 'Ali Radhiallaahu 'Anhu "where is Allaah" to which he replied "It must not be said 'where' to the one who created the place"

And the author of this book (Abu muzaffar al-isfaraayeenee) passed away in the year 471 A.H., so ask yourself who'd know better, someone who lived immediately after the salaf or someone who lived 1000 years after them?

Quote :

I think it was just the hadir nathir part. *shrugs* don't even know what else it means, or and that house part I didn't understand.

My urdu is not good enough to understand it either, even though it's ordinary enough urdu.

Quote :

And I heard in a lecture my Sheikh Feiz that the angel Izraeel alayhis salaam is not the one that takes the soul by Allah's command, that's based on a weak narration, it's malikul mawt that takes it. ?

I've heard that lecture too, but that's his opinion that malakul mawt's name is not izraa'eel, Qaadhi iyyaadh radhimahullaah says it is his name, and i know who i hold in higher regard between Qaadhi 'iyyaadh rahimahullaah who passed away around 700 years ago and modern salafis who say otherwise.

You see i hate half baked people, if a person wants to call themself a salafi then they must go all the way, follow the salaf in 'aqeedah, follow the salaf in fiqh, follow the salaf in hadeeth, and follow it according to their interpretations and not modern peoples interpretations, that person can then be called a salafi, but unfortunately i've found that the majority of people who call themselves salafis are actually more khalafi than anything else, it's a sad state of affairs.

You're patronising... =o

I dunno, but I'm probably wrong anyway. =P

khalifi ? You what... I've never heard of that..

But i was trying not to be

Khalafi is one who follows the khalaf, you get the salaf and you get the khalaf, the salaf are the previous generations, the khalaf is the latter generations.

eh.. you've confused me, I read the article

Who believes in haadir naadhir?

And if someone starts saying haadhir naadhir stuff, what do I do, not any normal person, I mean ME cause I haven't studied aqeedah at all, do I just stay quiet?

ohh barewli... but what's their aqeedah then? Man all these names are confusing... =/ What's the difference between that and a sufi? How do you even say it. =/

i think thats a brelwi belief...and its barelwi/brelwi after the district in India...in short, it were established as a 'movement' at the time of British colonisation in India, Ahmed Reza Khan from Bareilly is one of the prominent guys for that...it was like an opposition/rivalry thing between them and the Deobandis (another movement) and also the Ahle Hadeeth...

from Deobandis, you have the likes of Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi, Shaykul Hadeeth Zakariyya Khandalwi and an offshoot of that is the Tabligh Jamaat. they believed in like personal religious development with emphasis on a religious guide during the troubled times, they were centered to Hanafi, with strict devotion to Quraan, Hadeeth, Sunnah and scholarly fatwas. Brelwis grouped them with the Wahhabis of the Arab world because of similar ideas and opinions held. they established the deoband seminary and a few others around India.

then Brelwis, had a broader interpretation of Hanafi law and they had more customary practices and traditions, such as mawlid, qawwali, tomb visits and they placed more importance on the intercession of the ulema for religious responsibility in place of the personal one that Deobandis taught. they marked noted occasions like Milad, birth/death dates of 'peers' etc, whereas Deobandis and Ahle Hadeeth took it as bidah.
they claimed all acitivities were an expression of their increased devotion to Rasulullah and held concepts such as Rasulullah 's having a 'light' which derived from Allah's own Light and it had existed from beginning of creation. Wahhabis said this compromised the unity of Allah, but Brelwis said this was an example of high status of Rasulullah and world created for his glory, and some believe in Rasulullah being of light and had no shadow and so on. and that he is observant in all places, hence the haadhir naadhir thing...he were human but different to other humans. Also believed that he had ilmul ghayb, which others refuted as being a quality of Allah.
Believe that Rasulullah visits during Milad in a concept called 'qiyaam'...
and that saints had powers of intercession...

Ahle Hadeeth basically gave more importance to hadeeth and were quite 'strict' in their beliefs, they didnt have one particular school of thought, had distinguishable dress, beards, prayer style.

Sufis of the 'asli' age and thought are very rare these days, overshadowed by Haqqani and co...they tend to have the elaborate custom laden practices, with Mawlid, saintly 'worship' and other things which are quite controversial and classed as bidah by many...however, in the 18th/19th century, with Deoband, many of the Ulema were Sufi in the original sense, following usually the Naqshbandi or Chishti Sufism and did give importance to the bayah and shaykh/mureed thing, but it were more personal rather than the collective Sufi practices of modern day...so in that, although they may claim to be from the same Sufi tariqahs of the same names, it is soooo different in practice.

Generally, the Deobandis/Ahle Hadeeth were centered around the urban, city life and the Brelwis for the rural,. villages...where people were more eager to hold on to the customs and traditions.
It was initially and essential only to the Indian political/religious scene at the time...but with the post-1947 immigration patterns and such, its been brought to different countries by the original Indians/Pakistanis of those very places....so people may still hold those beliefs and titles to distinguish themselves here.

Okay now tell me what the main difference is between Deobandis and Ahle Hadith...

Can't you just be tagless?

yes, you can be tagless...situations are different now anyhow, but people often hold same beliefs of any of those groups without labelling themselves under them...

initially, each of these groups was centered only to the geographical districts were they were common and according to the 'class' of family/community, but the different situations led to more dispersion and variance....

so the Ahle Hadeeth were largely in the areas of Delhi and Bhopal, whereas Deoband and Saharanpur (and few others which i cant remember) were Deobandi and Brelwis in Bareilly...same time, Qadian was prominently Ahmadiyyah.

Ahle Hadeeth largely committed to revitalising by getting rid of the customs, they denied the validity of the law schools and used a literal study of the Quraan and ahadeeth...they disregarded Sufi practises/meditation/self discipline...
Deobandis said Ahle Hadeeth had too radical an approach to law.
Oh and Ahle Hadeeth came from a social background of aristocracy and highly educated...
they didnt have any regard for the four schools of thought and held view that they were beginning to supercede Quraan/Hadeeth...they opposed the brelwi practises but felt they had special devotion and connection to Rasulullah with their love, through their commitment to hadeeth...some actually prohibited the visit to Madinah/Rasulullah 's grave, cus of the bidah which can become associated with it.
they stuck strongly to the 5 pillars but main emphasis on salaah....they differed here with the Deobandis as they didnt pray in a Hanafite way (like Deobandis) but they practised ameen bil jahr, i think its called where the Ameen is said aloud, raf yadaain, raising of hands at ruku' and the reciting of Surah al Fatiha out loud.

within Ahle Hadeeth, there musta been some conflicts because there were a splinter group which emerged known as Ahle Quraan who took only Quraan aayahs as compulsory, they had quite a difference in rituals to the other groups, with a removal of adhaan, prayed only fardh rakaahs and i think they had different salaah motions with kneeling on one knee or something like that oh and they also remove funeral and Eid salaah...

That's so intense...

Where did you learn all that masha Allah I seriously am oblivious. =/

I read a book in the Summer, i dunno if i posted it in book thread

this one http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/default/islamic-revival-british-india-deoband-1860-1900/9780195660494.html

was a bit sceptical at first but it were realllllllllyyyyy good! because she utilises all the Deoband publications as referencing and shes not biased or anything.

So you're saying all this happened in India like all the tags or whatever, what about the rest of the world?

Split the thread and give it a new title, I'm kinda interested now.

Nisaa wrote:

So you're saying all this happened in India like all the tags or whatever, what about the rest of the world?

Split the thread and give it a new title, I'm kinda interested now.

Well, those specific groups are from India but at the same time, there were other movements in the rest of the world, like 'Wahhabism' etc...there are other groups in various countries, which have similar beliefs Deobandis and Brelwis or Ahle Hadeeth, but they may have different titles, but like i said those few were particular to India and its social climate of the time.
Those groups havent 'died' out and like theres been many esteemed ulema from there....if i remember correctly, Deoband actually came under the spotlight a while back because quite a few Taliban were educated there or had links to the Tabligh Jamaat and so on.

Oh and because Deoband actually had a seminary/institution which later spanned out into other districts, it were very popular for Ilm. In the book, she included enrolment charts, and there were students from Russia, Arab states, China, East etc, bearing in mind this was in the late 1800's so it was quite renowned. And then there were also the great Shyookh from there like Moulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, the Khandalwis, Thanwi, Shibli Nu'mani (from Nadwatul Uloom, i think) and they had people writing to them for fataawa from places like Saudi and other Arab nations which shows that they were quite well known for their time.

Quote :

Can't you just be tagless?

I'm already as tagless as a teabag