From the beliefs of the Jahmiyyah are:
-Allaah cannot be defined as being an actual
physical presence. They say we cannot describe Allaah as being a “thing”, so in
reality, we cannot prove that he actually exits (TN: there is a difference between
proving and believing).
Response: Ahl as-Sunnah or Sunni Muslims base
their beliefs on the Names and Attributes of Allaah based on the texts. We negate
everything that is not befitting or not mentioned in the texts. We do not
attribute anything to Allaah except with proof. So in origin (the Usl is): we
negate generally.
However, we affirm what He or His Messenger
have affirmed. Therefore, in origin (the Usl is): we affirm what for Him what
has been affirmed in the texts.
Negation is general and affirmation is
specific.
However the Jahmiyyah are the opposite when
it comes to these principles. They say we must affirm in general and negate the
specifics. With these principles, it has led to many problems and doubts in their
beliefs, so they ended up negating everything they had originally affirmed (meaning,
by affirming the general it eventually led to a mass negation of everything).
For example, they say if we affirm Allaah has
Eyes, then we must affirm that He has a Head. If He has a Head then it must
mean He has a body etc.
Thus the series of affirming for Allaah in
general continues.
This resulted in them questioning the Names
and Attributes of Allaah in totality, because all of them ended up
necessitating making Allaah similar or like His creation because of this false
principle: affirming in general and negating the specifics.
Response to the example above:
Ahl as-Sunnah say we believe that Allaah has
Eyes (see: 11:37, 20:39, 52:48, 54:14 etc.). We have specific evidence to prove
this so we affirm the specific.
As for likening Allaah to the creation by
presuming He has a head and a body etc. because we have affirmed Eyes for Him,
then this is wrong as there is no evidence -
thus negating in the general.
Why is this principle important in our
Aqeedah?
The underlying principle the Jahmees have set
in the topic of the Names and Attributes of Allaah is that God cannot have
Attributes.
They deny Allaah having attributes because it
leads to necessitating a negation of lordship for Him. It also ends up in Him
resembling the creation (this was explained in detail in the previous point).
At times, they believe that affirming Names and Attributes to God could also
necessitate plurality in deities.
Therefore there approach to the innumerable texts
which affirm Names and Attributes to Allaah is as follows:
1-To
affirm what has come in the text but they must be understood in a way of negating
similarity to the creation (Nafee al-Mithl).
For example, Allaah is the Most High, but they
say the meaning of “High” for Allaah must be understood in the way of negating.
If we say He is physically “High” then this must mean He has a body, thus we
cannot affirm He is High.
Also, if we say He is High then this would
necessitate that He cannot be everywhere. If He is not everywhere then it means
He is not Present or doesn’t exist (Mawjood).
Therefore the principle here is to make Nafee
al-Mithl (as explained above: affirmation is done in general which leads to
negation of the specifics).
Therefore they say, “We affirm Highness for
Allaah, but Highness is restricted by the understanding of His Presence. If He
is Present then it must be everywhere without it being specified.”
The Asharees that came after took this philosophy
and expanded it and coined a term which is quite commonly heard nowadays:
“Allaah exists without a place or in time.”
Meaning, we cannot restrict Allaah to be
above His Throne, this would necessitate Him being within and like His
creation.
Response: If we deny that the object of worship
is above us, then where is He? Wouldn’t it be possible to believe in Wahdah
al-Wujood (something that even the initial Jahmees would deny). So by denying
or changing the meaning, we have failed to define what a deity actually is.
Also, what’s different between the principles
introduced by the Jahmees and that with the beliefs of the Christians? In fact,
the Christians would be better as they said God is above His Creation and only
existed in one man (or one woman and angel as well, depending on the sect).
As for the principles of the Asharees here
then this is even worse than that of the Jahmees, because if Allaah exists
without a place or time, then in actually He doesn’t exist. Allaah must be
somewhere. We say He is outside of His creation, thus not bound by time or
place, but above His Ursh, the Glorified and the Sublime.
2-The second approach by the Jahmees is
trying to understand the texts of the Names and Attributes of Allaah is that in
principle “all of these texts must be understood by their intellect (Aql)”. This
is a direct influence of Ilm al-Kalaam or philsiphy.
For example, they cannot affirm that Allaah
is an actual physical entity or thing (as known in Arabic, see 6:19), because
their intellect dictates that by affirming Allaah as being an entity or a
thing, it would mean He is Created.
Response: the intellect can never be a
benchmark to understanding the religion, especially in matters of the unseen.
Even for arguments sake we say we use our intellect,
but what’s the criterion? Some people have more intellect than others. Some
think they have more intellect than others. So this would lead to every
layperson understanding the religion as they pleased – according to what suits their
intellect.
Also connected to the issue of understanding
by intellect, just because our intellects can’t comprehend something it doesn’t
mean we must negate it. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Therefore, Ahl as-Sunnah say we are the
opposite to you in this principle. Affirmation (Ithbaat) and negation (Nafee)
is only via the texts of the Sharee’ah and negation (Nafee) can be done at
times with the ‘Aql, but not the origin.
Based on our response we say about the
example above; yes, Allaah is an entity/thing but He is unlike His Creation,
the Glorified and the Exalted.
3-The final example of how the Jahmees try to
understand the texts which affirm the Names and Attributes of Allaah is by
making a total negation. This is similar to what has been stated above, however
at times, they cannot make a total negation, therefore they change or nullify the
meaning.
For example, Allaah Affirms that He is the
Most Merciful in several places in the Quraan. This can no way be denied.
However, the Jahmees state that the meaning of Mercy doesn’t mean He shows Mercy,
nor does it mean He is Merciful in Himself.
If we were to affirm the action of showing Mercy
or the characteristic of being Merciful, this would mean He is created and has
a body (via the principle explained above).
Also it would mean that if Allaah does
something in the present (i.e. shows mercy) it implies that He was unable to do
it before He did the action. It also implies something new to Allaah and this
is not possible, because Allaah has always existed and cannot be something new
or do something new.
Response: everything that exists must have characterizes
and everything that is living then it has an action, so how about the all-Living
(al-Hayy)?
To be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment