Chapter: Rudd ‘ala al-Jahmiyyah: Their Usool and Their Origins (Part 3)

Follow @AhleDhikr

Another principle of the Jahmee’s is to differentiate between a entity (Mawsoof) and its characteristics (Sifah).

They argue:

-That Allaah is different to His Knowledge, thus the Quraan is a separate and created entity.

Response: Ahl as-Sunnah say that the Quraan is the Knowledge and Speech of Allaah and there is no difference to make the above differentiation.

-That the Names and Attributes that He Describes Himself with are not Allaah – it is not an actual description of Him.

Response:  Ahl as-Sunnah say Allaah is an actual being (Dhaat) and He has Names and Attribute (Sifaaat pl. Sifah).

 The evidence of the Jahmees for the first argument:

The Jahmee’s quote the Aayah:

“Surely, His is the Creation and Commandment” [7:54]

They argue that there is no difference between Khalq (creation) and Amr (command) because they are joined together by a connector which means they are the same thing.

Meaning, the creation and the command (i.e. His Word and His Speech) are both created.

Response: Ahl as-Sunnah say that the connector “and” (و) typically refers to a change in subject. Therefore, linguistically, if the word “and” is used it cannot be referring to the same thing. Therefore, the connector “and” refers to al-Mughaayarah or a change in subject.

Based on this linguistic fact, creation must be different to His Command. Therefore, His Creation is something and His Speech and Word is something else, uncreated.

Also, Ahl as-Sunnah respond to their interpretation of the Quraan by pointing out that had creation and command be the same thing, then the Sharee’ah would not stop in its revelation. Meaning, Allaah Continues to Create and had creation and command be the same thing, revelation would also continue, just as His action of Creating.

In response to their second argument above Ahl as-Sunnah argue with the following:

In the Arabic language and from the principles of Usool al-Fiqh, names and attributes of any given thing falls into one of the four following categories:

1.      Mutaraadif (synonyms): different words with the same meaning. For example the word “Shaykh” can refer father so can “Ab” and so can “Old man”

وَأَبُونَا شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ

“And our father is a very old man” (28:23)

2.     Mutabaayinah (Lexis): this is where different objects have totally different names with no connection between one another. For example, a door is a different object to a chair.

Mutabaayinah is of types:

-Mutadaadah (Antonyms): complete opposite in meaning. For example, standing is the opposite of sitting. However, the opposite could have a third state; so standing is the opposite of sitting but it is not the opposite of laying down.

-Mutanaaqidah (Nullifiers): meaning words that negate one another. For example, the action of speaking nullifies silence for the same person.

-Mutalaazim (Conditional): meaning one word cannot exist without the other word. For example, creation exists. However, creation didn’t create itself, so it must have been created. Therefore creation depends on creator.

-Mutawaafiq (Similarities): meaning there is no connection but there can be similarities between the definitions of that word. For example, not every Insaan (human) are the same but there are similarities.

-Mukhtalif (Indifferent): meaning there is no connection between these words and there are no similarities. For examples, humans and animals.

3.     Mushtarakah (Homonym): these are words which are the same word but have different meaning. Such as ‘Ayn in Arabic can refer to an ‘eye’ or a ‘spring’.

4.     Mushakik (a type of Homonym): this is where the words have the same meaning but the characteristics differ. Such as the face of a human is not the same as a face of a fox, but both have faces.

5.     Mutwaati’ (a type of Homonym): words that have the same name and characteristics but are different in their form and are separate entities. Such as the word human or Insaan, all are alike but are different in form and physical being.

Based on all of this, we are able to respond and refute the two arguments above, linguistically and principally:

There is a difference between “Khalq” and “Amr” because they are both Mutabaayinah. They are not Mutaraadif for one another. Furthermore, connectors in the Arabic language are used for al-Mughaayarah, meaning a change of subject.

A being or an object must have characteristics because it has to be placed in one and more in the above classifications.

So we say, Allaah has Names which are Mutaaradif and Mutaabayanah, and His Attributes likewise.

As for classifications 4, 5 and 6, then this is proof that affirmation of Names and Attributes of Allaah do not necessitate resemblance to the creation.

Next post on the beliefs of the Jamhiyyah in regards to Revelation. 

Baab as-Siwaak wa Sunnan al-Wudhoo (Part 1)

Follow @AhleDhikr

Baab Siwaak wa Sunnan al-Wudhoo [Chapter of Brushing the Teeth and the Sunnah Aspects of the Wudhoo]

1-Siwaak is the stick and Miswaak refers to the action of brushing ones teeth. Therefore, the Sunnah refers to Miswaak (keeping dental hygiene and a pleasant smell from the mouth) which is the action and not necessarily using the wooden Siwaak.

NOTE: some people believe that Siwaak can only be taken from a particular type of tree but Uthaymeen states that any twig of any tree can be used for brushing providing it means the conditions (see point 3).

2-Uthaymeen states that the Siwaak is mentioned here and comes after Istinjaa because it is connected to purifying before making Wudhoo. As for Istinjaa then it is to remove dirt but Siwaak is to complete cleanliness and personal hygiene. Both of these are practiced at any time whereas Istinjaa is specified in its place and time. Uthaymeen also states that Siwaak and some aspects of the Wudhoo are part of the Fitrah, thus they have been mentioned together.

3-Conditions for the Siwaak:

            -It must be soft and not from a tree that is too firm.

            -It must moist with bristles and thus able to clean.

            -It can’t be harmful to the body or create a bad smell.

-It doesn’t disintegrate whilst using it, thus being too soft is not befitting.

-Some of the Hanbalees said it must be from wood and even using the finger doesn’t suffice. However, Uthaymeen states that the Hadeeth of Alee where he saw the Prophet use his finger to clean his teeth in Wudhoo is Hasan and sufficient proof.

4-Some scholars have stated that the Miswaak (action of brushing) must be via a Siwaak (a twig used as a brush) and anything else will not be sufficient. ‘Uthaymeen states that the correct opinion is that anything used to clean the mouth is covered in its meaning and virtue. This is because it is reported that ‘Alee used to use his fingers to clean and brush his mouth whilst making Wudhoo.

5-The ruling on Miswaak is that it is Sunnah. Uthaymeen states that the evidence for this is the statement of the Prophet, “If I had not feared hardship for my Ummah, I would have made it obligatory for them with every Salaat.”

6-Siwaak is Sunnah and can be done at any time when there is a need, it Pleases the Lord and cleans the mouth which brings about benefit in both the Dunya and the Akhirah.

7-Miswaak during fasting has two views in the Madhab:

-Some of the Hanbalees said it is permitted to make Siwaak before Zawwaal because of the general evidences recommending it however after az-Zawwaal it becomes Makrooh. The reason being is because of the Hadeeth of ‘Alee, “If you are fasting then do not make Siwaak after Zawwaal.” Also, the fasting persons breathe is sweeter to Allaah than that of musk so by doing Siwaak one is changing the smell of ones breathe and this is disliked, just like it is disliked to wash the blood of the martyr before burial.

-The second view from the Hanbalees is that it is permitted unrestrictedly to make Miswaak whilst fasting due to the general evidences permitting it and the lack of real evidence making it Makrooh. As for the points mentioned by the other group of scholars then we respond to them by the following:

-The Hadeeth of Alee is weak, classified weak by Imaam al-Bayhaqee himself and he is the one that collected it.

-As for the analogy with the martyr then this is incorrect Qiyaas because the Ahadeeth clearly state that he will be raised whilst with his injuries, similar to the one who dies in Hajj will be raised performing the Talbiyyah.

-Also there is a contradiction, how can one say that before Zawwal they are not removing the smell of musk from their mouths? Some people have a foul smell even before Zawwal whilst others never have a bad smell. So attaching the ruling to Zawwal has no real basis.

-All in all, the Hadeeth of Aamir bin Rabee’ is clear, that he saw the prophet performing Siwaak whilst he was fasting an innumerable amount of times. Al-Bukhaaree said about this Hadeeth that it shows that there is no set number or limit in time i.e. it is permitted even after az-Zawwaal.

So al-Uthaymeen supports the view that it is permitted at all times for the fasting person.

8-Times when Miswaak is recommended:

            -During or after Wudhoo

-When the time for Salaat is near or when is about to begin. Note: some of the scholars understood the recommendation of doing it after Wudhoo to mean before Salaat, however it is more correct with Ibn al-‘Uthaymeen that the two are separate because one may perform Wudhoo and it would be recommended to make Siwaak and there may be a long period of time before he actually prays, in which case it would be recommended to perform Siwaak again.

-When waking up. Some said this refers to the morning, however with Ibn al-Uthaymeen it refers to all forms of sleep, whether it is sleep of the night or the day. As Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah stated, the Sharee’ah doesn’t differentiate between two things which are identical in ruling; in this case sleep or the day or the night.

-To change the smell of ones breathe. Ibn al-Uthaymeen says this is the most general one, whenever one needs to remove a bad smell, it is recommended for him to brush his teeth.

9-How to brush:

-some said teeth are brushed horizontally and your tongue is also brushed, vertically. Others said the opposite. Ibn al-Uthaymeen said one brushes according to ones needs and preference.

-It is also recommended that one begins brushing from the right side of his mouth.

-Some said one must use the left hand to brush, because the Sharee’ah encourages using the left hand to remove dirt from the body, this is the opinion of the Hanbalees. Others said it is an act which may be rewarded thus he should use the right hand. Some of the Maalikees said the two situations are different; so if one is brushing to remove dirt he uses the left hand but if he wishes to purify and refresh he should use the right hand. Ibn al-Uthaymeen said the matter is broad.

Baab al-Istinjaa' (Cleaning Oneself) Part 2

Follow @AhleDhikr

12- It is not permissible to expose ones ‘Awrah more than is necessary. ‘Uthaymeen explains this is for two reasons:

            -One should preserve their ‘Awrah.

-The restrooms are places from the Khubth and Khabaa’ith, so remaining in such a place with ones ‘Awrah exposed is not befitting.

13-It is not permissible to urinate or defecate in public places. ‘Uthaymeen explains it is Haraam to relieve oneself in:

-Public walkways.

-Shade that people benefit by [i.e. in hot countries where people rest and anything similar to it]

-Under trees that bear fruits. This is because trees are place where people can rest and take from its fruits. If a person relieves himself here, he would be harming the general public who want to benefit from the trees.

-In the Masjid or places of prayer.

Uthaymeen summarises, that it is not permissible to harm others and the above are some examples of this. So it is Haraam to relieve oneself in places which would cause others harm.

14-Uthaymeen states an exception  made by some scholars to the above; if a place is well-known to be a place of Haraam, such as people gathering to backbite, it is permissible for a person to relieve himself there so that such sittings do not take place. However, ‘Uthaymeen states that this is not befitting and in fact by doing this he may become subject to even more harm from such sinful people, perhaps they may even resort to violence. Furthermore, the Sharee’ah encourages the giving of advice if they see someone doing something wrong and not use such extreme measures.

15-There are three ways to clean yourself:

-With water alone and this is permissible, some even stated there is Ijmaa on this. Some of the Salaf however disliked using just water (must be accompanied with cleaning agents such as paper).

-Using just stones (or toilet paper) alone; this is permissible as the Hadeeth’s of Ibn Mas’ood and Abu Hurayrah [may Allaah be Pleased with them both] prove. Ibn  Taymiyyah said what is correct is that anything that removes impurity is sufficient. However some of the Hanbalees stated that if water/impurities have splashed and spread, then they must use water to clean themselves. ‘Uthaymeen says there is no real proof for such a stipulation, rather one can remove dirt by any means possible. However, the way we can reconcile those who state such a stipulation and those who don’t is by stating; if dirt has spread considerably then one should wash himself but if the dirt has spread slightly, then he must remove the dirt however he can.

-To use stones and then water, and this is more complete and there is no difference on this even though Ibn ‘Uthaymeen says he recalls no Hadeeth to prove that the Prophet used both in this sequence.

16-Conditions for Istijmaar (using stones or toilet paper) as stated by ‘Uthaymeen:

            -It must be pure and permissible in and of itself.

            -It must be able to remove the dirt.

-It cannot be something that other people benefit by. So the Prophet forbade using bones as it is the food for the Jinn, so food for humans and animals is even more appropriate not to use. Also, this would be a form of wasting and showing of ingratitude.

-Something that is respected or sanctified in the religion.

-It is mustahab to wipe with a minimum of three wipes, either three stones or papers or three sides but wiping or using an odd number.

17-Some of the Salaf said one must do Istinjaa whilst using stones or paper because if a person touches the dirt with his hand directly and then puts his hand in the pot to get more water, then the whole pot will become impure. Uthaymeen states this is a weak view because when one washes himself he also washes his hands in the process.

18-Everything that comes out of the private parts must be washed and invalidates Wudhoo. Uthaymeen inserts that some of the Hanbalees also stated that one must wash after passing wind, but this view is weak because impurities is connected to substances and not gas/air.

19-It is narrated from some of the Hanbalees that it is permitted to make Wudhoo even if one hasn’t performed Istinjaa yet, meaning it is permissible to make Wudhoo even if one is still unclean. However, the other view of the Hanbalees is stronger. Uthaymeen explains that one must clean themselves and then perform Wudhoo because the Prophet told ‘Alee to clean himself and then perform Wudhoo [reported by an-Nasa’ee and others]. Also the action of the Prophet is also proof. However, if there is a  valid excuse then we do not nullify the Wudhoo of a person because he forgot to clean himself as it is reported in Bukhaaree that the Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] once performed Wudhoo then sprinkled water over his private parts. However, the Hadeeth of ‘Alee shows his usual practice.

End of chapter of Istinjaa’.

Chapter: Rudd ‘ala al-Jahmiyyah: Their Usool and Their Origins (Part 2)

Follow @AhleDhikr

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…

Economic Warfare Against The Owner of The Dominion

Follow @AhleDhikr

Shaykh Sa’ood bin Ibraaheem ash-Shuraym, Imaam and Khateeb of Masjid al-Haram in Makkah, tweeted:

How much have the enemies of the religion spent from their wealth and efforts in order to combat the religion? From the time of Nooh [Peace be upon him] until now. Their wealth and their efforts have all been wasted but the religion of Allaah has remained; “He it is Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth (Islamic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists and disbelievers) hate it.” [61:9]

كم أنفق أعداء الدين من أموال وأنفس لحربه من زمن نوح إلى يومنا هذا،فنَت أنفسهم وأموالهم ودين الله باق(ليظهره على الدين كله ولو كره المشركون(

@saudalshureem 20/1/1437 - 2/11/2015

Baab al-Istinjaa' (Cleaning Oneself) Part 1

Follow @AhleDhikr

1-Linguistically: it means to cut

Technically: it maens to clean anything that comes out of the two exits.

Benefit: There is a difference between Musatahab and Sunnah, Sunnah is authentically attributed to the Prophet whereas Mustahab may not be but something recommended by a Mujtahid.

2-Meaning of the Hadeeth of entering the restroom or when intending to remove waste (if in an open area):

Khubthee خُبْث (Sukoon) or Khubuthee (Dham) خَبُثَ.

Sukoon means all evils

Dham means the one who does the evil, masculine, but the former is more correct as stated by al-Khattabee in Ma’alim as-Sunnan.

3-It is Sunnah to say Ghufraanaka غفرانك when leaving the rest area: the Hikmah behind this is either because one asks for Allaah’s pardon for not worshipping him whilst being in the bathroom or one asks for ease when exiting in the Dunyah as asking for Maghrifah is asking for concealment and safety from punishment.

4-It is Mustahab to defecate or urinate in a place or in a manner that will not create splashes, in order to remove any path to Waswasa.

5-It is Makrooh not to lift ones clothes when they leave the place of excretion except if thet fear their Awrah being exposed in which case it would be Haram.

6-The Arabs used to urinate whilst standing if there was a need, otherwise sitting down is better. Therefore, it is permissible to urinate whilst standing (for men) if there is a need.

7-The Prophet didn’t reply to the Salaam of the one who greeted him whilst he was reliving himself. Some of the scholars took this to mean that it is Haraam to talk whilst in the rest area. However, Uthaymeen inserts that it is most likely to be Makrooh if there is a need, otherwise it is Haraam; as he did reply but he delayed the response because of the situation. Also, delaying a response doesn’t mean that the Prophet left an obligatory action. Stating that it is Haraam to talk unnecessarily is the view of Ahmad and many others from the Salaf, as was recorded by Ibn Muflih in an-Nukat. However ‘Uthaymeen combines both views of Makrooh (if there is a need) and Haraam (if there is no need).

8-It is Haraam to relieve oneself in an hole or a pit that is found in open land, unless there is a dire need to do so, because of the Hadeeth of the Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] were he stated that these are the dwellings of the Jinn.

9-It is disliked to touch your private parts with your right hand; some said this is specific for the time when one is relieving themselves because it may spread uncleanliness. Others stated that if this is the case when one touches his private parts then in normal situations touching ones with ones right hand is even more disliked. ‘Uthaymeen stated that whatever the case, one should avoid it in both cases, it is Makrooh as one is required to give honour to the right hand.

10-The Prophet forbade (Haraam) us to face the Qiblah or turn out back to it, so we face the east or the west. In this is proof that facing the sun or the moon is not disliked, as some of the Hanbalees have stated.

11-It is permissible, if there is a need, to face the Qiblah if there is a barrier or if one is in a building. Otherwise it is Makrooh. Some of the scholars it is Haraam irrespective of whether they are in the open or concealed in a building for two reasons:

            -The Prophet forbade us, even if he did it, we take prohibitions before permissibility.

            -The actions of the Prophet are never given precedence to his sayings.

Response from Uthaymeen: the action of the Prophet here describes the statement, and if we can combine both then we must do so, not leaving one Hadith abandoned. 

Chapter: Rudd ‘ala al-Jahmiyyah: Their Usool and Their Origins

Follow @AhleDhikr

A Summary of their Beliefs and Background

-They wavered in their ‘Aqeedah and debated in theories and thus deviated and followed the Mutashaabih (that which was unclear to them in the Quraan).

From them are the following:

-The first argument they engaged in was in relation to the five senses of the body. They argued we have five senses and feelings, thus everything that exists must be confirmed by our senses and feelings. This was the belief of the pagans of India called the Sumaaniyyah.

Therefore, if we can’t feel Allaah then He can’t really exist. Because of this, Jahm bin Safwaan actually left al-Islaam for forty days, not praying or believing.

Response:

The Christians had the same problem; they believed that ‘Esaa was from the very essence of Allaah and if we cant see or feel Allaah then we cant affirm his existence. Furthermore, just because we cant see or physically feel something, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exit, such as the soul, we have been told in the Quraan that we cannot perceive the soul in its entirety, but we know it exists (cf: 17:85).

Although he repented, he still held on to the philosophy that Allaah needs to be affirmed in order to exist, which led to many deviant ideas in his ‘Aqeedah.

From them are the following:

-Allaah, the Most High, has no Sifaat and he doesn’t act as He Pleased (Sifaat al-Ikhtiyaariyyah). If he did, it would mean he is Muhdath – meaning he was not able to do the action before, thus has done something new. They also argued that everything has a cause and effect and Allah cant have a cause.

-The Usl of the Jahmiyyah are based on three Ayaat and the false understandings applied to them:

“There is nothing like unto Him” (42:11)

“No vision can grasp Him, but His Grasp is over all vision” (6:103)

“It is He (Allah) Who is the only Ilah (God to be worshipped) in the heaven and the only Ilah (God to be worshipped) on the earth” (43:84)

All of these Ayaat have been used to prove with them that Allah is everywhere but He can’t be seen or felt in our senses.

Response:

We say this is a mistake, as there is difference in trying to sense the creation and trying to sense the creator. Allaah cannot be sensed physically and trying to do so would mean we compare him to the creation. 

To be continued...