Kurdish disaster

[ذو الفقار]

false premise? Temporal events are created by God, something originating in time is created

All temporal events are made to occur by God, but not all of them are necessarily created. God has many attributes, the act of creating is only one of them. You conflate everyone of God's actions as being created. So when God decides to speak something, you say that action is created, when God does any action, you say that action is created. It seems God has to create everything He does. Its as though you believe God is some frozen statue, anytime He wants to do something, He has to create that action?

You simply reject the reality of the occurrence of Hawaadith (events) in God's Essence because of your theology that whatever is not devoid of Hawaadith is itself Haadith. But we reject that very premise your people created in order to prove the existence of God to the atheist philosophers.

Lol dude what? Causal means it's created, created means caused by creation. Oh my gosh ...you're just obfuscating.

I corrected this mistake in the entry after that. I don't deny that everything that is created was caused to be due to the act of creation. I meant to say that not everything that is caused to occur is necessarily a creation.

And that's wrong because those attributes relate to his treatment of the makhlouq, they're practical attributes or relational attributes. This would also imply co-eternality of created beings.

So you are saying God created mercy for Himself so he could be merciful to His creation, since His being merciful cannot be so without the presence of something else with which to relate His mercy to?

That doesn't even make sense in the case of a human let alone God. A human being does have to behave "mercifully" in relation to another object in order to be described as merciful. The attribute of mercy has to pre-exist in his heart. Even if there is no external object upon which to manifest his attribute, he still possesses the attribute in His self.

Since you believe God is eternal without beginning, you are saying He could not be described as "Merciful" before the creation through which to express His Mercy, only then He became Merciful.

Even the classical Mu'tazilite affirmed that God is described as being Knowing (Aalim), Living (Hayy), and Able (Qadir) from eternity. They had to admit that without these most basic of basic Attributes He could not have done anything, for example, He could not have created the creation.

So you think things can happen without Allah(swt) causing it?

No, I am saying that not everything Allah causes to happen is an example of creation. Allah's own Personal Actions are uncreated.

[maneatinglizard]

All temporal events are made to occur by God, but not all of them are necessarily created. God has many attributes, the act of creating is only one of them. You conflate everyone of God's actions as being created. So when God decides to speak something, you say that action is created, when God does any action, you say that action is created. It seems God has to create everything He does. Its as though you believe God is some frozen statue, anytime He wants to do something, He has to create that action?

You simply reject the reality of the occurrence of Hawaadith (events) in God's Essence because of your theology that whatever is not devoid of Hawaadith is itself Haadith. But we reject that very premise your people created in order to prove the existence of God to the atheist philosophers.




I corrected this mistake in the entry after that. I don't deny that everything that is created was caused to be due to the act of creation. I meant to say that not everything that is caused to occur is necessarily a creation.



So you are saying God created mercy for Himself so he could be merciful to His creation, since His being merciful cannot be so without the presence of something else with which to relate His mercy to?

That doesn't even make sense in the case of a human let alone God. A human being does have to behave "mercifully" in relation to another object in order to be described as merciful. The attribute of mercy has to pre-exist in his heart. Even if there is no external object upon which to manifest his attribute, he still possesses the attribute in His self.

Since you believe God is eternal without beginning, you are saying He could not be described as "Merciful" before the creation through which to express His Mercy, only then He became Merciful.

Even the classical Mu'tazilite affirmed that God is described as being Knowing (Aalim), Living (Hayy), and Able (Qadir) from eternity. They had to admit that without these most basic of basic Attributes He could not have done anything, for example, He could not have created the creation.



No, I am saying that not everything Allah causes to happen is an example of creation. Allah's own Personal Actions are uncreated.

I don't know what belief system you have anymore, but what you're espousing isn't Sunni belief. As far as I know, it's not even Qadiani belief. Muhdath = Makhlooq according to Ahlus-Sunnah, which is why Imam Ahmad said:

من قال: القرآن محدث، فهو كافر

سير أعلام النبلاء

Your beliefs are a perverted blend of Qadianism, Shi'ism, and Wahabism. As I said when you first joined this forum, you should sit down with a scholar and learn proper Islam before trying to propagate it to others.

false premise? Temporal events are created by God, something originating in time is created

Makhlouq just means created, pretty straight forward. Man, so many holes in orthodoxy, you could make Swiss Cheese.

You've misrepresented orthodox Islamic beliefs a lot in this thread, and I haven't had the time to point it all out, but since I'm responding to Dhul-Fiqar anyway, I'll do it here.

Only Wahabis believe that Muhdath is not the same as Makhlooq. Among Ahlus-Sunnah kalam scholars (i.e. Asharis and Maturidis), they are the same, and most Athari scholars simply didn't delve into the issue (though their Imam didn't differentiate between the two, judging from my quote above).

Moreover, you're debating a confused Qadiani, so I don't even know why you're bringing up orthodoxy at all. You're not orthodox by your own admission, and he clearly isn't from the beliefs he's espoused, so the debate between the two of you is one between two heterodox individuals.

[maneatinglizard]

*Edit: Correction

I meant to say that if something is causal it is created is a false premise

Obviously, everything that is created is causal (having a cause), but the opposite is not true from our orthodox perspective, i.e., that everything which is causal is necessarily created.

Yes it is lol. If something can come into existence without being created, then how do you know anything was created? Maybe the entire universe just came into existence. Even if you say there has to be a cause, you have no way to prove that the cause has to be God. Maybe the universe was caused by Krishna or something.

And stop associating yourself with orthodoxy. Maybe you should first accept that Ghulam Ahmad was neither a prophet, nor a reincarnation or buruz of any prophet before him, and instead he was a dirty liar who pretended to be a prophet so that he could convince others to not fight against his British masters. Maybe after you do that Muslims might consider you orthodox.

[ذو الفقار]

I don't know what belief system you have anymore, but what you're espousing isn't Sunni belief. As far as I know, it's not even Qadiani belief. Muhdath = Makhlooq according to Ahlus-Sunnah, which is why Imam Ahmad said:

Muhdath doesn't necessarily equal makhlooq.

First of all, the Qur'an itself refers to itself as Muhdath and Hadeeth:

And Allaah has called the Mighty Qur'an "hadeeth", and He said: "Allaah has sent down the best statement (hadeeth)" (Az-Zumar 39:23). And He said: "And who is truer in statement (hadeeth) than Allaah?" (An-Nisa 4:87). And He said: "Comes not unto them an admonition (dhikr) from their Lord as a recent revelation (Muhdath)..." (Al-Anbiya 21:2).

So this academic article explains the context in which Imam Ahmad's statement was made. It is very informative, I suggest you read it entirely to understand what the true orthodox position is on this issue:

Did the Salaf Believe 'The Qur'an Came into Existence From Non-Existence' - Confuting the Doubt of the Jahmite Ash'aris And an Illustration of Their Ignorance and Deception Regarding 'Muhdath', 'Haadith', 'Hudooth' and Allaah's Actions Tied To His Wi

And some used the word "Muhdath" which occurs in the verse in Surah al-Anbiyaa (21:2) in reference to this particular meaning (i.e. Allaah's speech is tied to His will, and He speaks whenever He wills). However Imaam Ahmad did not like that - as the Jahmites were using this verse and the word "Muhdath" to argue that the Qur'an (that we have which we memorize, recite and hear) is created. And for this reason Imaam Ahmad spoke against Daawud al-Asbahani who had this saying. And this saying also contains an ambiguity that allows for it to be said that Allaah became "one who speaks" (mutakallim) after not being "one who speaks" (mutakallim) - which is incorrect, since it implies Allaah acquired the attribute after not having it. Rather Allaah has always been "one who speaks", and in addition to that Allaah speaks when He wills, however He wills, whenever He wills and this is the creed of the Salaf. So because the Jahmites were using this verse that contains the word "Muhdath" to argue that the Qur'an is created and also because this word contains an ambiguity that allows for it to be said that Allaah became "one who speaks" (mutakallim) after not being "one who speaks" (mutakallim) Imaam Ahmad, and others spoke against its use, and it particular they scorned Dawud adh-Dhaahiree for using it.

Now without getting bogged down in the discussion over terminology and the different meanings of the term Muhdath depending on what context the term is used (Arabic linguistic use vs. use as a philosophical term), I would say concentrate on the gist of the matter. What do we orthodox Muslims believe?

We believe that Allah spoke to His various Prophets in actuality. For example, when He spoke to Moses, He was not speaking to Moses before that event and was not speaking to Moses immediately after that event. The act of speaking to Moses was a particular event. Similarly, His speaking of the Quraan. This is what is called Haadith (event). We don't believe the Quraan is co-eternal with God as Iblis Efreetzai wrongly alleged.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[SIZE="3"][FONT="HardTimesW01-Roman"]
All temporal events are made to occur by God, but not all of them are necessarily created.

That would mean that something other than God is creating temporality ....you sure you want to go there Mr. Orthodox? lol

You simply reject the reality of the occurrence of Hawaadith (events) in God's Essence because of your theology that whatever is not devoid of Hawaadith is itself Haadith. But we reject that very premise your people created in order

Which means you are suggesting that the dhat can be influenced by time ......eeek, you're making tajassum of God now. .......holy crap lol

I corrected this mistake in the entry after that. I don't deny that everything that is created was caused to be due to the act of creation. I meant to say that not everything that is caused to occur is necessarily a creation.

You're tripping on your own words. "Everything that is caused to occur is not necessarily a creation". ...so how would it exist if it wasn't created?

So you are saying God created mercy for Himself so he could be merciful to His creation, since His being merciful cannot be so without the presence of something else with which to relate His mercy to?

No the contrary, quality like Mercy are not 'asas, they're related to creations. there was no mercy until there were created beings.

The attribute of mercy has to pre-exist in his heart. Even if there is no external object upon which to manifest his attribute, he still possesses the attribute in His self.

God is not human, he's eternal, humans are temporal so preexisting inside a human is temporal.

Since you believe God is eternal without beginning, you are saying He could not be described as "Merciful" before the creation through which to express His Mercy, only then He became Merciful.

Uh not exactly, His dhat produced the attribute of mercy.

Even the classical Mu'tazilite affirmed that God is described as being Knowing (Aalim), Living (Hayy), and Able (Qadir) from eternity. They had to admit that without these most basic of basic Attributes He could not have done anything, for example, He could not have created the creation.

Right, but those are his essential attributes, they're intrinsic.

No, I am saying that not everything Allah causes to happen is an example of creation. Allah's own Personal Actions are uncreated.

[/QUOTE]

Allah(swt)'s personal actions are not temporal events.

[maneatinglizard]

Muhdath doesn't necessarily equal makhlooq.

First of all, the Qur'an itself refers to itself as Muhdath and Hadeeth:

And Allaah has called the Mighty Qur'an "hadeeth", and He said: "Allaah has sent down the best statement (hadeeth)" (Az-Zumar 39:23). And He said: "And who is truer in statement (hadeeth) than Allaah?" (An-Nisa 4:87). And He said: "Comes not unto them an admonition (dhikr) from their Lord as a recent revelation (Muhdath)..." (Al-Anbiya 21:2).

So this academic article explains the context in which Imam Ahmad's statement was made. It is very informative, I suggest you read it entirely to understand what the true orthodox position is on this issue:

Did the Salaf Believe 'The Qur'an Came into Existence From Non-Existence' - Confuting the Doubt of the Jahmite Ash'aris And an Illustration of Their Ignorance and Deception Regarding 'Muhdath', 'Haadith', 'Hudooth' and Allaah's Actions Tied To His Wi



Now without getting bogged down in the discussion over terminology and the different meanings of the term Muhdath depending on what context the term is used (Arabic linguistic use vs. use as a philosophical term), I would say concentrate on the gist of the matter. What do we orthodox Muslims believe?

We believe that Allah spoke to His various Prophets in actuality. For example, when He spoke to Moses, He was not speaking to Moses before that event and was not speaking to Moses immediately after that event. The act of speaking to Moses was a particular event. Similarly, His speaking of the Quraan. This is what is called Haadith (event). We don't believe the Quraan is co-eternal with God as Iblis Efreetzai wrongly alleged.

You ignoramus, you're citing polemics from the Madkhalis as an "academic article." The Madkhalis are the most extreme Salafis in their love for the Saudis and hate for the Muslims. They're known in particular for working with various groups of kuffar to harm Muslims. Then again, considering your love for Ghulam Ahmad, that's probably a positive to you. On the other hand, they consider you a grave-worshiping mushrik.

As for the content of it, it's typical Salafi nonsense that desperately seeks to reinterpret the statements of the Salaf to fit with their degenerate and anthropomorphic belief. It's very clear that the Salaf did not approve of the Quran being referred to as Muhdath. There are even more clear statements than the one I quoted.

Your parents should ban you from using the internet. I thought the mods should ban you from here, but that's not enough. It's pretty clear you spend all day wasting your time reading about complex things when you lack basic knowledge of Islam. You're so confused you quote Qadianis one day, and Madkhalis the next. One day you talk about Sufism, the next you cite people who consider Sufis mushriks. You claim to be an ex-Qadiani Mamati Deobandi, but harp on Deobandi Akabireen while effusing praise for Ghulam Ahmad. You claim that you're not a Pakistani/Indic nationalist, but then bash Pashtuns every opportunity you get, and get excited when another Indic joins this forum, hoping you can outnumber us on our forum.

You need a serious break from the internet before you become the next Karachi. And for the record, Mamati Deobandis are Maturidi/Ashari in aqeeda, so you should really just drop the claim to being one. You're not a Mamati, you're confused.

[ذو الفقار]

Yes it is lol. If something can come into existence without being created, then how do you know anything was created?

I didn't deny that anything can come into existence independent of Allah's Will.

Maybe the entire universe just came into existence. Even if you say there has to be a cause, you have no way to prove that the cause has to be God. Maybe the universe was caused by Krishna or something.

Whatever is caused to occur or come into existence is because of Allah's Will. That is our fundamental belief.

And stop associating yourself with orthodoxy. Maybe you should first accept that Ghulam Ahmad was neither a prophet, nor a reincarnation or buruz of any prophet before him, and instead he was a dirty liar who pretended to be a prophet so that he could convince others to not fight against his British masters. Maybe after you do that Muslims might consider you orthodox.

Off-topic diversion.

[ذو الفقار]

You ignoramus, you're citing polemics from the Madkhalis as an "academic article." The Madkhalis are the most extreme Salafis in their love for the Saudis and hate for the Muslims. They're known in particular for working with various groups of kuffar to harm Muslims. Then again, considering your love for Ghulam Ahmad, that's probably a positive to you. On the other hand, they consider you a grave-worshiping mushrik.

Immaterial points as usual. How am I a grave-worshiper? We Panjpiris are the most strict monotheists. Even the Salafis are not as uncompromising on Tawhid as we are. Many Salafis say it is alright to wear amulets that contain verses of Quraan for protection (Ta'widh). They say that the "Salaf" did so.

That is a fundamental point of divergence between us and Salafis. For us the principles of Tawhid and Iman can never be superseded by some isolated Hadith or the practice of some of the "Salaf". The Salafis, however, will believe and practice anything as long as the Sanad is technically sound. They don't give a second thought as to whether or not the content of that text is contravening the established principles of Tawhid and Iman as clearly laid down in the Quraan and Sunna.

As for the content of it, it's typical Salafi nonsense that desperately seeks to reinterpret the statements of the Salaf to fit with their degenerate and anthropomorphic belief. It's very clear that the Salaf did not approve of the Quran being referred to as Muhdath. There are even more clear statements than the one I quoted.

And what is your response to the Ayaat of the Quraan itself which described it as Muhdath and Hadeeth?

As least the Mu'tazilite position is more tenable than yours. They too say the Qur'aan is muhdath but with the meaning of makhlooq. You are outright denying the statements in Quraan which describe the Revelation as Muhdath and Hadeeth. Imam Ahmad's statement was made in the context of refuting the Mu'tazilite and Jahmite belief that the Quraan is created, and those sects used the term "Muhdath" with the meaning of Makhlooq, just as Iblis efreetzai is doing right before your eyes.

I say the Mu'tazilites are much more tenable than you. They are admitting that the Quraan was revealed as an event in time. They don't say like you that the Quraan is "Kalaam Nafsee".

You're so confused you quote Qadianis one day, and Madkhalis the next. One day you talk about Sufism, the next you cite people who consider Sufis mushriks. You claim to be an ex-Qadiani Mamati Deobandi, but harp on Deobandi Akabireen while effusing praise for Ghulam Ahmad.

I have made it repeatedly clear that I am not a Qadiani, nor do I believe in Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to be any messiah or prophet. What more do you want from me? Why do you keep on harping about this Qadiani thing?

I am a Muslim first and foremost. I believe in the fundamentals of Islam, the Six Articles of Faith. I believe in all of the essential creed of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. To me, Sufism is not in the field of creed or theology, it is another dimension of Islam. I reject popular and corrupt forms of Sufism which are about practicing innovations and praying to the deceased, venerating their tombs. I take inspiration from the early form of Sufism which was compliant with the Shari'a and devoid of innovative practices and ideas.

In the theology of God's Names and Attributes, I am more or less in the Athari camp, based on my independent research. You should know that taqleed is haram in Aqa'id.

I never claimed to be a Deobandi. I repeatedly tell my Mamati/Panjpiri friends to completely disassociate from Deobandism. The writings and statements of the Deobandi "elders" are a liability there is no use in tying ourselves to them. I consider myself as part of the tradition/silsila or school of thought that emerged before Deoband, that is, the school of Shah Waliullah, and the revivalist movement of Shah Ismail and Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi.

You claim that you're not a Pakistani/Indic nationalist, but then bash Pashtuns every opportunity you get, and get excited when another Indic joins this forum, hoping you can outnumber us on our forum.

I don't bash Pashtuns, but I am against Pashtun nationalism. If I was a Pakistani or Indic nationalist, I would not criticize either Pakistan or "Indic/Desi" culture. I am a fierce critic of both. That is why I was recently banned from the Pakistan Defense forum and then became active on this forum instead.

And for the record, Mamati Deobandis are Maturidi/Ashari in aqeeda, so you should really just drop the claim to being one. You're not a Mamati, you're confused.

This Maturidi vs Ashari vs Athari is really a medieval thing of the past. Some people have simply revived these old and obscure debates for purely academic interests. As long as you believe in the fundamentals of Islam that's all that matters.

The real issue of our time is addressing the problem of Shirk (grave worship in particular). This is what the "Panjpiri/Mamati" dawa focuses on. It's not about making people Maturidis or Hanafis, it is focusing on ridding the folk practices that reek of Shirk in South Asia particularly.

This was also the Da'wa of the Prophets. They were all about preaching against the practical and visible form of Shirk in society, idol worship and grave worship. Their Da'wa wasn't focused on these speculative, philosophical and abstract issues that we are debating purely out of academic interest here on this thread.

[ذو الفقار]

Which means you are suggesting that the dhat can be influenced by time ......eeek, you're making tajassum of God now. .......holy crap lol

As I asked you in the beginning, you need to define Time. What is time?

I subscribe to the Hadith Qudsi:

Allah said, 'The son of Adam abuses me for he abuses Time though I am Time: in My Hand is the command, and I cause the alternation of day and night.'

For me, time isn't some independent reality or phenomenon. It is merely the duration of the alternation and sequence of events that are caused by God. When I say that Hawaadith (occurrences) in the Essence of God, it means God does actions with sequence. For example, it is said that God will come on Judgment Day extremely wrathful, in a state of Anger that He was never in before and will never again be in thereafter. God created the Heavens and Earth in Six Days, then He ascended upon the Throne in the period known as "Sabbath" (as Jews and Christians say God created the cosmos in six days then rested on the seventh day). It means God did an action, then ceased performing that action once the work was completed. This is our simple and straightforward understanding of God as a real Person, rooted in our Semitic/Yahwist theology, stripped of the abstractions and overly philosophical mental exercises that were introduced into our theology from corrosive Hellenic influence.

God is not human, he's eternal, humans are temporal so preexisting inside a human is temporal.

Red herring. We are discussing your premise that attributes like Mercy are solely relational. If the attribute of Mercy in a human being is not dependent on being relational to an external object, why is it necessary for God's attribute of Mercy to be relational, and that He cannot be described as Merciful from eternity?

Right, but those are his essential attributes, they're intrinsic.

Here's where you have trapped yourself in your own net. You have to explain why certain attributes are intrinsic and others are relational. What is the basis for this distinction. The Quran obviously makes no such distinction.

In fact, why not take your rationalism to the logical conclusion and say that God being described with the attribute of knowledge must be relational too? What is God knowledgable of before the existence of any creation? Knowledge is relative to knowing something. If there is no data or information as of yet, what are you are knowing?

Do you believe God knew everything from eternity? That means the creation existed in the knowledge of God, meaning, the knowledge of the creation, of you and me, existed co-eternally with God.

God is not alone, He exists alongside His knowledge of everything that would happen in the future? Wasn't that your original (false) charge against the orthodox, that we (allegedly) believe God is co-eternal with the Quraan?

Allah(swt)'s personal actions are not temporal events.

Illogical and irrational. When God created the world (a personal action) that wasn't a temporal event?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Allah said, 'The son of Adam abuses me for he abuses Time though I am Time: in My Hand is the command, and I cause the alternation of day and night.'

You're misunderstanding the allegory here. Furthermore it doesn't have to do with what you're talking about exactly.

It is merely the duration of the alternation and sequence of events that are caused by God. When I say that Hawaadith (occurrences) in the Essence of God, it means God does actions with sequence.

That means God would be bound by causal events. which suggests he has a body and is spatial. lol


Red herring. We are discussing your premise that attributes like Mercy are solely relational.

If the attribute of Mercy in a human being is not dependent on being relational to an external object,

why is it necessary for God's attribute of Mercy to be relational, and that He cannot be described as Merciful from eternity?

That's just how things are.

Here's where you have trapped yourself in your own net. You have to explain why certain attributes are intrinsic and others are relational. What is the basis for this distinction. The Quran obviously makes no such distinction.

No trap at all, in fact I deliberately lead you down this road and because you're Orthodox, you're naive enough to follow me, now watch as I swallow your weak interpretations whole and spit them out.

In fact, why not take your rationalism to the logical conclusion and say that God being described with the attribute of knowledge must be relational too? What is God knowledgable of before the existence of any creation? Knowledge is relative to knowing something. If there is no data or information as of yet, what are you are knowing?

Great, you're exactly where I want you. Ah see, Knowledge is information, any and all information possible or impossible is contained in the dhat. where as mercy is an expression and being merciful is to enact that expression. Knowledge is just possessing information, that information is there irregardless of whether it is expressed or not. Mercy is existential that mercy comes into existence once it is expressed.

You're welcome ...by the way, I'm actually forcing you to teeter on the Mu'tazilah fringe, becareful

Do you believe God knew everything from eternity? That means the creation existed in the knowledge of God, meaning, the knowledge of the creation, of you and me, existed co-eternally with God.

Allah is not temporal, when Allah says "he is time" it doesn't mean you count him like a sequence of events, it's only in relation to causal beings do we experience things in "sequence" In reality All space, all time are happening all at once in the Dhat.

The knowledge of things are not entities, they're abstractions. they are thoughts in God's mind, we are all just thoughts in God's mind. This actually shows you never actually had mystic suluk because Kulli shay halikun illah wajhu (Dhat) and also law wajud illa Hu.

God is not alone, He exists alongside His knowledge of everything that would happen in the future? Wasn't that your original (false) charge against the orthodox, that we (allegedly) believe God is co-eternal with the Quraan?

That means you deny his dhat. lol .....dude ....this is like the philosophical equivalent of a suicide bomb, you destroyed yourself here . God's knowledge is his consciousness which is him, this is what it means to be essential, they're aspects of his dhat.

oh boy

Illogical and irrational. When God created the world (a personal action) that wasn't a temporal event?]

Not at all, just your mullahs tend to brainwash the jahleen into shallow low level of thinking. All events are simultaneous to Allah(swt), however not coeternal

[ذو الفقار]

That means God would be bound by causal events. which suggests he has a body and is spatial. lol

Why does it suggest that?

God is Who He is. Your fallacy and error is in conceiving of Him in such philosophical terms you end up denying His Immanence. Is God necessarily going to equal your conception of Him based on the outdated tools and models associated with Hellenic thinking? That's quite wishful thinking.

That's just how things are.

Not a satisfactory answer.

Great, you're exactly where I want you. Ah see, Knowledge is information, any and all information possible or impossible is contained in the dhat. where as mercy is an expression and being merciful is to enact that expression. Knowledge is just possessing information, that information is there irregardless of whether it is expressed or not. Mercy is existential that mercy comes into existence once it is expressed.

Merciful is a characteristic to describe the nature of someone. It is not bound to be relational or "expressed". You have confessed the paradox of your theology aimed at "purifying" God from "relational" attributes i.e. God possessing information of everything possible and impossible within His Essence. You have also redefined information and knowledge and say someone can have knowledge of that which doesn't even exist or isn't even possible.

You have also implied that such information is uncreated and therefore divine. Is the information itself synonymous with God's Essence? Logically it cannot be so. God Himself is not the information, He is the One who knows the information. So the information is distinct from God's Essence. You have ensnared yourself in the same trap you were trying to catch us (orthodox) with. You claimed we are guilty of Shirk for believing God's Essence and His Attributes are co-eternal.

You say Mercy comes into existence once it is expressed. Knowledge too is expressed by simply knowing. So knowledge is co-eternal with God's Essence.

Allah is not temporal, when Allah says "he is time" it doesn't mean you count him like a sequence of events, it's only in relation to causal beings do we experience things in "sequence" In reality All space, all time are happening all at once in the Dhat.

You say God is not experiencing time and exists outside the realm of time. This is based on the conclusions of your philosophers and theologians on what God must be. In other words, you are imposing your own thought-out conception of God onto Him, but our approach is to conceive of God as how He describes Himself. Since God is Himself beyond our capability to understand Him, that is part of Him being Transcendent, how can you be so sure about your statement that "all space, all time are happening all at once in [His] Dhat"?

That is the dilemma, you say that your rationality can understand God better than us who simply go by divine Revelation. But the paradox is you yourselves admit that our rationality is limited and cannot truly understand the reality of God who is so above and beyond us, in terms of His Dhat.

The knowledge of things are not entities, they're abstractions. they are thoughts in God's mind, we are all just thoughts in God's mind. This actually shows you never actually had mystic suluk because Kulli shay halikun illah wajhu (Dhat) and also law wajud illa Hu.

Those who say the Quran exists co-eternally with God say the Quran exist as an abstraction too. They aren't talking about the physical book composed of paper and ink. This is the Ashari doctrine of "Kalam Nafsi", you have inadvertently validated that doctrine which you originally contended was an example of polytheism.

Now you are jumping to "La Wujud illa Huwa" and once again changing the story. Now you are saying nothing has a real existence and everything is an abstraction to save your theology that Hawaadith don't occur in the Essence of God. So you also just repudiated the entire Mu'tazilite narrative. You went from arguing that creation is temporal but God does not experience temporal to denying anything even has a real existence but everything is just an abstraction in God's mind and nothing is actually happening. You have no stability or consistency in your thought.

God's knowledge is his consciousness which is him, this is what it means to be essential, they're aspects of his dhat.

I thought knowledge is information? Now knowledge is consciousness? You can never explain logically how information, consciousness or whatever else is synonymous with God Himself. You are arguing with language itself. Or you are denying God is a real Person and saying God is just an abstraction.

You saying God = knowledge = information = consciousness

In which case you have actually become an atheist. Atheism is denying God as a person, but if you simply redefine the word God to mean something else, like toaster or microwave, no atheist will disagree with you that God exists apart from saying why are you playing around with language?

All events are simultaneous to Allah(swt), however not coeternal

Here's another paradox. Either you have to deny that God Himself is "eternal" or deny that God experiences all events simultaneously without sequence. It logically cannot be both. If God is eternal but experiencing all events simultaneously, then logically all those events are likewise coeternal with Him. And if nothing is coeternal with God, then logically He cannot be experiencing them simultaneously.

[ذو الفقار]

we are all just thoughts in God's mind. This actually shows you never actually had mystic suluk because Kulli shay halikun illah wajhu (Dhat) and also law wajud illa Hu.

Mr. Iblis here has previously confessed that a significant pitfall of classical Mu’tazila was their separation from mysticism and mystic ideas. But I find it quite interesting he is now trying to seek shelter in a mystic concept La Wujud illa Allah to validate the theology of Mu’tazilites that Hawaadith (events) do not take place in God’s Essence.
By arguing that “we are all just thoughts in God’s mind”, therefore having no real existence of our own, he has conveniently forgotten the classic Mu’tazilite doctrine that man is the creator of his own actions, independent of God’s will, power and control. These two radically polarized notions simply cannot be reconciled. Adl (justice) is one of the definitive five principles of the classic Mu’tazila. If man has no real existence as per La Wujud illa Allah, then it follows he has no real, independent control over his own actions, let alone being possessed with will and power, independent of God, to create his own deeds. If Mr. Iblis says that man creates his own deeds but subject to God’s will and power, then he has denied the principle of “justice” as conceived by the classic Mu’tazila, whose purpose is to say that man cannot be held accountable for his deeds if they are not the result of his (man’s) independent creative power.

Now coming to the idea of La Wujud illa Allah, this idea, as conceptualized by Ghazzali and other mystic thinkers, is not meant to be an argument against the occurrence of Hawaadith within God’s Essence. It is meant to express the idea that nothing is independent of God, or free of his power and control, precisely an intellectual assault against the Mu’tazilite heresy concerning man being the independent creator of his own actions.

[ذو الفقار]

The classic Mu’tazila confessed that God is described with the many Names we come to know of from the divinely-revealed Texts. They have no problem in affirming that Allah is Ar-Rahmaan and Ar-Raheem, for example, and that these are among God’s Names from eternity. But they claim that all of God’s Names are synonymous and have absolutely no distinction of meaning among them, thus nullifying the rationale behind having multiple Names. So they say Allah is Ar-Rahmaan (‘the Most Merciful’), and this is His Name from eternity, but without the attribute of Rahma (‘Mercy’). They say Allah is As-Samee’ and Al-Baseer (‘the Hearing’ and ‘the Seeing’) but without the attributes of Sama’ and Basr (‘hearing’ and ‘seeing’). It’s not too difficult to realize how absurd that is. They want to reject the attributes that are necessarily derived from the meaning of the Names of God, because such attributes will necessitate Hawaadith within the Essence of God. One can clearly see the games they are playing because of this speculative theology of theirs, but how can anyone think that such ideas are in fact the objective truth about God?

[UnknownUser]

Zoroastrianism will never become the dominant religion of the region again. The religion had already massively deviated away from its original teachings at the time of Rasulullah (salla Allahu alayhi wa salam), becoming some weird elitist cult that promoted incest as the greatest deed a man could commit.

It's funny that anyone would convert to Zoroastrianism as a way of "returning to the ways of their ancestors" when by most accounts the Zoroastrian elite had become oppressive tyrants by the end of the Sassanid era. Their ancestors were probably ecstatic to be able to leave Zoroastrianism.

it's probably a move to become independent/separated from Arabs and Arabic influence. Zoroastrianism is probably seen as some similar religion to Islam, but without the Arab-centric aspects that come with Islam. I can see why it makes it more appealing, if you can keep similar values and beliefs, but have the addition of an ethno-cultural connection. In Islam, the main prophet is Arab. in Judaism/Christianity, the main prophets are Israelites/Jews. Ethno-cultural links makes religions very appealing to its followers. For similar reasons, Europeans depicted Jesus as a blonde blue eyed European, not a pigmented middle eastern. ultimately though it's about bringing peace, power and prosperity. the ancients had that. now they don't.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Why does it suggest that?

Because you're talking about things that happen in creation, which are finite, for these events to happen they have to occur in an arena, a space, hence spatial.

God is Who He is. Your fallacy anwd error is in conceiving of Him in such philosophical terms you end up denying His Immanence. Is God necessarily going to equal your conception of Him based on the outdated tools and models associated with Hellenic thinking? That's quite wishful thinking.

Like other Orthodoxists it seems that you're trying to appropriate Rationalist terminology, but you're doing so awkwardly and out of their appropriate usage.

Becareful because this is the same lime of argument that Christians use to justify "the Trinity". You're basically teetering on Christianity now. The thing is, the reason why God's immanence is ubiquitous is precisely because space is not something Allah(swt) is bound by, the dhat does not abide by spatial dimensions, so all things are happening, all places are present, Allah is Not Just who he is ...Allah is pure consciousness ....This is why his Knowledge is his dhat, why is qudra is his dhat, This is why those attributes are essential. They're all just aspects of the Supreme Consciousness that we know as Allah(swt).

Not a satisfactory answer.

But you'll say things like "God is who he is". which is basically the same thing, but I actually give a more replete answer above.

Merciful is a characteristic to describe the nature of someone.

Merciful is the trait to describe the nature of someone as they behave with other creatures. It makes no sense or it's more tongue in cheek to say he's merciful to the air or merciful to a TV set. So in absence of creation there was no manifesttaion of his attribute of being Merciful because those things are not his dhat.

You have also implied that such information is uncreated and therefore divine.

information, but not the quality. If you have a computer program about building a house, doesn't mean the information is the house.

Is the information itself synonymous with God's Essence?

Abstractly speaking , yes, but don't mix this up with information like looking up a page in a book.

Logically it cannot be so. God Himself is not the information, He is the One who knows the information.

But knowledge is information, more clearly it is the order of awareness which allows information to process, but that's also information.

So the information is distinct from God's Essence

No, because how else would God has knowledge and that's what information is.

You have ensnared yourself in the same trap you were trying to catch us (orthodox) with.

No, you're ona defensive and bad at logic. this part was also my trap. Remember a rationalist is always 10 steps ahead of the orthodox.

You claimed we are guilty of Shirk for believing God's Essence and His Attributes are co-eternal.

See, this is how I know for sure you're not thinking clearly, I said you're teetering on shirk. Not committing outright shirk. Yeah I can safely say your emotions are getting the better of you.

Knowledge too is expressed by simply knowing.

Well if he's simply knowing then he always knew, so it was always expressed which means it was his dhat. so you actually defeated your own contention.

Good Job This is TOO easy.

You say God is not experiencing time and exists outside the realm of time.



This is based on the conclusions of your philosophers and theologians on what God must be.

So based on your reaction, you're saying God is subject to time and must abide by sequence, which is a bodily property. ....yes, you're a mutajassam. And now I'll just call you an Idol-Worshipper outrightly, no more need for debate.

In other words, you are imposing your own thought-out conception of God onto Him, but our approach is to conceive of God as how He describes Himself. Since God is Himself beyond our capability to understand Him, that is part of Him being Transcendent, how can you be so sure about your statement that "all space, all time are happening all at once in [His] Dhat"?

Yeah and you just rejected his transcendence by subjecting him to sequences. Mutajassam. So you're not even Orthodox anymore, you're basically A Christian.

Those who say the Quran exists co-eternally with God say the Quran exist as an abstraction too.

How can something other than Allah(swt) exist as an eternal abstraction, are you saying Qur'an is God? LIke the Sikhs think Guru Granth Sahib is God? LOL ...So now you accept co-eternality and have become Sikh.

Now you are jumping to "La Wujud illa Huwa" and once again changing the story.

Not changing anything, if you're really a mystic that expxeriences IlHam, whatever I wrote should not be controversial for you.

Now you are saying nothing has a real existence and everything is an abstraction to save your theology that Hawaadith don't occur in the Essence of God. So you also just repudiated the entire Mu'tazilite narrative.

Not at all, remember Mu'tazilah are heterodox, the overarching principle is to use reason to understand things. Events don't happen but the origin of events happen in God. Since God is Consciousness and you have come to realize, consciousness is knowledge is information.

You went from arguing that creation is temporal but God does not experience temporal to denying anything even has a real existence but everything is just an abstraction in God's mind and nothing is actually happening. You have no stability or consistency in your thought.

I don't see where the inconsistency is ....all you're doing is stating your interpretation of something I wrote. That doesn't demonstrate its inconsistency. You need to break free out of the idea of confirmation bias (i.e. believing your ideology is true a-priori) and start from a clean slate. Assume only basic axioms and then build up.

I thought knowledge is information? Now knowledge is consciousness?

Use transitivity

You can never explain logically how information, consciousness or whatever else is synonymous with God Himself.

You just did it for me ..... welcome to my trap ..moutajassam

You are arguing with language itself. Or you are denying God is a real Person and saying God is just an abstraction.

Yep, he's a moutajassam.

You saying God = knowledge = information = consciousness

Good, finally

In which case you have actually become an atheist. Atheism is denying God as a person, but if you simply redefine the word God to mean something else, like toaster or microwave, no atheist will disagree with you that God exists apart from saying why are you playing around with language?

No, Atheism is denying a God exists. it has nothing do with the personship of God. ,,,,saying God is a person is saying you identify God as a Creature and has a body, which are traits of the makhlouq.

ah this is hilarious.

Here's another paradox. Either you have to deny that God Himself is "eternal" or deny that God experiences all events simultaneously without sequence. It logically cannot be both.

SUre it can, think of an infinite dimensional field with no sequence, sequences can happen but the field itself is not made up of sequences. All information about events are happening at the same time and this is by nature eternal since it's infinite .....so both can co-exist.

If God is eternal but experiencing all events simultaneously, then logically all those events are likewise coeternal with Him. And if nothing is coeternal with God, then logically He cannot be experiencing them simultaneously.

Ah see, I never said he's "experiencing" the events though ....your key failure here I said "all events are simultaneous TO Allah(swt)", the events are finite.