Project Noor makes sense. Dawah man is contradicting himself and trying to confuse people. Allah is not like His creation in any way whatsoever. This is the creed I learned and this is why dawah man doesn't make sense
Whats that for a argument? „This is the creed I learned“ who cares what you learned. That doesn’t mean that everything you got told and taught has to be right.
This is very sad, Dawahman needs to calm down, he clearly to me cannot debate respectfully. Perhaps if it was properly coridinated we can take more sense from their argument
You cant compare the Creator to the creation. Allahs life is eternal, ours is created. Allahs speech doesn't have a beginning and an end, Allahs speech is not limited to anything, we creation need language and sound to be able to understand each other (except what Allah wills).
@@spreaderofalhaqq No we don't. Once again, YOU made that claim and the belief. Humans do not carry a single atom of resemblance to Allah. You want to undermine the Atahari Aqeedah as much as you can. See, Ash'aris of today are similar to the mu'tazilah. Even when it comes to lying.
@@holdshiftt2run308 Ibn ‘Uthaymin (d. 1421 AH) said [as mentioned in the book Majmu’ Fatawa wa Rasa`il Ibn ‘Uthaymin]: والتعبير بنفي التمثيل أحسن من التعبير بنفي التشبيه، لوجوه ثلاثة: أحدها: أن التمثيل هو الذي جاء به القرآن وهو منفي مطلقا، بخلاف التشبيه، فلم يأت القرآن بنفيه الثاني: أن نفي التشبيه على الإطلاق لا يصح، لأن كل موجودين فلا بد أن يكون بينهما قدر مشترك يشتبهان فيه ويتميز كل واحد بما يختص به، فالحياة مثلا وصف ثابت في الخالق والمخلوق، فبينهما قدر مشترك، ولكن حياة الخالق تليق به وحياة المخلوق تليق به الثالث: أن الناس اختلفوا في مسمى التشبيه، حتى جعل بعضهم إثبات الصفات التي أثبتها الله لنفسه تشبيها، فإذا قلنا من غير تشبيه، فهم هذا البعض من هذا القول نفي الصفات التي أثبتها الله لنفسه The expression of denying attributing likeness (Tamthil) [between the Creator and the creation] is better than expressing the denying of attributing similarity (Tashbih),and this is from three sides: The first: Attributing likeness (Tamthil) is that which the Qur`an came to deny absolutely unlike attributing similarity (Tashbih), which the Qur`an did not deny. The second: Denying attributing similarity (Tashbih) in an absolute way is not correct, because every two existing beings / things must have [at least] a common degree between them (Qadar Mushtarak) where they are similar to each other while every one of them is different in that which makes him special. Life (Hayat) for example is a proven description for the Creator and the creation, so there is a common degree (Qadar Mushtarak) between them, but the life of the Creator is [one] befitting Him and the life of the creation is [one] befitting them. The third: That the people have disagreed regarding that which is named as “Tashbih” to the degree that some of them turned the affirmation of the attributes that Allah affirmed for Himself as attributing similarity (Tashbih). So if we say “without attributing similarity” some would understand from this statement the negation of the attributes that Allah affirmed for Himself. And Ibn ‘Uthaymin also said [in the same book]: فإذا قلت: ما هي الصورة التي تكون لله ويكون آدم عليها؟ قلنا: إن الله عز وجل له وجه, وله عين, وله يد, وله رجل - عز وجل - لكن لا يلزم من أن تكون هذه الأشياء مماثلة للإنسان، فهناك شيء من الشبه لكنه ليس على سبيل المماثلة، كما أن الزمرة الأولى من أهل الجنة فيها شبه من القمر لكن بدون مماثلة If it is asked: What is the image (Sura) that Allah and Adam are [both] upon? Then we say: Allah - ‘azza wa jall - has a face, an eye, a hand, a foot -‘azza wa jall-, but this does not necessitate that these [descriptions] are like that of human beings, for there is some [sort of] of similarity (!), but not upon the way of likeness (Mumathala); just like the first group from the people of paradise are similar to the moon (i.e. shining), but without likeness. And Ibn ‘Uthaymin said in one of his lectures (taken word by word from a “Salafi” website!): نقول مثلاً وجه الله ولم نقل وجه وأطلقنا فوجه الله يكون لائقا لذاته أو لائقا بذاته ، كما لو قلت وجه الفرس ووجه القط الهر هل تفهم من قولك وجه الفرس أنه مثل وجه الهر ؟ أبداً We say for example “face of Allah” and we do not just say “face” in general [terms], because the face of Allah is befitting to His essence or befitting His essence. Just like when you say “face of a horse” and “face of a cat”: Do you understand from your statement “face of a horse” that it is like (mithl) the “face of a cat”? Never… think again ya jahil
Project Noor is on the Haqq. There is nothing similar to Allah. Allah does not resemble anything in anyway whatsoever. Period. Sounds are creations, letters are creations, languages are creations. The Speech of Allah is not like that of the creations. The Speech of Allah is without an instrument, sound, letter, language, beginning, or end. Subhana Allah, it very simple, but Allah is the One Who Guides Whom He Wills. May Allah protect us and keep us steadfast on the Haqq.
@@flansable letters, sounds, languages are without a doubt created. The fact that they have a beginning and they have an ending is an indication that they are creations of Allah. Proof is in the Holy Qur’an in Surah Ash-Shura Ayah 11 what means: > The Speech of Allah, like all His Attributes, is an Eternal and Everlasting Attribute. His Speech is not letters, sounds, or a language. Imam Abu Hanifah mentioned in his book Al-Fiqhul-Absat, “Allah’s Speech (Kalam) is not like our speech. We speak through organs of speech and by letters, whereas Allah’s Eternal Kalam is without an organ or a sound”. The Speech of Allah has no interruptions. The Eternal Speech of Allah has no beginning and no end. All sounds are created, and Gods Speech is not created.
@@privatejr2702 I wouldn’t necessarily call it useless, because corrupt aqeedah needs to be clarified. Although this debate-like format serves no benefit.
@@iAmeerby definition the movement of salafis is a sectarian movement therefore they’re the heretics. They claim to follow the aqeedah of the atharis who do not make up the majority of the Sunni Muslim world. That would be the asharis Maturidi and atharis. From atharis comes a sect known as salafis because they do not have the same madhab as mainstream atharis. Zindiq applies more to the salafi group than the mainstream Sunnis. It’s just the fact of the matter. I am not personally calling any group zindiq, I’m just applying the definitions appropriately. If you notice here that both parties were trying their best in defending the attributes of ALLAH swt. I wouldn’t say this was wasteful and o wouldn’t say this isn’t needed. These discussions are definitely needed however in person would apply some better Adab and easier to control and time.
The Athari creed is also referred to as the creed of imam Ahmed who articulated it, and was expanded upon by Ibn Taymiah, they pre-date Abdul Wahhab, so t shouldn’t be attributed to him. This was the creed common. Abdul Wahhab introduced things like istigatha being shirk which was unique to him and can be called wahhabi creed, unlike the subject of this debate
@@lowkey621I have experience this guy Gog3453 he just makes claims with out proof. I brought evidence to him before. And he continued just talking. just a hater and a troll. May allah guide him
The rule. Allah does not resemble the creation in any way whatsoever! This is from Quran ash Shurah 11 which negates physical attributes to Allah and negates attributes the have a beginning and end like sound. Sound has a.beginnimg and end therefore this meaning cannot be attributed to Allah.
Dawah man seems to view Allah as a physical being above the heavens and his speech to be in Arabic. The other brother seems to be saying, if that were the case then he’s resembling the creation, in which case it’s shirk. Allah is the speaker, suggests that Allah speaks a language that is unlike that which the creation speaks, and therefore because we create sound when we speak it can not be the same. As far as transmission goes, Allah hu alm what medium it was communicated/to Gibreal and then to the prophet, but when the prophet spoke it it was in Arabic. So to stere clear of resembling Allah with his creation we say revealed as apposed to he speaks in Arabic
This is like watching a beginner go crazy in sparring and a seasoned pro doing his utmost to not get hurt whilst also not unleash and turn it into a full on fight knowing full well he'd KO the beginner, bruise his ego, maybe injure him, and leave a bad taste in the mouth of everyone else present in the gym. Dawah man is deluded. You can learn all the Arabic, Hadiths, and verses of the Quran you want, but if you haven't learn how to think objectively it means you haven't learnt how to separate your ego, passion, and pre existing assertions on what the truth is, from the actual truth itself. Only a fool claims to be a master, a true intellectual never stops being a student. The fact that the beginner came away from this thinking he won is evident that he doesn't have the intellectual maturity to teach others.
The ashari should have responded by saying the life of Allah has no beginning and no end, like all the attributes of Allah, sound has a beginning and end, and the book of the Quran which starts with Al Fatiha and ends in Al naas.
Wahabi Dawahman never answer any question. He made claims Allah SWT has same attributes like creation talk with sound & language. No wonder wahabis became mujassim & musyabbihah.
We are "muslims" and we follow the understanding of the Sahaba and their students and the scolars (Salaf)! I am not a salafi but i "follow" the path of the salaf..
loool I don't if you uploaded this to expose asharis but this debate was a destruction of Dawah man he got really schooled badly in this debate and I'm not even a ashari
Abu Hanifa (May Allah have Mercy on him) about Allah’s speech: “And He speaks, not as our speech. We speak with tools and letters while Allah, High is He, speaks without a tool and without letters. The letters are created. And the speech of Allah, High is He, is uncreated.” “The Qur’an is Allah’s word, High is He, in pages transcribed, in hearts protected, on tongues recited, and on the Prophet (PBUH) and His family revealed. Our utterance of the Qur’an is created. Our writing of it is created. Our recitation of it is created. And the Qur’an is uncreated.” (Fiqh Al Akbar) ليس كمثله شيء One is trying to teach that it’s not okay to attribute Allah like His creation. The other is trying to attribute Allah to His creation without knowing it. One says Allah’s speech can be heard without sound. The other says how can you hear without sound. Allah has the ability speak without sound and allow us to hear it. This is easy for Allah. Dawah man can’t comprehend how one can hear without sound. One’s failure to comprehend is the problem. We can’t comprehend Allah nor can we comprehend what it’s like to hear without sound because we’ve never experienced that. Seeing Allah by the people of Paradise is haq right? Have we seen anything like Allah? No. Can we comprehend anything like Allah? No. How can one comprehend the Speech of Allah if one has never heard it… Allah knows best.
Im not even an ashari, but I can absolutely say that people don’t even know what Asharis believe and parrot talk what their teachers say about them. They’ll say Asharis deny XYZ, but it’s not the reality. I take an Athari approach, but reading books from Asharis and seeing what they say with an open mind is something else. You understand that Salafis don’t even understand the Ashari creed correctly. So when you say fiqh al Akbar opposes ashari creed, do you even know what asharis teach. Like honestly ignore what the videos on RU-vid and salafis say about them, pick up a book, and read. Ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah Is composed of the Athari, Maturidi, and Ashari Creed. Agreed upon by consensus. Scholars have wrote books on comparative creed. Scholars of the past have mentioned asharis and maturidis as Ahlus Sunnah wal Jammah as well. Athari Hanbali scholars will say “We do not engage in Ta’wil, but we understand and respect that Asharis are from Ahlus Sunnah” Salafis bash on Ta’wil, but Ibn Abbas (radiyallahu anhu) did Ta’wil. I personally leave the meaning to Allah and move on. For some reason, all of a sudden Salafis misinterpret sayings of the Salaf and bash on them while they themselves are deviant.
@@ReturningRuh Nope. First of all, it looks like that you know what Ash’aris believe. Then you would know that they do ta’weel. But in the same book (Fiqhul Akbar), Abu Haneefa denies ta’weel for attributes like Hands and Face. “And He has a Hand and a Face and an Essence (dhaat), as Allaah the Exalted mentions in the Qur'aan. So whatever Allaah the Exalted mentioned in the Qur'aan in regards to the Face and the Hand and the Essence, then these are His Attributes without inquiry into their modality (bilaa kayf). And it is NOT to be said that His Hand is His Power, or His Bounty (ni'mah), because it is nullification of the Attribute, and it is the statement of the people of a l-Qadar and al-I'tizaal.” Al-Fiqhul-Akbar (p. 302) Secondly, did you even know that Fiqhul Akbar and Fiqhul Absat are not authentic? Probably not. Read here: yasiirmahi.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/is-fiqh-ul-akbar-authored-by-imaam-abu-hanifah/amp/ Thirdly, you said that Ahlus Sunnah consists of these three groups by Ijma’. This is a lie, there is no ijma’. In fact, we have statements stating the opposite: Imam Maalik said, “Whoever seeks the Religion though kalaam will deviate.“ (Dhammul-Kalaam qaaf/173/alif) Imam Ibn Abdel Barr said: “The people of Fiqh and Aathaar in all the various towns and cities are agreed unanimously that the Ahlul-Kalaam (People of Theological Rhetoric) are Ahlul-Bid'ah waz-Zaigh (the People of Innovations and Deviation). And they are not considered, by all of the above, to be amongst the ranks of the Scholars (in truth).” Reported by Ibn Qudaamah in his Burhaan fee Bayaanil-Qur’aan And Ibn 'Abdel-Barr mentions in Jaami' Baynaanul-Ilm wa Fadlihi, from Ahmad ibn Hanbal who said, "Verily a person of kalaam will never succeed, ever. And you will never see anyone looking into kalaam, except that there is corruption in his heart.” Jaami' Bayaanul-Ilm wa Fadlihi (2/95)
@@ReturningRuh Also, Allah speaks with a sound and this is mentioned by the Sunnah and the Salaf. Abd Allah ibn Ahmad said: “I asked my father (Ahmed ibn Hanbal) about a people who say: ‘When Allah spoke to Musa, He did not speak with a sound.’ My father replied: ‘In fact, your Lord spoke with a sound, for we narrate these Ahadeeth as they have reached us.’ ” Tabaqaatul-Hanaabilah (1/185) Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: “The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "On the day of Resurrection Allah will say, 'O Adam!' Adam will reply, 'Labbaik our Lord, and Sa`daik ' Then there will be a loud sound (saying), ‘Allah orders you to take from among your offspring a mission for the (Hell) Fire.' Adam will say, 'O Lord! Who are the mission for the (Hell) Fire?' “ The arabic for “loud call” is فَيُنَادَى بِصَوْتٍ and صوت means “sound” Bukhari 4741
@@donutman6239 1. Post the Arabic. 2. what do the commentaries say about these narrations. Get back to me. 3. Also, what are the other meanings for صوت. Get back to me.
@@TheHiddenGuy123 how when Quran refutes the Kitabis and that is Creed of Prophet peace and blessings on him who said I am teh best salaf and we follow his athar? christians and yeahood followed kalam like jahmi khulabis.
@@TheHiddenGuy123your innovated methods to find your beliefs about Allah through Aristotelian principles is your downfall. Alhamdullilah out aqeedah has a chain of narration
may Allaah guide us… imam al Qahtaani in his nooniyyah gave an excellent refutation of the ashaa’irah. Starting at around 1:00:00 in the recording recited by Faris Abbaad.
Reason why word of Allah is not created it's cause it's uttered and came from Allah but it's not eternal cause it begins and Allah does not begins, therefore it's not created but uttered
Dawahman: I'm a Shafi'i Also Dawahman: Was Al Ashari alive during the time of the prophet? Imam Al Shafi'i was born over 100 years after the prophet died.
Imam shafi aqeedah doesn’t contradict the Quran and sunnah like Abu Hassan al shari did Ashari can’t bring a single narration from the prophet or the sahabas or the tabiuun to support their beliefs other than their fabricated and weak narration
@@abuabdullah1972 Imam Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash’ari himself recanted the views of Ibn Kullaab in his third stage and agreed completely with the views of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah evidence for that are his words in his book al-Ibaanah - which was the last of his books - in which he said: Our view and our belief is based on adhering to the Book of Allah our Lord, may He be glorified and exalted; the Sunnah of our Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him); and what was narrated from our leaders, namely the Sahaabah and Taabi‘een, and the leading scholars of hadith. We hold fast to that, and we also adhere to what Abu ‘Abdillah Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal - may Allah have mercy on him, raise him in status and increase his reward - said, and whatever views he differed with, we differ with them too, because he was the most virtuous of the scholars and the perfect leader, through whom Allah made truth clear, warded off misguidance, and clarified the path. By means of him, Allah suppressed the innovation of the innovators, the misguided notions of those who are misguided, and the doubts of the doubters. May Allah have mercy on him, what a brilliant and respected scholar he was, and how deep was his knowledge. End quote from al-Ibaanah (p. 20).
Ibn Nujaim al-Misrî wrote: “As explained clearly in Tahrîr by Ibn Humâm, it is unanimous among the ’ulamâ’ that anything that does not agree with any of the four madhhabs is wrong.”[Ashbâh, “Ijtihâd,” the first chapter of the second part.] Abd al-Ghanî an-Nabulusî quotes Ibn Humâm on this subject and adds: “Hence, it is understood that it is not permissible to follow any madhhab other than the four madhhabs. Today, following Hadrat Muhammad’s (’alaihi ’s-salâm) religion is possible only by following one of the four madhhabs. ‘Taqlîd’ means to accept somebody’s word without searching for his proof (dalîl). And this is done by intending with the heart. Anything done without an intention becomes wrong (bâtil). It is a mujtahid’s duty to understand the proof. A muqallid has to follow one of the four madhhabs in everything he does. According to the majority of the ’ulamâ’, it is permissible for him to follow different madhhabs in different affairs. So did the book Tahrîr write.“[Khulâsat at-tahqîq] Imam Ahmed and Al-Tabraani have mentioned a Hadeeth narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him), he said “I asked my Lord not to gather my nation upon misguidance. The Lord accepted.” (1) Imam Hakim narrates from Abd Al-Allah Ibn Abbas, he narrates from the Prophet (peace be upon him) that Allah will never gather my nation upon misguidance. (2) It has also been narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him) “Whatever the Muslims regard as good, Allah regards as good.” (3) 1. Imam Ahmad in his Al-Musnad narrated from Abu Basrah Al-Gifari and Imam Al-Tabrani in his Al- Kabeer. 2. Al-Tirmizi, Al-Sunan Ibn Majah and Al-Mustadrak of Imam Hakim. 3. Al-Musnad of Imam Ahmed and Al-Mustadrak of Imam Hakim.
@@abuabdullah1972 Tell me if this is not from the sunnah??? just like the way ashairah do???huh???? you keep calling them putting fabricated narration. And the sky We built with hands; verily We outspread [it]” (Qur’an 51:47), ---- al-Tabari ascribes the figurative explanation (ta’wil) of with hands as meaning “with power (bi quwwa)” through five chains of transmission to Ibn ‘Abbas, who died 68 years after the Hijra, Mujahid who died 104 years after the Hijra, Qatada [ibn Da‘ama] who died 118 years after the Hijra, Mansur [ibn Zadhan al-Thaqafi] who died 131 years after the Hijra, and Sufyan al-Thawri who died 161 years after the Hijra (Jami‘ al-bayan, 27.7-8).
The Asharia and the Salafi both believe the Quran to be the speach and kalam of Allah sw, The Salafi only understands through the understanding of his scholar like Mohammed ibne Abdul wahab and others , The Asharia understands their belief and understanding from their scholar , Allah sw, revealed to different prophets in different languages, if the hujjah (the main law book) is the Quran for both salafi and Asharia what's the issue, The only thing I can think of is some salafi scholars blended religion and politics for their cause to overthrow a government or calipha
The salafis have no issues with the Quran & sunnah by their appearent meaning. The asharis have an issue with Allah's attributes and they get their understanding from philosophers & deviants who initially deviated.
@SQUIDTUBE , The Asharis try to avoid by doing tafweed or taweel to avoid giving a figure to Allah sw, The salafis Go with the apparent meaning because they believe Allah's kitab should be understood apprantly, however if you look deep both have same intentions, But the salafis put the Asharis into jahmi camp and in retaliation the Asharis put the salafis into khawarij camp , until the real disbeliever comes a long and joins forces with one of them and destroys one group, leaving the other group weak and submit to their way , eg saud family
This comment section is the state of our ummah. Normal laymen on RU-vid that is attacking others like we all are jahil on purpose. We are where we are in our reasoning because Allah wants it, we all want to Allah to be explained in the best way we see befit his majesty. May Allah guide me and bless me with the right understanding.
Salafis are wrong on this, they resembles Allah with creation (like sound, face, hands and sitting). May Allah protect us from such Aqeeda ۚ لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِۦ شَىْءٌۭ ۖ There is nothing like Him.
What a ridiculous claim. They are the one who believes Allah how he described himself. The Asharite/Maturidis are the innovators wasted times proving Greek and the philosopher’s God on something that doesn’t have anything to with Islam.
I will be honest, this is a regular occurrence when debating the maturidis/ash'aris of ahlul bidah. They continue to talk over you thinking their aqeedah was proven.
Very easy kalamulallah can be used to mean the book that is created and kallamullah can be used to mean the attribute of Allah. The attributes of Allah are uncreated without a beginning nor an end. That’s it
Salafi(Dawahman) have no manners what so ever. I salute the Ashari Sheikh, He has Adaab. Even though Salafi(Dawahman) is literally shouting at him at so many occasions. The Ashari Sheikh is being straight to the point without making non-sense noise
The Ashari is hell bent on "Yes or No", every question can't get answered with a yes or no, if I ask you "Did you break my cup with a brown spade or a green one?" We can't answer that with a yes or no, it's so illogical 🤦
That’s true but some questions can be answered with yes or no. And an example is the question: “is sound a creation?” It’s pretty simple. The answer is yes, sound is a creation. And Allāh is free from His creation.
@@Kalam18595 Dawah man did answer yes, but this question can't be answered with ONLY yes. So dawah man went on to explain his answer, but of course the Ash'ari didn't let him
@@limitedquantitysufiyyahexp4905 I didn’t hear him admit sound is created. Seemed like he tried to dodge the question because then it will follow that he ascribes a ‘created’ attribute to Allāh. Which isn’t a big deal to wahhabis because there are many contingent attributes that they affirm to Allāh.
@@Rezw.nn14 Yes, but they understood the true meaning. Yad in arabic has a depth, hand in english also has linguistic depth. And to choose hand as "Allahs limb" is where the problem is and not how you choose to distant yourself from what Allah actually means. It's that you choose to interpet is as an actual limb. When you are then asked: Why do you choose limb from all of the linguistic meanings? Then you have a hard time to back it up. But your answer is correct, but it lacks depth and is just a echo of what everyone else with your standpoint is. My question to you is, the Imams. Is it possible that they where so well versed in the linguistic meaning that it was obvoius that the meaning of yad in this instant was Not a limb? If I say to you in English: Brother, the responsibility is in your hands now. And then asked you: what did I mean with hands in that context? You know it wasn't a limb we where talking about.
god reveales his message through any language he wants here he revealed his message through arabic. meaning that arabic the language is like a messenger and the real full message is hidden from us but is revealed through the human messenger ahmed/muhammad and also another messenger which was also chosen and that messenger was the language arabic. i will also include a verse in arabic in the quran which state explicity that only god has full knowledge of what the meanings of the quran are. i will also quote the opening verses of some chapters such as surah baqarah (cow) alif,lam,meem which is god stating the language hes revealing his cryptic message in (arabic) just like one has to reveal which encryption method is used before decipering a encypted message. the muttah openings can only mean signifying the language which code revealed his message in. One cannot say god revealed his message which was arabic but one can say he revealed his message through arabic as a messenger language. is god telling us arabic has something special to it? idk but i think its the other way around the fact god revealed his message through arabic he gave arabic a whole new meaning he showed us all what arabic can do.
Ashari saying bring proof but didn't provide one proof except opinions of men who came after the salaf. Contradicting his own Imam ash shafiee and the rest of the salaf based on the opinions of the kullaabiyyah who Imam Al ashari repented from his views. The Quran is the Kalam of Allah but He didn't say it with a voice that can be heard? Audhubillah. Also ashari only spends the whole time with personal attacks whereas dawah man spent the whole time using proof without stooping to his low level of akhlaq.
So by your saying, what did allahs voice sound like? Who else heard it? Was it in a loud tone or soft tone? And yeah whilst dawahman was bouncing around like a school child hooked on sugar he still upheld his perfect akhlaq.
@@zcs7676 so would saying allah has a hand and is imbedded in his thrown not likening allah to his creation? You may think you are merely affirming the attribute you can also affirm attributes whilst denying the meaning to be a physical hand regardless if you say it is a hand unlike a human hand people still have the idea that he has physical body parts because of how you “affirm the meaning” its a misconception to say the asharis and maturidis negate allahs attributes when in all of their works allah attributes are taught
Asharis believe Quran is created al-Saffarīnī رحمه الله stated: “In conclusion, the Mu’tazilia are in agreement with the Ash'āriyyah, while the Ash'āriyyah are in agreement with the Mu'tazilah, that this Qur'ān contained within the two covers of the Mus-ḥaf is created and anew. The only difference between the two factions is that the Mu'tazilah did not affirm any other Speech for Allāh except this (the Qur'ān, which they thought was created), whereas the Ash'āriyyah affirmed al-Kalām al-Nafsī (self-speech/talking to oneself/inner-speech) subsisting in Allāh's essence. Whereas the Mu’tazilia say, the Speech of Allāh is created (and not subsisting in Allāh). The Ash'āriyyah do not consider it (the Qur'ān) the Speech of Allāh. Yes, they call it ‘the Speech of Allāh’, but only metaphorically, and that is the belief of the majority of their predecessors.” ¹ ¹ [Lawāmiʻ al-Anwār al Bahīyah - page 163].
There's difference between ALLAH's Attributes of Speech and Written Speech of ALLAH. Yes we agree with Mu'tazilite about the Qur'an is being sent down by Jibril, but we don't said Attributes of Speech is created like the Mu'tazilite into form of al-Quran. We said the Qur'an was written with the Speech of ALLAH which Jibreel taken from Umm al-Kitab and ALLAH chose Arabic Language to be the language of the al-Qur'an. I can prove dalil and burhan about it while Hasyawiyyah Hanabilah doesn't diffentiate it and slander Asharite to be the same as Mu'tazilite is totally nonsense.
Imam al-Saffarini رحمه الله said: Ahlus Sunnah Wa'l Jama'ah are three groups: Atharīs, and their Imām is Ahmad b. Hanbal (رحمه الله); Ash'arīs, and their Imām is Abū al-Hasan al-Ash'arī (رحمه الله); and Māturīdīs, and their Imām is Abū Mansūr al-Māturīdī (رحمه الله). As for the misguided groups, They're innumerable. [Lawami al-Anwar al-Bahiyya 1:73].
So when this project keeps saying that Allah revealed these words and is avoiding saying it is his words. Does that mean the asharis beleive the Quran is created?
Asharis believe the Quran is created al-Saffarīnī رحمه الله stated: “In conclusion, the Mu’tazilia are in agreement with the Ash'āriyyah, while the Ash'āriyyah are in agreement with the Mu'tazilah, that this Qur'ān contained within the two covers of the Mus-ḥaf is created and anew. The only difference between the two factions is that the Mu'tazilah did not affirm any other Speech for Allāh except this (the Qur'ān, which they thought was created), whereas the Ash'āriyyah affirmed al-Kalām al-Nafsī (self-speech/talking to oneself/inner-speech) subsisting in Allāh's essence. Whereas the Mu’tazilia say, the Speech of Allāh is created (and not subsisting in Allāh). The Ash'āriyyah do not consider it (the Qur'ān) the Speech of Allāh. Yes, they call it ‘the Speech of Allāh’, but only metaphorically, and that is the belief of the majority of their predecessors.” ¹ ¹ [Lawāmiʻ al-Anwār al Bahīyah - page 163].
The Ashari in the video literally didnt say it was created ofcourse the quran is the kalam of allah. The physical copies we hold in the written arabic is creation and not the actual attribute of allah but rather signifies to the attribute of kalam for allah being everlasting
@@kamraanahsan4768 forgett the written copies and paper. Is the quran the speech of Allah and did Allah say it in arabic. These asharis are going around in circles confusing themselves and every 1 else.
@@lishaplayss what do you mean by Qurʾān? The attribute of Allāh? Or the book printed around around the world? The attribute of Allāh of course is uncreated, pre-eternal, no beginning,no end. What is printed around the world denotes the speech of Allāh but we can’t print out the actual attribute of Allāh.
Kalam is a speculative theology which was a complete waste of time confusing the masses and created some fanatical deviants. Attari is the continuation of Islamic Aqeeda and make sense to everyone regardless of their level of intellect. May Allah save people from the confusion of the kalamists.
The ahbashi iman keeps saying that dawa man does not provide proof. Yet he keeps saying that “everything that makes a sound is the creation” and does not provide proof for that, he throws that statement as fact when in reality is his logic Allah is all powerful certainly he could make a sound if he so wished
Everything about this debate made me feel uncomfortable May Allah protect us from the fire and make us humble enough to empty our cups in front of Allah and ask him for pure guidance.
I was wondering why Project Noor asked Dawah man to hold up the Quran. If you think about it you will know. YOU CANNOT HOLD A SIFA OF ALLAH IN YOUR HAND! Project Noor won the debate. However I feel that his debate skills could be better but Allahu Alim. He wants Dawah man to correct himself.
Also, the letters and sounds great of the book of Al Quran is an indication of the eternal kalaam speech of Allah which is not letters, sounds, or language. It's a speech different from the speech or creation, a speech that doesn't resemble the speech of creation in any way whatsoever, Allah said in the Quran Laysakamithlihi shay'. We can say Allah said in the Quran meaning it's an indication of the kalaam of Allah!
Asharis/Maturidis Ahlus Sunnah: The Quran is Word/Speech of Allah. And it is uncreated. Muslims believe in reality, it’s the word of Allah revealed in the Arabic Language. Allahs Attribute of Soeech has no language,sound,nothing like creation. No modality. Arabic is a creation! “Nothing is like Allah in any way”
Dawah man had a valid point this sufi says that ahlul sunnah are upon the haqq which is true but the people need to know what is exactly that. Its defos not ashari version of the deen.
You dont have a problem with the way dahwahman recited Quran without correct etiquette? You dont find that ironic when he is trying to prove it is Allahs speech? This is the problem, people got caught up in petty abstract debates with no end or meaning.... And have left the core message about perfecting manners and following the message of the Quran
@@donutman6239 did you not hear hear the recitation? Here you have a guy arguing about the Quran being the literal speech of Allah, but you see the poor level of respect, importance, accuracy and reverance he then goes on to give the Quran. It just make these people look like hypocrites who want to argue about protecting their sect and nothing about the importance of the actual quran, the words, meaning and messages that are in the Quran. It's purely looking at "must affirm sounds and letters" otherwise they're deviants. How about they read, recite and respect the Quran as should be. If these are the true literal words spoken by God, revealed by God... That he spoke when he wanted to (according to hanbalis).... Then surely you would give it more special recitatiin that his effort??
@@donutman6239 it is.... That's basic stuff.... The hanbalis themselves aknowledge this as do their opponents. Many a famous hanbali in aqidah but other fiqh school out there. I think khawja abu ismail al harawi the one accused of being a hululi sufi is one like that... Maybe shafiee in fiqh and hanbali in aqidah. There are others.... Maybe dhahabi could fall in to that category too... Ibn khuzaymah
Salahudin al ayubi who conquered the holy land was an ashari & fatih sultan mehmet who conquered constantinople was a maturidi. Allah give these people victory. They were great people in our islamic history but according to dawah man they are not from ahle sunnah wal jamat. How can people even take this dawah man seriously. Hes just causing fitnah, please stay away from him.
I'm not gonna lie dawahman is horrible like I mean downright horrible when it comes to debating this is actually super sad to see he doesn't understand how to form an argument
The Creed of The Salaf is the Perfected Way. Refer back to the Quran and The Prophet (peace be upon him) as the Salaf did. Perfected Deen! all that I've Said has proof from the Sahih Sunnah. Leave off philosophy and follow what the Prophet's (peace be upon him) Way. The Prophet (pbuh) said that Allah revealed his words in Arabic...It is his speech. Subhanallah!
@@nonurban7316 LOOL, the Scholars of Itizal intellectualy destroyed the Kullabis, they first forced them to admit that the Qur'an is created, then they innovated this so called "Kalam Nafsi", which the Mutazilas also refuted, in their books.
to be fair according to Imam maturidi the kalam of Allah cant be heard. So Musa Upon him be Peace heard a created sound . but it is a contradiction to say the kalaam of Allah cant be heard but affirm the seeing Allah so imam maturidis position doesnt seem to be coherent
@@fifafreebies8941 it’s because of the ayah in the Qurʾān that says “It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise. (42:51) So because of this ayah the maturidis say that the speech that prophet Musa heard was created speech. So their argument is coherent.
@@Kalam18595 if you believe that the kalaam of Allah cant be heard then how can u believe that Allah can be seen . Even imam ghazali in his ihya says that if u believe that the kalaam of Allah can't be heard then u should also believe that Allah can't be seen
@@fifafreebies8941they both agree that if prophet Musa heard sound, sound is created, and is not the actual attribute of Allāh. Logically, if you say prophet Musa heard the actual speech of Allāh without sound, without letters etc., that’s fine. The difference is between the textual evidence, the maturidis say yes logically that makes sense but textually in the ayah I showed, it says that Allāh doesn’t speak to anyone except through an intermediary. With seeing Allāh. They agree that you see Allāh without a direction, without a distance and without Him being physical. And there is no textual evidence to negate this.
@@farhanshakir9621 no he's not a Sufi. He's a wahhaabiyy, a follower of Muhammad ibn Abdul wahhaab. An innovator of misguidance, a man who has had books written against even by his own brother. A man who claims Allaah has a deformed looking human being above who sits above the throne and tons of other incorrect innovations in the creed that went against the consensus of the scholars before him.
Salaam, there are nuances of the word "unseen": the Creator is not unseen in the sense that we can come to know that a Creator exists with certain attributes (like life, speech, knowledge, hearing, seeing, etc.) using the intellect (العقل). However, things like the Day of Judgement, punishment in the grave, heaven and hell and their characteristics, are really unseen and can only be known through revelation (النقل). I think this is one of the points the 'Asharee brother was trying to convey. Also from the brother, kalaam of Allaah refers to 2 things: (1) the attribute of Allaah (not created) and (2) the revealed words conveyed to the Prophets (created).
@@Brother_mar Salaam, I do not know of any such proof. I merely mentioned what I think one person was trying to clarify. Also, I have not come across any hair-splitting discussion of this type by the Sahaabah - it occurred after their time. Also, (1) common sense tells us that the attributes of an uncreated thing must also be uncreated. Allaah spoke to some of the Prophets so he has the attribute of speech (kalaam, takallum), i.e., the ability to speak. Also, (2) our thoughts are not physical entities but they are created things so I can only assume that he meant that these words of Allaah (kalaamullaah) were similar to thoughts.
إنه لقول رسول كريم. It’s explicitly stated that the revealed Quran is the speech of jibreel. Meaning that what is revealed to the prophet through the messenger is a speech of a creation to another creation, since it is composed of sound letters and words. حتى يسمعوا كلام الله. The messenger was ordered to let the mushrikeen hear the speech of Allah, meaning those created expressions that refer to the eternal speech of Allah. If you cannot differentiate between the eternal attribute of Allah and the revealed text (a creation) then you would be forced to claim that the قول رسول كريم means that the attribute of Allah of speech is attributed to jibreel, which is shirk. The way I explained it to you assures you that there is no contradiction between both verses and that a person would not believe that they attain an attribute of Allah when they are reciting the Quran
I feel like many of the pseudo Salafi’s just bark and yell WE HAVE DALEEL AKHI ENTA KAFFFIIIRRR! but don’t actually understand the concept of how to apply it. The other half don’t even understand نحو and just use whatever they see on RU-vid and a few English transliteration books from the a’imah, which is interesting because many around the world who actually study deen and lugah understand Islam deeper than whatever the Saudi movement is pushing upon their ‘scholars’ to convey. Unfortunately many are falling prey to this.
The confusion lies with the fact that the Ashari guy does not even accept the premise of the questions that Dawah Man is asking as he sees it too anthropomorphic
The ashari dude is very arrogant. Anyone that watch this I can’t see how they would take anything from him ! He’s been tapped dancing this whole conversation
Shaykh Abdul-Qadir: Allaah is the Reckoner of Every Ash'arite Mubtadi' (Innovator), Daall (Strayer), Mudill (Leading Others Astray), Who Claims Allaah's Speech is Meaning Only He says in "al-Ghunyah Li Taalibee Tareeq il-Haqq" (Daar ul-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1997, 1/130-131): (Chapter): And We Believe that the Qur'an is letters understood and voices heard. Because through them (letter and voice) does the dumb and silent become speaking (mutakallim), delivering speech (naatiq). And the speech (Kalaam) of Allaah does not depart from that. So whoever rejected "Dhaalik al-Kitaab" (as being letter and voice) then he has been arrogant in rejecting [what] his own perceptive faculty [informs him], and is blinded in vision (and insight). Allaah the Mighty and Majestic said: "Alif Laam Meem. This is the Book (the Qur'an)" (Al-Baqarah 2:1-2), "Haa Meem.", "Taa Seen Meem. These are the verse of the Book." (al-Qasas 28:1-2). He has mentioned letters metonymically [using the name of one thing for another] for the Qur'an. And the Most High said, "And if all the trees on the earth were pens and the sea (were ink wherewith to write), with seven seas behind it to add to its (supply), yet the Words of Allah would not be exhausted. Verily, Allah is All-ýMighty, AllýWise." (Luqman 31:27) So He affirmed numerous words for Himself that do not end in their number, and likewise His saying, "Say (O Muhammad). "If the sea were ink for (writing) the Words of my Lord, surely, the sea would be exhausted before the Words of my Lord would be finished, even if we brought (another sea) like it for its aid." (Al-Kahf 18:109). And the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: Read the Qur'an for you will be rewarded with ten good deeds for every letter. As for me, I do not say that "Aleef Laam Meem" is a letter, but "Alif" is ten (good deeds), "Laam" is ten (good deeds) and "Meem" is ten (good deeds), and that makes thirty. And the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, The Qur'an was revealed upon seven ahruf (letters, meaning variant readings), all of them are replete, sufficient. And Allaah, the Most High, said regarding Moses (alayhis salaam), "And (remember) when your Lord called (naadaa) Moses..." (Ash-Shu'ara 26:10), "And We called him (naadaynaahu) from the right side of the Mount, and made him draw near to Us for a talk with him Moses (qarrabnaahu najiyyaa)." (Maryam 19:52). And Allaah, the Most High, said to Moses (alayhis salaam), "Verily! I am Allah! Laa ilaaha illaa Ana (none has the right to be worshipped but I), so worship Me..." (Ta-Ha 20:14). All of this is not except as a voice, and it is not permitted that this calling out (nidaa) and this noun (I am "Allaah") and attribute (none has the right to be worshipped) be [for anyone] except Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, as opposed to the others besides Him from the Angels and all other creatures. And al-Bukhaaree reports in his Saheeh with his chain of narration to Abdullaah bin Anees (radiallaahu anhu) that he said: I heard the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying: The servants will be [resurrected and] gathered together, and He will call them with a voice, the one who is distant will hear it just like the one who is near, [saying], "I am al-Malik, ad-Dayyaan." And Abdur-Rahmaan bin Muhammad al-Muhaaribee reported from al-A'mash from Muslim, from Masrooq from Abdullaah (radiallaahu anhu), [that] he said: When Allaah speaks with revelation, the inhabitants of the heavens hear His voice, and they fall prostrate until when the fear is removed from their hearts. He (Abdullaah) said: [When] it (the fear) subsides from their hearts, the inhabitants of the heaven say, 'O inhabitants of the heaven (i.e. the Angels), what did your Lord say?' They say, 'The Truth, He said such and such', meaning the revelation (that He spoke with)'. And from Abdullaah bin al-Harth from Ibn Abbaas (radiallaahu anhumaa) that he said: Indeed Allaah, the Blessed and Exalted, when He speaks with revelation, the inhabitants of the heavens hear a voice like the sound of iron when it falls upon the rock, so they fall prostrating to Him anda when the fear is removed from their hearts they say, 'What did your Lord say?' They reply, 'The truth, and He is al-Aliyy (the Most High), al-Kabeer (the Great).
إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ الحمد لله ، والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله ، وعلى آله وصحبه ومن والاه ، وبعد :يعني تعالى ذكره بقوله: إنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ليس لكم أيها المؤمنون ناصر إلاَّ الله ورسوله والمؤمنون، الذين صفتهم ما ذكر تعالى ذكره. فأما اليهود والنصارى الذين أمركم الله أن تبرءوا من ولايتهم ونهاكم أن تتخذوا منهم أولياء، فليسوا لكم أولياء ولا نُصَراء، بل بعضهم أولياء بعض، ولا تتخذوا منهم وليا ولا نصيرا. وقيل: إن هذه الآية نزلت في عبادة بن الصامت في تبرئه من ولاية يهود بني قَينُقاع وحلفهم إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والمؤمنين. ذكر من قال ذلك: قال صاحب الضلال رحمه الله "هكذا على وجه القصر الذي لا يدع مجالا للتمحل أو التأول ولم يكن بد أن يكون الأمر كذلك ! لأن المسألة في صميمها - كما قلنا - هي مسألة العقيدة . ومسألة الحركة بهذه العقيدة . وليكون الولاء لله خالصا , والثقة به مطلقة , وليكون الإسلام هو "الدين" . وليكون الأمر أمر مفاصلة بين الصف المسلم وسائر الصفوف التي لا تتخذ الإسلام دينا , ولا تجعل الإسلام منهجا للحياة ولتكون للحركة الإسلامية جديتها ونظامها ; فلا يكون الولاء فيها لغير قيادة واحدة وراية واحدة . ولا يكون التناصر إلا بين العصبة المؤمنة ; لأنه تناصر في المنهج المستمد من العقيدة . . ولكن حتى لا يكون الإسلام مجرد عنوان , أو مجرد راية وشعار , أو مجرد كلمة تقال باللسان , أو مجرد نسب ينتقل بالوراثة , أو مجرد وصف يلحق القاطنين في مكان ! فإن السياق يذكر بعض السمات الرئيسية للذين آمنوا: (الذين يقيمون الصلاة ويؤتون الزكاة , وهم راكعون). . فمن صفتهم إقامة الصلاة - لا مجرد أداء الصلاة - وإقامة الصلاة تعني أداءها أداء كاملا , تنشأ عنه آثارها التي يقررها قوله تعالى: إن الصلاة تنهى عن الفحشاء والمنكر . . والذي لا تنهاه صلاته عن الفحشاء والمنكر , لم يقم الصلاة ; فلو أقامها لنهته كما يقول الله !
@@MBeats27 don’t speak without knowledge, why you making claims simply by using your Aql. When Allah said in Sura Nisa verse 164: وَكَلَّمَ ٱللَّهُ مُوسَىٰ تَكْلِيمًۭا What does it mean? “And Allah spoke to Moses with [direct] speech.” The Arabic if you understand it is so clear aswel, so when Allah himself said he spoke directly to Musa are you going to say no he didn’t?
@@MBeats27 Aql isn’t used as an independent source of evidence in Aqeedah, so tell me this are you going to use your brain and reject Allah’s statement? Are you going to reject that verse in the Qur’an, if you want to commit Kufr and become a disbeliever by doing that 🤷♂️your in dangerous waters, Allah says clearly he spoke to Allah, but your hear saying Allah gave you a brain thus by using it Allah doesn’t speak or no sound, what did Musa hear then when Allah said he spoke to Musa directly ?
