Question about / for Maturidis

[Jaysh]

jinnzaman said

It makes perfect sense.

The Sahabah (radhi allahu anhum) didn't discuss complex theological issues, yet among all groups, the Asharis and the Hanbalis, there were different discussions. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah's explanation against kalam was completely different from that of Imam Ahmad's explanations of why kalam is wrong.

Explanations change over time. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

Bro, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or condescending like I normally am. I sincerely did not understand.

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah's explanation differed with Imam Ahmad's because they were two different scholars with different ideas. It was not ONE scholar giving two mutually contradictory answers.

Yad is either haqeeqi or majazi. It cannot be both haqeeqi and majazi.

For example, if I say: "He was as fat as a bear," then either I mean something literal and he REALLY is as fat as a bear, OR I was speaking metaphorically and he is not really as fat as a bear. Let's say some random person asks you what you meant by that and you said "We just do tafweed of that"...then another person comes and you tell him that actually "he is metaphorically as big as a bear". So yeah sure you just didn't voice your opinion when you supposedly did 'tafweed', but this is not really tafweed; it's just concealing information. In reality, you know deep down inside that it is majazi and not haqeeqi.

So if a Maturidi would claim then that they are doing tafweed of the sifat, then why couldn't someone argue: "no ,you're not, you clearly take the majazi interpretation at certain times, meaning you just conceal this at other times."

I hope you get what I am saying here.

Oh yeah, and thanks for your compliment bro; I also respect you a lot.

[Jaysh]

Timbit said

It does make perfect sense. You have to explain some concepts differently to different people.
Same point AmroodWala was trying to make in your Wifely Obedience thread, Jayshie.

No, it's nothing like that, and that makes no sense.

[jinnzaman]

Jaysh said

Bro, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or condescending like I normally am. I sincerely did not understand.

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah's explanation differed with Imam Ahmad's because they were two different scholars with different ideas. It was not ONE scholar giving two mutually contradictory answers.

Yad is either haqeeqi or majazi. It cannot be both haqeeqi and majazi.

For example, if I say: "He was as fat as a bear," then either I mean something literal and he REALLY is as fat as a bear, OR I was speaking metaphorically and he is not really as fat as a bear. Let's say some random person asks you what you meant by that and you said "We just do tafweed of that"...then another person comes and you tell him that actually "he is metaphorically as big as a bear". So yeah sure you just didn't voice your opinion when you supposedly did 'tafweed', but this is not really tafweed; it's just concealing information. In reality, you know deep down inside that it is majazi and not haqeeqi.

So if a Maturidi would claim then that they are doing tafweed of the sifat, then why couldn't someone argue: "no ,you're not, you clearly take the majazi interpretation at certain times, meaning you just conceal this at other times."

I hope you get what I am saying here.

Oh yeah, and thanks for your compliment bro; I also respect you a lot.

No, its not like that at all.

The general rule is that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala)'s attributes are unfathomable to the human mind so we shouldn't delve into these matters and simply accept what they are. However, if there are a group of people that mention certain attributes over and over again and create a distorted view of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala), then ta'weel is utilized to contrast against it.

To give an example, there are two extremes in portraying Rasulullah (sallahu alayhi wa sallam). Some people would say he is a terrorist. Another extreme would say that he never engaged in warfare. To the people who say he was a terrorist, we would bring forth narrations that emphasize how he was gentle to people and animals. But to the hippies, we would also emphasize that he lead fought in 53 battles and lead 13 campaigns. Is it a contradiction to emphasize one attribute under certain situations and to emphasize another attribute under other situations? I don't think so.

If we were to analogize the people who excessively affirm the attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) that may create inferences that He is like the creation (in spite of the false caveat "Allah has attribute X, but its unlike creation.") to the people who accuse Rasulullah (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) of being a terrorist while analogizing the people who negate Allah (subhana wa ta'ala)'s attributes to the people who deny Rasulullah (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) engaging in jihad at all, then it would make sense how different groups need to be corrected with different proofs.

Ta'weel is used to prevent the imposition of an exclusive opinion such that it creates an incorrect inference.

And again, Deobandis use it sparingly. The attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) are always constant, but they utilize ta'weel to say something to the extent "This is a possible meaning as well, it doesn't necessarily mean that its a physical property." However, no Deobandi ever adopts a figurative interpretation exclusively. In other words, the way ta'weel is used is to say something like 'Yadd can mean this, or it can mean this, or it can mean this." Usually, however, the safest path is to consign the meaning to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala).

I may be completely wrong on this, but those Deobandis that view ta'weel to be permissible, view it to be permissible under a limited set of circumstances.

Allahu alim.

[Timbit]

Jaysh said

No, it's nothing like that, and that makes no sense.

Yeah, it is, man. It's the exact same concept.
Whatever; Jinnz is giving you lots of examples.