44RR

@Hanbali2024 @Abdullaahi75043 @ZouhairsMurid @grok I can respond, but like I said it’s a petty argument.

@AlAbdulDhaeef @Abdullaahi75043 @ZouhairsMurid @grok LMAO you got BA BA BAKED

Salafi admits his God is partial

@Hanbali2024 @Abdullaahi75043 @ZouhairsMurid @grok This is a petty argument. I don’t have pride to not just drop it.

It’s a fact you didn’t receive my dm, not that I didn’t dm you myself. Just to be clear if you have no signal and you send someone a message and it says ‘failed to send’ does that mean you didn’t actually send the message yourself? @grok he said this is a contradiction is he incorrect

@Abdullaahi75043 @Hanbali2024 @ZouhairsMurid Thank you for you opinion. Put it in a box for me.

@AlAbdulDhaeef @Hanbali2024 @ZouhairsMurid What r u doing Mann?? This is just a word salad

@provingislam The conclusion you’re trying to make doesn’t follow from the narration. This is a non sequitur

The MOST HATED Hadith to Asharis!!! In this Hadith, the Prophet ﷺ explicitly affirms a LOCATION for Allah!! The implication in the hadith is that whoever does not believe Allah is in the samaa is not a believer!! [Note that samaa is better translated “above” than “heaven”]

@Hanbali2024 @Abdullaahi75043 @ZouhairsMurid So, if it failed and it did not send then it’s a fact that you didn’t actually DM me. I followed you back. If it doesn’t work drop your discord here

@AlAbdulDhaeef @Abdullaahi75043 @ZouhairsMurid Embarrassing

@Hanbali2024 @Abdullaahi75043 @ZouhairsMurid How did you DM me but can’t DM me. That’s a P not P. Nevertheless, I followed you back. DM your discord and time.

@AlAbdulDhaeef @Abdullaahi75043 @ZouhairsMurid Is this a response? I followed you and DM’d you. It won’t let me dm til you follow back. I expect you to be ready for your lesson tonight.

@Abdullaahi75043 @ZouhairsMurid @Hanbali2024 Who said parts of a whole is a concept that extends to Allah?

@ZouhairsMurid @Hanbali2024 @AlAbdulDhaeef Bro to be honest you got baked so bad, why would u do such a mental gymnastics like the Christians do to even deny that a part is that which is not the whole ??? Just become a taymi Muslim at this point don’t do this mental gymnastics

@ZouhairsMurid @Hanbali2024 He thinks that this مفهوم of أجزاء extends to Allah. وَيَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَٰمَةِ تَرَى ٱلَّذِينَ كَذَبُواْ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ وُجُوهُهُم مُّسۡوَدَّةٌۚ أَلَيۡسَ فِي جَهَنَّمَ مَثۡوٗى لِّلۡمُتَكَبِّرِينَ

@AlAbdulDhaeef @Hanbali2024 He does not understand what that means considering he's stuck with Scot and Aquinas

@Hanbali2024 @ZouhairsMurid You clearly need to brush up on المصداق.

Anything that can be said of the subject that isn’t the whole of it can be said to be a part My account or part though is ‘something is a part iff it can be detached from the subject. So you’re just not motivating why parts must only be spatial and there aren’t non-spatial parts. You also didn’t demonstrate what part of it was sophistry @grok am I being a sophist here?

@Hanbali2024 @ZouhairsMurid Yeah, Redefinition Fallacy and Semantic Manipulation. Your philosophy of mereology doesn’t save your neck here.

Yet you haven’t demonstrated how I’m a sophist? It’s funny you say this when you literally re-define what a jism is and I can give PLENTY of examples of things you re-define to try and accuse us of tajseem that has no basis in the language. Clearly you’re ILLITERATE when it comes to mereology since there’s plenty of different accounts of what a ‘part’ is. What a clown. You’re lucky I’m even willing to talk to someone as terrible as you. Hope you show up later. I’m going to dm you so you better join

@Hanbali2024 @ZouhairsMurid You remind me of transgenders who redefine the definition of “what is a man” or “what is a woman”.

@ZouhairsMurid @AlAbdulDhaeef ???? You’re not even responding to the point. Just to be clear, are definitions truth-apt? Yes or No?

@hashimiyy_ Mind you, he says repeatedly he wasn’t trying to debate and then look at the title of the video picture: youtu.be/CigEltyp9YY?si…

@hashimiyy_ The issue is that he attempted to debate a layman Ashʿarī who clearly stated that he did not want to debate because he had not formally studied the subject. Yet during the discussion, he himself admitted, “I’ve never formally studied ʿAqīdah either.”

My spine shuddered at this nightmare of an explanation. 1) He attributed movement to the Creator of movement. Imām al-Ṭabarī says movement is negated for Allāh by consensus of Ahl al-Qiblah, and he even uses this as a refutation of the Muʿtazilah when they claim the Qurʾān is created. Imām Junayd al-Baghdādī said that knowing Allāh creates the movements and stillness of creatures is fundamental to tawḥīd. 2) His analogy was disastrous and resulted in a contradiction within his own creed. It resembles the analogy of water, ice, and vapor used to convey the Trinity, which results in heresy: modalism. The very same issue occurs here. His analogy results in the “heresy” of taʾwīl. He used his intellect to negate the impossibility of entering creation and said the descent was merely his God’s body coming closer to creation. The second aspect he interpreted away is that only an attribute, or worse, a portion of Allāh moves downward. How can one critique the muʾawwil who says one of His actions, mercy, descends while holding such a position? 3) His moving downward to analogize the attributes of Allāh is even worse than when a man gestured with his own hands to discuss Allāh’s Hands. Imām Mālik ordered the amputation of this man’s hand. One can only wonder what this esteemed Imām of the Salaf would say regarding him.

@Hanbali2024 @ZouhairsMurid Notice how when you’re pressed against the wall to answer the question you’re shifting the topic to Kalām Nafsi/Lafdhi and the definition of Jism. I don’t have a tik tok. Give me a time for a discord discussion, I plan on your video being turned on as well.

I don’t see how that’s relevant. Who from the Salaf spoke of Kalam Nafsi/Lafdhi and defined a Jism the way you guys do? Lmao this game doesn’t work on me, I hold you guys consistent. As for the discussion details come on TikTok/ or I’ll make a space later and I expect you to join.

@KyriosPhilos What I said went over your head.

@AlAbdulDhaeef And yet you have 0 brain cells to understand that the first conclusion is a Muslim conclusion. We do not believe Jesus abondoned by God, we believe in the second conclusion (Psalm 22)

Muslims are trying to escape my latest post by using the standard dawah script: "Still doesn't contradict the Quran because it was just made to appear so." They completely miss the logical checkmate here. The "Eloi" cry is an authenticated historical cry. If you concede it happened, you are trapped in a fatal dilemma: Jesus was physically on the cross, experiencing the agony of feeling forsaken by God (directly refuting the rescue narrative). Jesus was physically on the cross, referencing to Psalm 22:1 (directly refuting the rescue narrative).

@Hanbali2024 @ZouhairsMurid This petty continuance of sophistry isn’t going to benefit you nor is shifting the goal post. Secondly, I asked you a specific question. Answer it. Lastly I’m waiting for those discussion details.

‘Part’ is ambiguous with this understanding it wouldn’t be an issue. Also since when do you care what the salaf says? Your own sultan of the mutakalimeen says that you guys innovated wrt Kalam Allah lmfao. Another blunder ‘this is sophistry’ clearly you don’t know what sophistry is to begin with. That’s embarrassing. Also one can say the same to you. @ZouhairsMurid why would we be committed that parts are only spatial entities? Don’t be a hypocrite now. I can simply give an account of part (since you don’t know basics of mereology at all) that a part is a part iff it is something detachable or can be put together on the subject. That’s an intelligible account and I can motivate it as well. Stop getting educated so much?

@ZouhairsMurid @Hanbali2024 It’s sophistry at this point

@AlAbdulDhaeef @Hanbali2024 His argument is simply that if he redefines parts, then we also fall under partialism - not understanding that if he redefines it, we don't care about accepting the definition

@Hanbali2024 @ZouhairsMurid “Knowledge is a part of Allah.” Who preceded you from the Salaf saying such statements? None of the Salaf used partialism to express Allah’s Sifāt.

@ZouhairsMurid What a big L to take HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHH A part is something about the subject that isn’t the whole of it Knowledge is something about Allah Knowledge is a part of Allah. Asharis believe God has non spatial parts

@Hanbali2024 @ZouhairsMurid DM a time and details

@AlAbdulDhaeef @ZouhairsMurid That’s assuming he’s Muslim. Let’s do it either on TikTok or I can open a space, discord ?? I’m free evenings EST let’s discuss this as well as the other bloated nonsense you’re committed to that you can’t prove. Wanna talk later today?

So many salafis in the comments, none of them notices 2 things: -He admits to some of Allah moving while the rest isn't, and this requires partiality -This is a ta'wil because if a part descends then it's not Allah that is doing the nuzul, no more than he did not descend from