OT STUDIO

Ya Allah

Jahmi Ibn Uthaymeen said: "There is no metaphor (Majaz) in the Quran and arabic language and this is the view of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim." No Metaphors in arabic💀

With due respect to Dr Shadee, the word “physically” here is doing much more than many people might think. Let me explain why it does not solve the issue at all, does not clarify anything, and does not change what is being claimed. The claim being made by Dr Shadee is basically: affirming “above the Throne” only implies disbelief if it is meant “physically.” To people who are not familiar with these discussions, that can sound like a harmless clarification, basically just rejecting crude anthropomorphism, because “physically” in everyday speech suggests something obviously false for Allah: being like created things. In other words, they hear it as denying that Allah is any kind of physical substance or material stuff. The problem is that, in this debate, “physically” is used by Ash'aris in a different, technical way that is not laid out to the audience, and that technical meaning is exactly where the disagreement lies. Breaking it down in simple terms: Muslims affirm Allah's attributes while denying any resemblance to creation. For example, we affirm that Allah knows, hears, and sees. We also affirm that the believers will see Allah in the Hereafter. We understand these words and affirm them in their plain meanings. We do not turn them into metaphor simply because “nothing is like unto Him.” At the same time, we do not describe “how,” and we do not imagine these attributes in creaturely categories. Now compare that to “above the Throne.” When the Athari/Salafi non-metaphorically affirms Allah’s ‘uluw, he is not saying, “Allah is above the Throne in the same "way" or "howness" created things are above other things.” He is doing the same thing we all do with the other attributes: affirming what the wording indicates in its basic, direct sense, while denying resemblance and refusing to speak about modality. He affirms real ‘uluw, while denying that Allah is contained, encompassed, or restricted by creation. So why does the Ash‘ari response keep returning to “physically”? Because in its kalamic usage, “physical” does not mean “likeness to creation,” or “physical or material stuff” in that common sense way. It means something closer to: “any affirmation of real directionality at all.” And the crucial move here is treating directionality itself as entailing createdness or jismiya. And the reality is that this rests on a whole kalamic metaphysics under the hood (tied to atomist frameworks about bodies, contingent properties or what the mutakallimun call “accidents,” and space etc) in which “being in a direction” is treated as inseparable from the spatial properties of created substances. But this metaphysical basis for their position is rarely stated plainly or clearly, and its premises are rarely ever laid out (when they really need to be if they want to make actual substantive claims instead of just using buzzwords). But just as Dr Shadee did here, they usually just throw out the word “physical” as if they're only referring to that basic, surface level meaning that comes to people's minds. The metaphysical framework doing all the work is just assumed in the background, and it does most of the work without being openly argued for in public discussion. In other words, “physically” here function as a technical label for the very claim being disputed: affirming “above” in a non-metaphorical sense (even while denying resemblance and denying containment), and that technical label is secretly loaded with some very dense metaphysics that the Mutakallimun disputed very heavily about over the centuries. This is why adding “physically” does not actually resolve the dispute, Dr Shadee. If “physically” is being used in the everyday sense (likeness to creation, or being made of “physical stuff”), then nobody is affirming that in the first place. But if “physically” is being used in the technical sense (real directionality as such, or directionality considered on its own without simply presuming the entire kalamic metaphysical machinery in the background as a given), then it is not a modest qualifier. It's simply a way of renaming the Athari position “physicality,” and then rejecting it by definition. The same shortcut appears with the word “place.” If “place” means being contained or encompassed by an existing thing called "space," then yes, that must be rejected. But Salafis who affirm ‘uluw are not saying that. They affirm real aboveness over creation while denying that anything contains Allah or restricts Him. So when someone says, “affirming place is kufr,” the question is always: what do you mean by “place”? If you don’t distinguish “containment” from “aboveness without containment,” you end up relying on ambiguity rather than making an actual argument or stating your position clearly. A similar issue applies to the word “body” or “jism.” The term should not be used with respect to Allah at all, but more importantly, when we talk about "intended meaning": if someone intends by it the usual creaturely meaning understood in ordinary language, then that is false and must be rejected. But even major Ash‘ari authorities like al-Razi point out that some disputes here can be largely semantic, because groups like the Karramiyyah may use the word “jism” while intending something like “a self-subsisting existent.” In that case, the wording is still rejected, but the judgment depends on what is meant, rather than treating the label itself as automatically decisive. And in these kalamic discussions, “jism” is often functioning as another technical label silently tied to their metaphysics (once “directionality” is assumed to entail created spatial properties based on very dense metaphysical theories). That is why simply throwing out “body” language, just like simply throwing out “physical” language, can hide the real argument under the hood instead of making it explicit. Finally, the slogans attributed to the Salaf, like “pass them on as they came,” “without asking how,” or “its tafsir is its recitation,” are not proofs that the basic meaning must be denied. Those statements are used by the Salaf with the attributes that everyone affirms like knowledge, hearing and seeing. Should we then deny the basic, plain meaning of seeing or hearing??! Obviously not. We should do what the Salaf did: block speculation about “how,” not the affirmation of meaning itself. If, by those "pass them on" quotes, they meant “affirm no known meaning in any sense,” then they would empty the other affirmed attributes of any intelligible meaning as well. But no one treats them that way. So it is inconsistent to invoke those slogans only to deny the most basic sense of “above,” while allowing affirmation elsewhere. So the real dispute is not “do we deny tashbih?” Everyone does. But when you're talking about the *implications* of a certain school's affirmations, then in this context, the dispute is whether “physically” is being used in the ordinary sense (which nobody affirms anyway), or in a technical kalamic sense that quietly turns “real ‘uluw without asking how” into something condemned by definition.

No joke! Uncle Fawzan says: “Staying an atheist or praying to rats and cows is better then becoming a Sufi Muslim.” Source:…. 1/2