Several critics try to portray Salafi stances on Sifat as being rationally absurd and indefensible to the point that it would constitute an intellectual threat to one’s Islam if he were to adopt them, especially if probed by non-Muslim ‘rationalists.’
Assalamualaikum, I read your paper "The Hanbali School's Theology on Allah's Attributes". I have some questions in mind on this topic.
1. Does muhdath indicate to changing of state for Allah? And can we affirm changing of state for Allah?
2. Could there be a harmonising method by which Hanbalis could say about Ashari/Maturidi "maybe he meant that" which is in-line with Hanbali Creed?
For example, we know the connotative defition of yad which perform function like creation, grasping etc. Now can we say Ashari/Maturidi have a similar understanding of it, but they interpret the function to be "Power"? (Meaning their using of the word taweel refers to similar understanding of connotative defition)
1) Not sure what you mean by "state." We do not believe that He changes in Essence like getting older or losing or gaining essential attributes. But He can 'change' in terms of actions He performs. For example, Allah is not actually speaking to Prophet Musa right now but He was thousands of years ago at Mount Tur.
2) For those of them that make ta'weel, they would say that Yad means power. We wouldn't say that.
I had someone once argue that affirming nominalism means you cannot affirm objective morality, the idea that moral universals exist independently of the mind.
Very interesting
Assalamualaikum, I read your paper "The Hanbali School's Theology on Allah's Attributes". I have some questions in mind on this topic.
1. Does muhdath indicate to changing of state for Allah? And can we affirm changing of state for Allah?
2. Could there be a harmonising method by which Hanbalis could say about Ashari/Maturidi "maybe he meant that" which is in-line with Hanbali Creed?
For example, we know the connotative defition of yad which perform function like creation, grasping etc. Now can we say Ashari/Maturidi have a similar understanding of it, but they interpret the function to be "Power"? (Meaning their using of the word taweel refers to similar understanding of connotative defition)
wa alaykum assalam,
1) Not sure what you mean by "state." We do not believe that He changes in Essence like getting older or losing or gaining essential attributes. But He can 'change' in terms of actions He performs. For example, Allah is not actually speaking to Prophet Musa right now but He was thousands of years ago at Mount Tur.
2) For those of them that make ta'weel, they would say that Yad means power. We wouldn't say that.
I had someone once argue that affirming nominalism means you cannot affirm objective morality, the idea that moral universals exist independently of the mind.
Thoughts?
This is a poor argument, which might possibly work against the Mu'tazilites, but not others who do not root objective moraility in moral universals.
Please see https://islamicdiscourse.substack.com/p/an-islamic-response-to-euthyphros