سبحان الله وبحمده سبحان الله العظيم. كل من يعتقد أن الكذب ممكن في كلام الله تعالى يعتقد أن صفات الله ممكنة الزوال. ما قدروا الله حق قدره.

❤

كيف نوفق بين قوله تعالى (وَهُوَ ٱلۡقَاهِرُ فَوۡقَ عِبَادِهِۦۖ وَیُرۡسِلُ عَلَیۡكُمۡ حَفَظَةً حَتَّىٰۤ إِذَا جَاۤءَ أَحَدَكُمُ ٱلۡمَوۡتُ تَوَفَّتۡهُ رُسُلُنَا وَهُمۡ لَا یُفَرِّطُونَ) [Surah Al-An'am 61] وبين حديث ان موسى ضرب ملك الموت وفقا عينه عندما قال له اجب ربك فرجع الى الله تعالى يشكوه؟؟

@furqanshariff

3 жыл бұрын

يطلب الأنبياء إذنًا ، على عكس عامة الناس ، ليس لدينا ملاك جبريل آخر يخبرنا بذلك

@muhamedkhadr34

Жыл бұрын

أجله لم يكن حان بعد في قدر الله

أي كتاب للإمام الغزالي يقرأ منه الشيخ؟

@user-de4pr9ih1y

6 ай бұрын

الاقتصاد في الاعتقاد للغزالي

His explanation of what Kalaam Nafsi is (which is using a Human's example) is doing similitude with Allah, just like he any other Kalaami would attribute the same thing to Kalaam Lafdhi, so why the inconsistency?

Allah also has knowledge of what He will send as revelation....so, His Ilm, Kalam Nafsi & Kalam Lafdhi exist parallely ( i.e. one doesn't follow the other)....this is my perception for now...is there any problem with this? Allah knows best

@n.a3642

2 жыл бұрын

Makes sense to me.

@r.senterprises1474

Жыл бұрын

I didn't understand, pls explain me

@r.senterprises1474

Жыл бұрын

I didn't understand

حجة ضعيفة جدًا، لأنه لو سلمنا عدم إمكانية الكذب في الكلام النفسي وهي ضعيفة أيضًا لأنك خلطت بين العلم بما تريد قوله والكلام النفسي، فالكلام اللفظي عندك مخلوق لله فقولك أنه لابد أن يكون دلالة على النفسي قيل وما الدليل على هذا الحصر ولماذا لا يقدر أن يخلق كلاما لا يعبر عن كلامه النفسي كما خلق كلامنا اللفظي وفيه كذب بالإجماع ؟!

@Al-Azdi

Жыл бұрын

شفاك الله، شاهد قناة الشيخ الدكتور عبدالقادر الحسين وشرحه للعقائد وستجد ضالتك .

@user-de4pr9ih1y

6 ай бұрын

سئل محمد بن صالح الْعُثَيْمِين في لقاء الباب المفتوح (١٠٣/١٩): هل يجوز الحلف بالقرآن؟ فقال: الحلف بالقرآن تريد بذلك القرآن الذي نزل على محمد ﷺ جائز؛ لأنه من كلام الله، وكلام الله تعالى صفة من صفاته وجميع صفات الله يجوز الحلف بها، أما إذا كنت تريد بالقرآن المصحف الذي هو الورق والحروف المكتوبة فهذا لا يجوز؛ لأن هذا مخلوق، والحلف بالمخلوق شرك كما قال النّبيُّ ﷺ: ((من حلف بغير الله فقد كفر أو أشرك)) ثم نقول أيضًا: ما الذي حثك على أن تحلف بالقرآن؟ ما هناك قسم إلا بالقرآن؟ احلف بالله، قال النّبيُّ ﷺ: ((من كان حالفًا فليحلف بالله أو ليصمت)). ﺍﻫـ

@user-de4pr9ih1y

6 ай бұрын

الكذب مُحتمل لو كان الكلام فعله ولكن كلام الله صفته لا فعله عندنا وصفاته كلها قديمة أزليّة، إذًا فالكذب محال من هذه الناحية.

This proof assumes not only the Ash’ari view on kalaam of Allah, but that kalaam lafdhi has to follow kalaam nafsi. Kind of a poor argument.

@azharabdulkhader5563

Жыл бұрын

That’s right. It is presupposing that the lafzhi corresponds with nafsi

@Andalusian_

Жыл бұрын

@@azharabdulkhader5563 I've seen better arguments, including an Ash'ari one to do with kalaam of Allah. Another one is a qabeeh/hasan attribute argument by others.

@azharabdulkhader5563

Жыл бұрын

@@Andalusian_ Yea Asharism can't appeal to qabeeh/hasan argument. What is the other argument?

@Andalusian_

Жыл бұрын

@@azharabdulkhader5563 Something along the lines of the following: Allah is all-wise and all-just. If that's the case, then His wisdom and justice means that it is impossible for Him to do frivolity and so on. I'll try to copy/paste the full argument later, God willing. Related to that is the argument of moral perfection - lying being an imperfection and hence impossible for God. The other argument is that if kalaam is an eternal attribute, then either Allah has to say the truth always or always lie or it would depend such that sometimes He would say the truth whereas he could've said a lie in it solace and vice versa. If kalaam is an eternal attribute, then this would be impossible, as kalaam would need an outside specifier when to lie and when to say the truth. And we know that He said the truth, hence He always says the truth, based on this argument. Another argument is that whatever Allah says is automatically the truth. And if He were to contradict the truth, He would be contradicting Himself, so He would be God and not God at the same time, which is impossible.

@Toxstxr

11 ай бұрын

Lafdhi follows nafsi because thats what lafdhi means...It's an indication of the Kalam nafsi....If it didn't indicate the kalam nafsi, it wouldn't be Kalam lafdhi... He's assuming the Ash'ari view on Kalam because he's explaining an Ash'ari text...

Let me try to make it more coherent. Can Allah ‎ﷻ tell a lie? * Meaning of lie: a statement that is opposite of reality / what has occurred or happened / truth. * If Allah ﷻ tells a lie, He speaks of a statement (Kalam Nafsi) that is inconsistent/contradictory with His Knowledge * Inconsistency/Contradiction is a flaw and notably a flaw of His creation without looking at morality. How is this possible when Sifat Salbiah have been established logically upon Him? * In particular, if He lies, He will be similar to any human being who lies, and hence it will render Him the possibility to be created, not a Creator. How is this possible when we have established Mukhalafatuhu lil Hawadith upon Him? * The logical establishment of disability to tell a lie is an attribute of perfection, as bring Him down from a state of perfection to a single flaw is a flaw itself. * His Kalam Lafdzi is a mere translation of His Kalam Nafsi through His own action of translation by creating a voice or writing process. Since He speaks the truth, His Kalam Lafdzi has to be the truth.

@mmuhd

Жыл бұрын

We the Asha'irah state that Kalam Nafsi is His Direct Speech from His Essence, whereas Kalam Lafdzi is the translation of part of His Direct Speech, be it with voice or written. Kalam Nafsi should NOT be translated as Allah's Inner Speech because that is drawing an equivalent comparison to human being. His Direct Speech is without any word, letter or voice as it is His Divine Essence's Attributes (in contra with speech being a human physical attribute). On the other hand, with respect to human, Kalam Nafsi is our inner speech and Kalam Lafdzi is our vocal / written speech.

@Al-Jahiz

Жыл бұрын

@@mmuhd Qadi Abdul Jabbar(935-1025) stated in his Mughni: In the Qur'ân God says that He did some things in the past using a verb in the past tense; if He were per se and, conse­quently, in all eternity speaking. He would be lying in this kind of sentences since the fact described did not happen yet and He nevertheless informed that it did happen. Here is an example: So We seized each ˹people˺ for their sin: against some of them We sent a storm of stones, some were overtaken by a ˹mighty˺ blast, some We caused the earth to swallow, and some We drowned. Allah would not have wronged them, but it was they who wronged themselves.(S29:40)

All in all this is confused speech at its best! The summary: 1.lying cannot occur in kalaam nafsi 2.lying can only occur in kalaam lafzi. So essentially what Allah knows cannot be a lie, but what Allah reveals can be a lie!! Exactly what the philosophers wanted!!

@AbuWilly.

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, that's what I thought! He didn't change anything except proving that it is impossible.

@princemathew.1149

2 жыл бұрын

@@AbuWilly. If its impossible then there is no worries about Allah SWT not revealing to us the truth.

@princemathew.1149

2 жыл бұрын

He said that Allah SWT's speech is kalam nafsi.

@Al-Jahiz

Жыл бұрын

Qadi Abdul Jabbar(935-1025) stated in his Mughni: In the Qur'ân God says that He did some things in the past using a verb in the past tense; if He were per se and, conse­quently, in all eternity speaking. He would be lying in this kind of sentences since the fact described did not happen yet and He nevertheless informed that it did happen. Here is an example: So We seized each ˹people˺ for their sin: against some of them We sent a storm of stones, some were overtaken by a ˹mighty˺ blast, some We caused the earth to swallow, and some We drowned. Allah would not have wronged them, but it was they who wronged themselves.(S29:40)

@r.senterprises1474

Жыл бұрын

@@princemathew.1149 I didn't understand