Allah’s Annihilation?!

Allah’s Annihilation?! A Reply to the Christian Polemic “The Annihilation of Allah: A Question and Challenge to Salafi Anthropomorphists” (PDF), by yours truly.

From the article:

Before addressing the actual challenge, I would like to mention that I found the title of this Christian polemicist’s tract quite amusing. Here we have a Christian who believes that Prophet Jesus, upon him be peace, was Allah incarnate labelling Salafîs as anthropomorphists. The irony in that should be quite resonant to anyone of sound mind. One would think that Christians would be more deserving of that designation than Salafîs.

Anthropomorphism is defined as “an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics.” This is something that is not necessetated by merely affirming certain attributes to non-human things.

I’m currently considering writing another article, with the help of a friend or two, to tackle the issue of anthropomorphism. One of my friends has already contributed a few quotes we could use for it. I’ve also got a few books in mind to sift through for material, so it shouldn’t be too tough a project if we even get around to doing it. We’ll see though, Allah willing.

More from Jalal Abualrub

Brother Jalal Abualrub has posted a couple of new articles to his site, both polemics against Sam Shamoun of the Answering-Islam site. The first is titled, The Unchangeability of a God Who Needed to be Changed!, which touches on some of the contradictions inherent in some of Shamoun’s words regarding God’s essence. The second is titled, Modalism or Moodalism!, touches on another Christian concept regarding God’s essence called modalism. Both articles are pretty good reads. Here are a couple of excerpts:

Doubts & Their Replies: Part 2

By: Shaikh Muhammad Nâsir ad-Dîn al-Albânî  

The Second Doubt: Area

The reply to it is what Ibn Taimiyyah said on pg. 45 of at-Tadmuriyyah:

An existent thing [that is] not Allah could be meant by [the word] ‘area’. Thus it is created like if I meant the Throne itself, or the heavens itself by [the word] ‘area’. What is non-existent [that is] not Allah, exalted is He, could [also] be meant by it,[1] like if I meant what is above the universe by [the word] ‘area’. It is known that the [legislative] text does not contain affirmation of the word ‘area’, like it contains affirmation of exaltedness,[2] levelness,[3] transcendence and ascension to Him, and similar to that. Nor [does it contain] its negation.  And surely, it is known that nothing exists except the Creator and the created. The Creator is unlike the created. Nothing from His essence is in His creation and nothing from His creation is in His essence.

So it is said to whoever negated [the word ‘area’], “By ‘area’, do you mean that it is an existing created thing? For Allah is not inside the created things. Or by ‘area’, do you mean what is beyond the universe? For there is no doubt that Allah is above the universe. Similarly it is said to the one who said Allah is in an area, do you mean by that that Allah is above the universe or do you mean by it that Allah is inside something from the created things? For if you meant the first, then it is true. And if you meant the second, then it is false.

Doubts & Their Replies: Part 1

By: Shaikh Muhammad Nâsir ad-Dîn al-Albânî

The linking of all who affirm transcendence[1] for Allah, exalted is He, to being an anthropomorphist or an embodier, or to the attribution of area[2] and place[3] to Allah, has certainly become widespread among the later generations.[4] Thus, it is necessary to remove the doubt concerning these three matters.

The First Doubt: Anthropomorphism

It is possible to take the answer to this doubt from what has preceded of the [statements] conveyed from the imams, and from what we will see in the following texts of the book;[5] I will mention some of them now.

1. Nu’aim bin Hammâd al-Hâfidh said, “Whoever likens Allah to His creation, then he has disbelieved. And [likewise,] whoever rejects what He described Himself with, then he has disbelieved. What He described Himself with is not anthropomorphism, nor [is what] His messenger [described Him with].”

2. Is·hâq bin Râhawaih said, “Certainly anthropomorphism would be if [one] said ‘hand like my hand,’ or ‘hearing like my hearing’; then this is anthropomorphism. As for if [one] said just as Allah said: ‘hand, and hearing, and sight,’ then he did not say ‘how’ or ‘the likes of …’, then this is not anthropomorphism. Allah, exalted is He, said, «Nothing is like His likes and He is the Hearing, the Seeing» (42:11).”