> The scientific nature of time and space and it's implications to aqeedah

[al-boriqee]

akhee kareem abdul-fattah

im debating the atheists shi'a on the shiacat forum on this very point.

akhee place is not an entity akhee. a place is a direct result of something that exists. I did not want to spoil the issue on the other thread so I will respond to this here

Selam aleykum
Regarding the nature of time and space, I am still waiting for your response to the many arguments I brought in this thread:
http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/aqeedah-methodology/scientific-nature-time-space-implications-aqeedah-1930/

Sadly, I see no new arguments in this thread rather then the implied logic that we should accept this concept, simply because that is what the scholars before us thought. Even though they reached those conclusions based on a limited understanding of the universe and without any strong evidences from the Qur'an or hadeeth.

If we cannot find any concrete evidences in our sources that show us undoubtedly what the nature of time and space is, then we should keep an open mind to either perspective. And I don't see how it is part of aqeedah, or how different philosophical or scientific views regarding this should create divisions in Islam.

I have a credibly direct source as clear as day

Abu Hurayrah
said that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: "Allah said:
"Sons of Adam curse against [the vicissitudes of] Time, and I am Time: In My hand is the night and the day."
Related by al-Bukhaari (and Muslim).

here, the sharh of the hadeeth is that
1. Allah clearly affirmed that He is time

2, when it was clarified what that meant, Allah directly stated that in His Hands, is the night in day.

Time, in reality, as Allah revealed above, is merely the alteration of the night and day i.e what is pertinent to our creation here on earth.

there is no reality to time outside of this reality Allah has stated in this hadeeth qudsi. There is no other viewpoint save the viewpoint of Allah.

1. You have no proof/evidence for this claim, it is completely speculative.

actually, it does not even fall into the realm of speculative or not. It is not a statement of empiracy, it is a statement of Allah. You see, there are three types of speech
1. legislative (shar'i)
2. empirical
3. logical

however, the claim that time is merely what I have stated does not even fall into empiracy. If the hadeeth qudsi is used as a hujjah, then it simply understood by default of logic, adding to that the attestation of Allah azawajal in a hadeeth qudsi of this fact.

that means, it does not matter how many trillions and eons of work that scientists can try to formulate as "theories" that oppose this factual matter, it will never be able to be proven through reality as the viewpoint of Allah stated in the hadeeth along with the testification of plain and simply logic.

2. Your views contradict Einsteins relativity, a scientific theory that has been proven by experiment.

Im glad my views contradict einstein. his theory is based on the premise that matter is not created or destroyed, rather it is mutated from one state to another and therefore eternal.

We, say, matter IS created and it IS destroyed, Allah created it, and Allah will destroy it. and NO thing is eternal except Allah.

Well nothing more then a theory, true. But even if it is "merely" a theory, it is a theory based on empirical testing and that by itself is already a lot stronger than intuitive and baseless speculation.

thats fine and dandy but our view is not empirical in nature. It is logical like 1+1=2.

you attempt to substantiate the existence of an entity called "place" or "time" is like substantiating the existence of an entity like the number 5. 5 is purely non existential and it remains so unless it is qualified by an existing thing. 5 is nothing until we add to it 5 gallons, 5 birds, 5 planets, etc etc. time and space is nothing until actual existential objects are brought into existence and emergent matters formulate.

out statement or claim is not one of empiracy, it is merely one of logic, attested to by a shar'i claim i.e. the hadeeth qudsi narrated above. Therefore our claim is not empirical whereas your studies remain empirical. Ours is not speculative because speculation surrounding an issue is based on the fact that there is obscurity on the issue or lack of clear understanding.

Everything exists in 4D. It makes perfect sense, it's perfectly logical. It has no inconsistencies and has been tested by experiment and provides predictable and accurate results. Brother, if you don't understand something, there is no shame in that. However you can't say it doesn't make sense simply because you fail to understand it, that is not a correct approach.

thanks for the advice

my claim nothing is 4-d is based on the fact that the only existence of something that is 4d is this

4D is the fourth dimension which is being able to feel the things in the movie or virtual reality device.

vi.e. virtual reality. However, real life is not called 4-d unless you restrict the meaning of 4-d to a mode of feeling.

All these things you mentioned confirm my statement. All these things happened in a time-frame. They were not instantaneous, it were seconds, minutes, hours, days. For any change to occur, we have to allow time to flow. That being said you seem to have missed my point; I was merely making an argument by showing "where" this intuitive view of time come from.

yes, a time frame we concocted based on the fact of night and day, a cosmic event from which and by which we format our views of "time".

You are confusing physical time with arbitrary time. When I speak of time, I do not mean dates and numbers. I mean "passage" of time.

they are the same. One is merely sensational, the other is descriptive, yet, both are products of the same attribute that it is only perceived by created existential objects between an event to another event. When a star goes super nova, it did not go through a passage of time from its birth until the supernova, rather millions of events happened to such a star. Yet, if any intellectual creature was there, then it would be perceived as a passage of time simply because it is they who "feel' the passage of time, but other created objects do not have a "passage of time".

That's not a point that is an opinion. You seem very certain of yourself, for somebody who has absolutely no evidence and attempts to refute somebody who does have evidence.

certainty in the face of what is factual is logical. uncertainty in the face of what is logical is just merely absrud.

secondly, your evidence is empirical in nature. our is logical and legislative.

Space=place

wrong

space is where place(locations) are, where as a place is simply the locality of a thing. place is a particular portion of space where a certain thing exist. SPace is not place. interelation does not equate to exactitude.

The hadeeth does not specify "time is a mere fact of events". It simply explains in what context Allah subhana wa ta'ala could be considered time. It could be that this was meant metaphorically, I cause time, therefor I am time. We do not know for certain; and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best. You are adding interpretation that is not mentioned there specifically.

thank yu. You have just abandoned your view and have jumped on board with us. even if it is metaphorical (which in arabic it is called apparent/obvious i.e. dhaahiran) then its metaphor PROVES that time is merely the enactment of events inherent in your statment "I cause time". Yes, He causes time, and the passage of time is the result of events taking place in succession one after the other until the end.

1. Strictly speculative, without anything to back up
2. Your view goes in against Einsteins relativity.

1. I don;t need to. The mere definitive meanings of these terms are inherently different, let alone its reality
2. Im glad, my view is in concordance with Allahs view of relativity.

secondly, einsteins theory of relativity is flawed attested to by simple science itself. His theory is based on two components
a. special relativity and
b. general relativity

the error comes into being when he asserts that free falling objects are natrual to falling even without any force being exerted to them instead of the fact that gravity is the element.

of course we know einstein passed away before the era of spae exploration, but still, you are explicitly using a faulty source as a definite hujjah on the topic.

1. Each theory should be judged on its own merits, not judged on who brings the theory. You are making the same flaw as people who judge Islam based on the bad actions of (some) muslims.

that is a fallacious deduction of my point. I understand that in principle, everything is judged on its own inherent value to reason, truth, or existence. What I am saying is that this is not applicable in absolute form. science is a science that is based on empiracy and then moves onto hypotehtical analysis and then through experiments to be graduated into theories and then into facts. however, the basis of all of this is throuh empiracy. Since all of science is based on empiracy, as exemplified by one murtad I had a debate with on the faith freedom forum, empiracy is a study of reality and matter. If someone has a view not in accordance with Islam, they will always have a flaw in their empircal outlook on a matter. just look at the world famous einstein. his flaw was evident in his actual theory itself from more than one angle.

2. How is this an Islamic fact, do you have daleel for that?

disregard the islamic fact part.

3. Doesn't Islam invite us to study, examine the world/universe/nature? How can you come here and say that we should ignore those who are doing it for us?

that is an incorrect deduction of my original statement. my statement is not in connection with this deduction. Islam does invite us to examine and study the reality of things. that has nothing to do with the fact that the basis of using principles should be in accordance to the viewpoint of Allah.

the creed of einsteins theory that matter is not created or destroyed is in direct contraditciont to the Islamic creed of matter is created and it is destroyed.

I need to complete this now inshallah.

sallaam

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum

im debating the atheists shi'a on the shiacat forum on this very point.

I know your motivations brothers, and I don't agree with their view either, but just because we both agree that their view is incorrect, doesn't mean we should agree ourself on your view.

I have a credibly direct source as clear as day
Abu Hurayrah
said that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: "Allah said:
"Sons of Adam curse against [the vicissitudes of] Time, and I am Time: In My hand is the night and the day."
Related by al-Bukhaari (and Muslim).
here, the sharh of the hadeeth is that
1. Allah clearly affirmed that He is time
2, when it was clarified what that meant, Allah directly stated that in His Hands, is the night in day.

I disagree strongly with your claim that this hadeeth is clear as day regarding the issue of the physical nature or time and space. The hadeeth is still open for interpretation and you choose to interpret it in a specific way. I do not see any reasons why I should accept that specific interpretation, especially not since your interpretation seems to defy logic and defy empirical testing.

Time, in reality, as Allah revealed above, is merely the alteration of the night and day i.e what is pertinent to our creation here on earth.

Again this is a dodgy interpretation, what you are saying is, that without the alternation of day and night, there will be no time. The hadeeth mentions that the alternation is a form of time, but it doesn't rule out that it is nothing more then that. A much more logical interpretation would be that this was merely a method of explaining the implications of time, rather then intended as a guideline for understanding the physical nature of time. And Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best.

there is no reality to time outside of this reality Allah has stated in this hadeeth qudsi. There is no other viewpoint save the viewpoint of Allah.

Well, not according to your interpretation.

actually, it does not even fall into the realm of speculative or not. It is not a statement of empiracy, it is a statement of Allah. You see, there are three types of speech
1. legislative (shar'i)
2. empirical
3. logical
however, the claim that time is merely what I have stated does not even fall into empiracy. If the hadeeth qudsi is used as a hujjah, then it simply understood by default of logic, adding to that the attestation of Allah azawajal in a hadeeth qudsi of this fact.

Again, you are interpreting. The hadeeth does not explicitly say what you claim it does.

that means, it does not matter how many trillions and eons of work that scientists can try to formulate as "theories" that oppose this factual matter, it will never be able to be proven through reality as the viewpoint of Allah stated in the hadeeth along with the testification of plain and simply logic.

1. The hadeeth doesn't explicitly say that
2. The view is not as you claim logical, but it is rather illogical considering what we know of the universe, and have discovered trough testing.

Im glad my views contradict einstein. his theory is based on the premise that matter is not created or destroyed, rather it is mutated from one state to another and therefore eternal.

Broher if you choose ignorance, over knowledge, I wouldn't see that as a source of happyness. I already refuted this, but you seem to have ignored that part of my post. This claim you make regarding his theory is simply not true, and shows that you don't understand his theory at all.

We, say, matter IS created and it IS destroyed, Allah created it, and Allah will destroy it. and NO thing is eternal except Allah.

Brother the theory does not deny this. Again, I'll repeat myself. The concept of conservation of energy (which isn't even part of einsteins general relativity) claims that withing a closed system no new energy is spontaniously formed or created. And those three words in green are crucial, because those still leave the door open for outside powers to create and form. In other words, the theory doesn't claim that energy can't be created or destroyed, rather it says, it can not be created or destroyed by itself.

thats fine and dandy but our view is not empirical in nature. It is logical like 1+1=2.

No it is illogical, As I have shown with my philosophical arguments which you ignored.

you attempt to substantiate the existence of an entity called "place" or "time" is like substantiating the existence of an entity like the number 5. 5 is purely non existential and it remains so unless it is qualified by an existing thing. 5 is nothing until we add to it 5 gallons, 5 birds, 5 planets, etc etc.

You are again confusing the issue of name-giving with charesteristics. Like I said, it has been scientificly proven and tested, that space is an entity! It has been proven that space can be bended by the gravitational field of the sun. Therefor space actually exists, and is not just a concept derived from measurement, and the same goes for time.

time and space is nothing until actual existential objects are brought into existence and emergent matters formulate.

So you claim, but like I said, that claim goes in against:
1. Logic
2. Science
3. Empirical testing and data

out statement or claim is not one of empiracy, it is merely one of logic, attested to by a shar'i claim i.e. the hadeeth qudsi narrated above. Therefore our claim is not empirical whereas your studies remain empirical. Ours is not speculative because speculation surrounding an issue is based on the fact that there is obscurity on the issue or lack of clear understanding.

There is obscurity in that hadeeth, and your viewpoint is not directly and implicitly explained in it.

my claim nothing is 4-d is based on the fact that the only existence of something that is 4d is this
4D is the fourth dimension which is being able to feel the things in the movie or virtual reality device.
vi.e. virtual reality. However, real life is not called 4-d unless you restrict the meaning of 4-d to a mode of feeling.

That defenition is wrong. So you are basing your views on a bad defenition. 4D has nothing to do with movies or virtual reality. The classical 4 dimensions are:
1. The first spatial dimension (left to right)
2. The second spatial dimension (up to down)
3. The third spatial dimension (forewards to backwards)
4. The temporal dimension (future-wards to past-wards)
When we say that somthing exists in 4D, we simply say that it is in the time-space continuum.

yes, a time frame we concocted based on the fact of night and day, a cosmic event from which and by which we format our views of "time".

Again speculative interpretation, that goes in against science, logic and empirical testing.

they are the same. One is merely sensational, the other is descriptive, yet, both are products of the same attribute that it is only perceived by created existential objects between an event to another event. When a star goes super nova, it did not go through a passage of time from its birth until the supernova, rather millions of events happened to such a star. Yet, if any intellectual creature was there, then it would be perceived as a passage of time simply because it is they who "feel' the passage of time, but other created objects do not have a "passage of time".

So you keep claiming, without any proof. Brother I have no need for you to explain your viewpoint over and over again in different words, I understand your viewpoint perfectly, however I reject it because it is a primitive, intuitive view of space and time that contradicts logic and contradicts what people have discovered trough testing.

certainty in the face of what is factual is logical. uncertainty in the face of what is logical is just merely absrud. secondly, your evidence is empirical in nature. our is logical and legislative.

So what you're saying is, people should ignore what they have seen with their own eyes based on an interpretation of a hadeeth? That is blind faith And I for one refuse to be any part of that, I don't think that this is what Allah subhana wa ta'ala has intended for us.

wrong
space is where place(locations) are, where as a place is simply the locality of a thing. place is a particular portion of space where a certain thing exist. SPace is not place. interelation does not equate to exactitude.

This is a semantical debate. I can agree with you for the sake of argument, and accept your view where space and place are different words refering to different things. Be that as it may, my arguments for "space" are still valid, namely that space is more then a concept but a physical entity.

thank yu. You have just abandoned your view and have jumped on board with us.

No, I have not, you have simply misunderstood my argument.

even if it is metaphorical (which in arabic it is called apparent/obvious i.e. dhaahiran) then its metaphor PROVES that time is merely the enactment of events

No, it does not. If it is metaphoricly, it could be that time is more then merely that, and that time is still a physical entity, but that Allah subhana wa ta'ala choice this metaphore in order not to over-complicate things, and Allah subhana wa t'alaa knows best. So if I say that it could be metaphorical, that does not prove that time is merely abstract.

inherent in your statment "I cause time". Yes, He causes time, and the passage of time is the result of events taking place in succession one after the other until the end.

Yes, and this succesion occurs in a dimension, a physical entity which we call "the dimension of time".

1. I don;t need to. The mere definitive meanings of these terms are inherently different, let alone its reality

A chair and a sofa are inheritly different to, yet they share more simularities than diffrences. The same goes for time an d space. You are right they are different, I never claimed that they were exactly the same, rather what I was saying that your claim, <time and space are fundamentally different> is wrong because their diffrence is not fundamntal.

2. Im glad, my view is in concordance with Allahs view of relativity.

Your view is not in concordance with reality. How can it then be in concordance with allah's view of reality, if you don't even accept reality itself? If you systematicly ignore science and emperical testing, based on some completely out of the context quote which you don't even understand.

secondly, einsteins theory of relativity is flawed attested to by simple science itself. His theory is based on two components
a. special relativity and
b. general relativity
the error comes into being when he asserts that free falling objects are natrual to falling even without any force being exerted to them instead of the fact that gravity is the element.

Again your quote testifies that you do not understand Relativity. This is not what his theory claims, you show to have a very poor understanding of this theory.

of course we know einstein passed away before the era of spae exploration, but still, you are explicitly using a faulty source as a definite hujjah on the topic.

Einsteins view has not been shown faulty, it is still widely accepted by scientists, and not a single event or discovery has proven it wrong. In fact many experiments have validated his theory and accuratly followed his predictions.

that is a fallacious deduction of my point. I understand that in principle, everything is judged on its own inherent value to reason, truth, or existence. What I am saying is that this is not applicable in absolute form. science is a science that is based on empiracy and then moves onto hypotehtical analysis and then through experiments to be graduated into theories and then into facts. however, the basis of all of this is throuh empiracy. Since all of science is based on empiracy, as exemplified by one murtad I had a debate with on the faith freedom forum, empiracy is a study of reality and matter. If someone has a view not in accordance with Islam, they will always have a flaw in their empircal outlook on a matter.

No, the only restriction on empiracal testing is its limitedness. That means imperical testing can in some sence be inferior because there are some things which you simply cannot test. However there is nothing inheritly wrong with the things that you can test. And If you deny this, then you deny reality itself.

just look at the world famous einstein. his flaw was evident in his actual theory itself from more than one angle.

Again, you exhibit a very poor understanding of his theory.

that is an incorrect deduction of my original statement. my statement is not in connection with this deduction. Islam does invite us to examine and study the reality of things. that has nothing to do with the fact that the basis of using principles should be in accordance to the viewpoint of Allah.

It has everything to do with it. Allah says:
Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy. (4:82)
So we are even challenged to find discrepencies in the Qur'an. Yet when it comes to interpreting hadeeth <and you acknowldege that the hadeeth is most likely metaphorical, therefor you must logically also admit that it concerns an interpretation> then you suddenly change. and rather then objectivly analysing it, you refuse to acknowledge any deviant view by default, without giving it the benefit of the doubt. again brother, I clearly distanciate myself from that aproach and I don't think that this blind faith is what Allah subhana wa ta'ala has intended for us.
And Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best.

the creed of einsteins theory that matter is not created or destroyed is in direct contraditciont to the Islamic creed of matter is created and it is destroyed.

Again, I already refuted this in the previous post. I repeated my arguments again in this post. For clarity I'll repeat it a third time inshaAllah:
1. Science does not claim that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
2. The only thing closely related to your claim, is the theory of conservation of energy.
3. Conservation of energy is not a part of relativity theory, but comes from Newtons laws of thermodynamics.
4. Conservation of energy does not rule out the possibility for Allah subhana wa ta'alaa to destroy/create energy.

To make another analogy, it is like saying: gravity is wrong, because if Allah subhana wa ta'ala wanted, he could let apples hoover around the tree's instead of falling down. While that is absolutely correct, it is a fact that he choice to make the universe in such a way that aples do fall down, hence the theory of gravity that says that apples fall down is correct. In a similar way, has Allah subhana wa ta'ala created the universe in such a way that within it, energy is conserved (thus no energy is lost or no new energy foremed). Of course he could always create additional energy, just like he could make apples hoover. Yet the theory does not describe what Allah subhana wa t'aala could do, rather it describes the charesteristics of the universe that he did create.

May Allah subhana wa ta'ala forgive me if I was overly harsh in my replies, if I was at any point overly strict and harsh, then know that it is because my attempts to get trough to you with diplomacy failed. It is clear from your replies that you do not understand my views, and therefore I attempted this harsh manner as a last recourse to try to get trough to you.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Abdul-Fattah

Selam aleykum,
Ok brother, thanks for clearing that up.
I can completely agree to that vision, but judging from brother al-boriqee's post in this other thread, he sees things differently than you do. He doesn't only claim that this is a semantic issue related to a different semantic view of the word "place", but also goes on to claim that "space" itself is an abstract concept.

we are the same

also, space is merely the distance between from one object to other existing objects.

allow me to ask

if all things did not exist, would there be such thing as "space"?

[Abdul-Fattah]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

we are the same

also, space is merely the distance between from one object to other existing objects.

allow me to ask

if all things did not exist, would there be such thing as "space"?

That is a tricky question. No matter what you belief, the answer always has to be "no". See, there are two options:
Your view:
Space is abstract, so without anything to be at any space, there wouldn't be space either.
My view:
Space is a physical entity, a "thing". So if all things do not exist, space would also be part of "all things" so space wouldn't exist either, because its a thing, and all things don't exist (at least according to the question).

If however what you meant was, if all objects from within space would disappear, would there still be space? Yes, absolutely. Even a vacuum consists out of particles. Empty space exists, and this can be shown trough experiment.

Here's some interesting articles:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1225616.htm
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2...est-relativity
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07...-another-test/
http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relat...elativity.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Abdul-Fattah

That is a tricky question. No matter what you belief, the answer always has to be "no". See, there are two options:
Your view:
Space is abstract, so without anything to be at any space, there wouldn't be space either.
My view:
Space is a physical entity, a "thing". So if all things do not exist, space would also be part of "all things" so space wouldn't exist either, because its a thing, and all things don't exist (at least according to the question).

If however what you meant was, if all objects from within space would disappear, would there still be space? Yes, absolutely. Even a vacuum consists out of particles. Empty space exists, and this can be shown trough experiment.

Here's some interesting articles:
Astronomers find proof of Einstein's theory. 22/10/2004. ABC News Online
Pulsars give more accurate test of relativity | COSMOS magazine
Theory of Relativity Passes Another Test | Universe Today
Tests of Relativity - putting Einstein to the test
Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

now that was a sneaky and clever way of escaping the obvious. I must give you some props for that akhee.

sallaam

[Abdul-Fattah]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

now that was a sneaky and clever way of escaping the obvious. I must give you some props for that akhee.

sallaam

Selam aleykum
Ya Allah, ya Allah, ya Allah! I did not escape anything, if you read my post thoroughly, you'll see that after explaining the ambiguity of your question, I did reply to your question (as you intended it). I merely took the libirty of explaining the ambiguity first, to avoid further confusion and communicationerrors. So don't tell me that I'm sneaky and avoiding obviousness akhi. That is not the correct way to treat your brother in Islam. >:(
How about responding to post #12 instead of judging and insulting your brother.
Selam aleykum

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum
To show once and for all that your interpretation of the hadeeth is questionable. Consider this hadeeth of similar nature:

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said: Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him.
It was related by al-Bukhari.



This is also a hadeeth Qudsi. So If we agree that your deduction from the hadeeth regarding time is accurate, namely:

IF Allah subhana wa ta'ala says that he "is" time, THEN that this means time is an abstract concept and not something real.

That was your claim was it not? Well, then we must apply the same logic here. That means we have to regard all the things mentioned here as an abstract non-physical concept. Allah subhana wa ta'ala says he is his sight, thus his sight is abstract and a-physical. Allah subhana wa ta'ala says he is his hearing, thus his hearing is abstract and non-physical. Allah subhana wa ta'ala says he is his hand and foot, thus his hand and foot is abstract and not phyisical.

As far as sight and hearing goes, that could still be acceptable. But clearly you must see the error of claiming that our hands and feet are abstract, and not physical. And if you can see that, you must also see why the conclusion you draw from the hadeeth of time is interpretative and weak.

And I know not, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best.

[salman]

as-salamu 'alaykum

akhee Abdul, I don't speak for brother boriqee, but I don't think he intended any harshness in his comments. Though I've to admit your arugments are in accordance with Ash'ari arguments in this subject. I found my notes on this subject and I'll be sharing them tonight insha'Allah

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum
Yeah I guess you're right, it probably wasn't his intention. But all the same I wasn't being sneaky and I wasn't escaping the obvious, and I don't appreciate being accused of such.

As for your notes, looking forward for them ^_^
selam aleykum