Abu Hanifah and Hanafi Madhab

Salaams!

Thank you for your question! I'm not sure why you have a problem with our interpretation of 'revealed'. Any way the word 'revealed' is interpreted, it can only refer to something created. If you look at any of the various translations and meanings of the Arabic word for 'revealed' (n-z-l), ask yourself if any of these could refer to something that is eternal.

For example, one meaning of n-z-l is 'sent down.' That is to say that it refers to something that changes its place from above to below. Is it possible that a pre-existent moves from one place to another? Certainly not! A pre-existent existed before created time and space and is therefore independent of spatial-temporality. If it is independent of time and space, it cannot be said to move from one place to another. Can you find an example of something that the Qur'an refers to with the verb n-z-l that refers to something that is not created?

This brings us to the main crux of what we are discussing. One can interpret the Qur'an in various ways; however, the soundest method of interpretation employs a harmonious relationship between all the verse. That is to say that if an interpretation of a verse contradicts another verse, the interpretation is discarded. As we mentioned in the previous post, the verses that seemingly affirm the Vision, or Meeting (as you put it) of Allah, contradict the verses that clearly negate it. Even Sunni commentators of the Qur'an such as Abu Bakr al-Jassas in his Ahkaam al-Qur'an and Rashid Rida in his Al-Manaar admit that the verses that negate the Vision of Allah are more decisive and explicit than the ones that seemingly affirm it. It is therefore safest to hold to those verses that negate the Vision as decisive and those that seemingly affirm it as figurative.

As we also said, relegating the verses that negate the Vision, or Meeting, to only this dunya cannot be justified by either the language of the Qur'an or the context of the relevant verses. Nowhere in the Qur'an are we told that our inability to see Allah only applies to this dunya.

Furthermore, the Arabic word for 'look' (n-z-r) and the Arabic word for 'see' (r-a-y) are not synonymous just as the English words themselves are not synonymous. That is, one can be said to look but not see. In the Qur'an for example, Allah says: {And thou wilt see (taraahum) them exposed to (the Fire), made humble by disgrace, and looking (yanzuroon) with veiled eyes} (Q. 42:45). The verb for 'see' indicates that one actually views the object; whereas the word used for 'look' indicates one attempting to view the object but is unable. Not surprisingly, the verse that seemingly implies the Vision in Surah al-Qiyaama uses the verb for 'look' not the verb for 'see.' Therefore, the Vision, or Meeting of Allah, cannot be explicitly denoted from the verse even for the person who interprets the verse literally.

You asked:

so do Zaydi consider the life of Dunya and life of Akhira as the same or different?

We say that the life of the dunya and the life of the akhira are different; however, the eternal quality of Allah doesn't change. That is to say that if the eternal quality of Allah not being seen is true in the dunya then his eternal quality of not being seen is also true in the akhira. Allah's eternal attributes do not change whether in the dunya or akhira.

Also, as a point correction, we say that the word mawla used for Rasulullah, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, and for the Commander of Believers, Ali bin Abi Taalib, upon him be peace, is the same and not different. Just as the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, had the ultimate authority over the believers, Ali had this same authority. This is evidenced by the sequential fa in the hadith of Ghadir. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, said: ((Do I not have more authority over the believers than they have over themselves? Then, for whomsoever I have authority, Ali has authority)). The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his progeny, not only did not differentiate his role as mawla from Ali's role as mawla, but he emphasised the similarity.

And Allah knows best!

IRS

wa alaykum as salaam wa rahma!

Thank you for your question! As for the reference from the Ahkaam al-Qur'aan by al-Jassaas, it is in the tafsir of 6:103. He says the following: .

As for a rough translation of what you posted, he basically says that the Vision is necessary and truth without idraak and without interpretation. He says that the aforementioned verse does not negate the Vision because the someone seeing something does not necessitate the negation of idraak. In other words, he repeats the typical Sunni argument that seeing doesn't denote idraak as something can be seen without being reached (idraak).

And Allah knows best!

IRS

No. He said laa tafsiir which means "No explanatory interpretation."

And Allah knows best!

IRS