Divine Attributes

The 'face' (wajh) of God in Arabic is understood as referring to God's essence or self — 'wajh' also means 'direction,' 'aspect,' or 'being.' The ayah 'everything will perish except His face' means 'everything will perish except Him.' This is standard Arabic usage, not anthropomorphism. The Athari, Ash'ari, and Maturidi schools all address this: divine attributes are affirmed 'without how' (bila kayf) — they are not physical parts, and the Arabic does not require that reading.

The reply is that some sifat are unique to Allah, such as Ar-Rahman, while others can be used for creation in a qualified sense, such as Rahim or loving. The argument is that there is a difference between sharing a word in a restricted context and applying Allah's unique attributes to a creature in a way that rivals Him.

Uthman quotes Mark 13:32 (also in Matthew 24:36): of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. God is all-knowing at all times — this is a fundamental divine attribute. But here Jesus himself says he does not know the hour. If Jesus is God and God is all-knowing, then Jesus must know the hour. The verse explicitly says the Son does not know. Therefore, either Jesus is not God, or the verse is false.

Uthman presses the logical contradiction: God is all-knowing at all times. This is not a negotiable attribute — it is part of what makes God, God. Just as God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19 states God is not a man that he should lie), God cannot fail to know something. He then specifically isolates the ability-to-know distinction the Catholic used: "I did not ask you if you had the ability to. That is like me saying I have the ability to work out and lift 350 pounds, but I cannot." The student replies: "Or you are just not doing it right now." Uthman confirms: exactly — so at that moment Jesus genuinely did not know the hour. He then returns to the divine attribute: God is all-knowing at ALL times. A being that does not know something at any moment, for any reason, cannot be God. The same argument applies to death: God cannot die, but Christians say Jesus died. Either Jesus is God (and these events did not truly happen) or Jesus died and was not God.

Uthman reaches the crux of the argument: the Catholic said Jesus limited himself and therefore did not know the hour. But God is all-knowing at all times — this is the essence of God. To say God limited his omniscience is to say God stopped being all-knowing. But if God stopped being all-knowing, he stopped being God. You cannot have a being who is God and simultaneously not know something — regardless of the reason. The same logic applies to death: God cannot die. If Jesus died on the cross, the dying entity cannot have been God. The Catholic responds by saying God is a complex entity, but Uthman points out that complexity does not resolve a logical contradiction.

Uthman asks: if the divine nature was present in Jesus at all times and is fully omniscient, how did Jesus not know whether a fig tree had fruit on it? He went to check. He also had to eat, sleep, and perform all human biological functions. If the divine nature was truly present and omniscient, and if the one person of Jesus has access to both natures, then Jesus should have known everything the divine nature knows — including whether the fig tree had fruit. The participant gives the same answer: the person knows through the divine nature, but the human nature did not know. Uthman asks: does that make sense to you, really? The participant pauses and ultimately says no, it does not make sense to him.

Uthman argues that all-knowledge is essential to what God is — it cannot be limited even voluntarily without God ceasing to be God. He uses an analogy: if you say a monkey is God and argue it is a mystery, that fails — we can clearly say a being that throws excrement is not God. Similarly, if a being does not know something (like the hour of judgment), we can say with certainty that this being is not God — because God is all-knowing at all times by definition. The core attributes of God must be understandable enough to be the basis of faith. If Jesus did not know the hour, by definition he is not God.

When the topic of whether God can lie comes up, Robin challenges the claim by invoking Job: "Somebody said that God never lied, and I thought immediately about Job. God told Job some whoppers just to check him out." Uthman acknowledges the exchange and responds with Numbers 23:19: God is not a man that he should lie. This is a direct biblical statement distinguishing the divine nature from human fallibility. Robin says she does not take the Bible literally anyway, so the verse carries limited force for her. Uthman uses it to establish the broader point: if there are things God categorically does not do (such as lie), then omniscience is another such essential attribute — and a being that does not know something at any moment cannot be God.

Uthman distinguishes between those who received the message and those who did not. For a person who lived somewhere the message of Islam never reached — on an island, in a remote community, in a time before the message spread — Allah will not judge them for what they did not know. God is merciful and just. They will be rewarded for the good they did and for how they recognized and reached toward God with the understanding available to them. This is the principle: no soul is burdened with more than it can bear. The one who genuinely could not have known is judged differently from the one who knew and rejected.