Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hijra Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

    That's better. Say this from the beginning next time. You're not an advanced student and your perception of the Madhhab rudimentary.

    The Asharis, like all schools of Kalam, use the KCA to determine what is possible and impossible for Allah Subhanahu Wa Tala. Their metaphysics is how they understand Laysa Ki Mithlihi Shay and what Ayat/Hadith require Tafwid or Ta'weel.
    NO Ashari is obligated to believe in any argument that is derived from KCA. And if you or any Salafi teach that an Ashari is obligated to believe in an argument derived from KCA is a liar and a deceiver.

    In the Ashari School a Muslim is only obligated to believe in what is based on the Quran and Sunnah.
    My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

    Comment


    • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

      NO Ashari is obligated to believe in any argument that is derived from KCA. And if you or any Salafi teach that an Ashari is obligated to believe in an argument derived from KCA is a liar and a deceiver.

      In the Ashari School a Muslim is only obligated to believe in what is based on the Quran and Sunnah.
      There are Asharis scholars who label the Muslim that cannot rationalize his faith (using the KCA) as Kuffar. An extreme position, but it exists amongst the scholars. The KCA is the foundation of Ashari Aqeedah. Re-watch the lecture I posted and investigate the sources he quoted. This is well known outside of Ashari layman circles.

      The reason why you don't know this is because your scholars keep you in a bubble. Like you yourself said, you wouldn't be an Ashari if this was the case. Exactly the point.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

        There are Asharis scholars who label the Muslim that cannot rationalize his faith (using the KCA) as Kuffar. An extreme position, but it exists amongst the scholars. The KCA is the foundation of Ashari Aqeedah. Re-watch the lecture I posted and investigate the sources he quoted. This is well known outside of Ashari layman circles.
        The Quran and Sunnah is the foundation of the Ashari school. KCA is there to teach exactly what I stated above. There were scholars who went too far using KCA, many Ashari scholars called out the mistakes of these scholars.

        So what if there are unsound rulings in a madhab, all madhabs have unsound rulings. There are many rulings among the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. I wouldn't say all the rulings found within the corpus of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah are followable. There are rulings that stated Ibn Taymiyyah was a kafir. Should I follow that ruling because an Ashari scholar said that?

        The point of any Madhab is to follow the Quran and Sunnah. Any ruling within a madhab that exceeds the bounds of the Quran and Sunnah, a Muslim is not obligated to follow. Madhabs are a means not an end.
        My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

        Comment


        • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
          Taḥrīm al-naẓar fī kutub ahl al-kalām (Prohibition of Studying Kalam) - Ibn Qudama:

          https://o.b5z.net/i/u/6103974/f/Cens...Ibn_20Aqil.pdf

          Ibn Taymiyyah should have followed that book, but decided to go against it, and became one of the mutakalimeen instead.

          My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

          Comment


          • You're missing the point. His ruling proves the status of the KCA within the Madhhab. It is the foundation of every school of Kalam. The KCA = Ilm al-Kalam.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
              You're missing the point. His ruling proves the status of the KCA within the Madhhab. It is the foundation of every school of Kalam. The KCA = Ilm al-Kalam.
              He obviously missed the point, because the foundation of the Ashari Aqida is the Quran and Sunnah. If it wasn't Asharis would believe that the Speech of Allah is created and that Allah could not be seen on the last day.

              But Asharis believe the Speech of Allah is uncreated and that Allah will be seen on the last day. And this is a proof that KCA is not the foundation of the Ashari school.
              My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

              Comment


              • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

                He obviously missed the point, because the foundation of the Ashari Aqida is the Quran and Sunnah. If it wasn't Asharis would believe that the Speech of Allah is created and that Allah could not be seen on the last day.

                But Asharis believe the Speech of Allah is uncreated and that Allah can be seen on the last day. And this is a proof that KCA is not the foundation of the Ashari school.
                But the Asharis believe in Kalam Nafsi and reject Imam Ahmad's position on this matter. Why? Because they need to conform with the KCA.

                Please study this subject before responding.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                  But the Asharis believe in Kalam Nafsi and reject Imam Ahmad's position on this matter. Why? Because they need to conform with the KCA.

                  Please study this subject before responding.
                  Excellent article:

                  "The Asharis believe the Quran is created"

                  http://al-mustaqeem.tripod.com/id126.html

                  "Ibn Qudama says in his refutation of the Ash'aris on the topic of Quran:

                  * "There is no dispute amongst all the Muslims that anyone who rejects a verse from the Quran, or a word, which is agreed upon, or even a letter which is agreed upon, is a Kafir... Whereas al-Ash'ari rejects the entire Quran and says: none of that is the Quran, rather it is the speech of Jibril"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                    But the Asharis believe in Kalam Nafsi and reject Imam Ahmad's position on this matter. Why? Because they need to conform with the KCA.

                    Please study this subject before responding.
                    I've study this subject in-depth. There isn't anything authentic from Imam Ahmad on the Speech of Allah being with sounds and letters. It is in a book attribute to him, refutation the Jahmiyya. But it isn't authentic. The only thing that is authentically narrated from him is that the Speech is uncreated, which is in his usul al Sunnah. He never delved into the particulars. Allah Speech being with sound and letters according to what I remembered with first mentioned by Qadhi Yala. al Babahari does not mention it in his text. And Al Babahari was the tabieen of Imam Ahmad.
                    My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

                      I've study this subject in-depth. There isn't anything authentic from Imam Ahmad on the Speech of Allah being with sounds and letters. It is in a book attribute to him, refutation the Jahmiyya. But it isn't authentic. The only thing that is authentically narrated from him is that the Speech is uncreated, which is in his usul al Sunnah. He never delved into the particulars. Allah Speech being with sound and letters according to what I remembered with first mentioned by Qadhi Yala. al Babahari does not mention it in his text. And Al Babahari was the tabieen of Imam Ahmad.
                      Please go elsewhere with your Bid'ah and Shubuhat. The Quran is the Speech of Allah; it consists of letters and sounds, which we recite everyday.

                      Read Ibn Qudama's Lumatul Itiqad and know that he wasn't Muffawid or else he would've agreed with you:

                      https://www.hasbunallah.com.au/luma-...m-ibn-qudamah/

                      Salamu alaykum

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                        Please go elsewhere with your Bid'ah and Shubuhat. The Quran is the Speech of Allah; it consists of letters and sounds, which we recite everyday.

                        Read Ibn Qudama's Lumatul Itiqad and know that he wasn't Muffawid or else he would've agreed with you:

                        https://www.hasbunallah.com.au/luma-...m-ibn-qudamah/

                        Salamu alaykum
                        What Ibn Qudamah has written in Lumatul Itiqad concerning the speech of Allah is correct, as it is stated without interpretation.
                        Ibn Qudamah was a Muffawid. I like what Ibn Qudamah writes because he just mentions the Quran and Sunnah without explanation. And we should not exceed that.

                        We don't know how Allah Speaks. This is the position of Imam Tahawi, and it is the position, I personally follow.

                        I don't care for the Ashari position and I don't care for the Salafi position. I don't care for either position because both positions could lead to an unsound understanding of Allah's Speech. They both delved too deep into the matter, and Allah and His Messenger :saw: didn't require us to delve that deep.


                        Although al Ghazali expression of Allah's Speech appears to be sound that which is written in Ihya ulum al Deen.
                        Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 05-02-20, 06:01 PM.
                        My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                          www.asharis.com
                          "Sharh Aqeedah at-Tahawiya -- Ibn Izz al-Hamafi"
                          My position aligns with the sources above. It should satisfy your intellectual needs if you're sincere and Allah guides you. The early community affirmed the Attributes mentioned in the Naql without delving into their howness. The same Attributes which the schools of Kalam claim are intellectually impossible to ascribe to a God that is Eternal and necessary.
                          Salamun ‘alaykum,

                          I want to give an advice that I first give to my myself (since I’ve committed the same mistake in the past) and then to you brother:
                          Do NOT judge the way of a group based upon what their opponents say. The above mentioned website contains a lot of half-true, imprecise and even outright wrong informations.

                          You may be surprised to hear that but I used to respect "Salafi" Mashayikh and I also thought that the website you mentioned contains correct informations.
                          When I however started reading more from "Salafi" Mashayikh and also at the same time from classical 'Ashari scholars I realized that these "Salafis" were actually clear-cut Mushabbiha and that the way of the Ash’aris is not as they presented it (there is a reason why so many major classical scholars were Ash'aris).

                          Let me tell you something else: I personally respect the Shaykh Sa'id Fouda very much and he's a specialist in Kalam and Ash'ari beliefs and knows the way of the "Salafis" very well (I've rechecked his statements regarding them).
                          But when he says something regarding the Hanabila I take it with a pinch of salt, because he’s a staunch Ash'ari and they are known to exaggerate regarding the issue of Harf and Sawt against Hanbalis. Likewise is my view of staunch Hanabila against Ash'aris. And this while both groups are Sunnis!

                          As for these "Salafis": They’re NOT Hanbalis / Atharis in beliefs.
                          I really recommend you reading this thread here:
                          Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis”

                          As for the Sharh you posted regarding al-Tahawiyya;
                          Most of this Sharh by Ibn Abil 'Izz (d. 792 AH) is a copy-paste (word by word!) from the works of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH).
                          Know that his works are difficult to understand and at the same time the Ahnaf know better what their Imam and their early scholars believed than a Hanbali scholar who even differs with some relied upon positions of the Hanabila.

                          I'll you give you one example to show that the above Sharh is not really reliable: It is claimed that the position that hellfire shall perish is an acceptable position.
                          Know that Imam Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) explicitly stated that believing this is DISBELIEF (as mentioned in Fiqh al-Absat).

                          And this is just one example.
                          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 06-02-20, 01:32 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                            Excellent article:

                            "The Asharis believe the Quran is created"

                            http://al-mustaqeem.tripod.com/id126.html

                            "Ibn Qudama says in his refutation of the Ash'aris on the topic of Quran:

                            * "There is no dispute amongst all the Muslims that anyone who rejects a verse from the Quran, or a word, which is agreed upon, or even a letter which is agreed upon, is a Kafir... Whereas al-Ash'ari rejects the entire Quran and says: none of that is the Quran, rather it is the speech of Jibril"
                            There is a known difference of opinion between Hanbalis and Ash'aris regarding the issue of Harf and Sawt.
                            But guess what: Salafis differ with both of them.

                            I’ve already explained that in this thread:
                            Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis”

                            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                            The reason why they (Ash'aris, Maturidis and Hanbalis) all are regarded as Sunnis is that they are in agreement in these major issues of 'Aqida:

                            - They believe that God is described with the attributes of absolute perfection and is free from any flaws. They believe that God is described with eternal attributes that are meanings subsisting in the divine essence and this is contrast to the belief of the Mu'tazila who reject the notion that God is described with attributes that are za`ida 'ala al-dhat (additionally to the essence) and also in contrast to the belief of the Mushabbiha and Mujassima who believe that some of these attributes are actually not Ma'ani (meanings) subsisting in the divine essence, but rather A'yan (tangible entities) which make up the divine essence.
                            - They believe that God is free from any likeness AND similarity and therefore reject Tamthil AND Tashbih in an absolute way. They believe that God is not described with any of the meanings that apply to the creation (doing otherwise is explicitly regarded as disbelief in al-Tahawiyya!!) and that the Ishtirak (having something in common) in the attributes of the Creator with that of the creation is only one of wording (lafdh) and some of that which these attributes necessitate (Lawazim) and NOT in the real meaning (which includes the reality of the attribute).
                            - Since they reject the meanings that apply to the creation they do NOT have any problem with rejecting descriptions that apply to the creation like being a body, having limbs, parts or tools, being subject to changes, being in motion or stillness, having a weight, a form or a size, being spatially confined or having any type of flaw. They believe that whatever is attributed with these descriptions is not eternal and therefore created by Allah ta'ala, who is completely unlike is creation.
                            - They believe that the Qur`an is the speech of Allah and his revelation. They believe that the speech of Allah ta'ala is eternal just like the other divine attributes and can not be described with being created or having a beginning in any way or form!
                            - They believe that the world (everything other than Allah ta'ala) has a beginning (as a singular AND in its kind!) and that only the Creator can be described with being eternal, because He's the First without beginning and the Last without end. Praise be to Him!


                            There are two issues where the Ash'aris and the Hanbalis differed:

                            - The Hanabila believe that regarding the divine attributes the only correct way is that of Tafwidh (consigning the real meaning to Allah) and that Ta`wil (interpretation) is categorically wrong (except if the Sunna or the Athar contain an interpretation), while the Ash'aris also accept Ta`wil if the context and the usage of the Arabs is considered (especially in order to answer wrong interpretations). So they both actually agree that Tafwidh is the correct way and the Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih and disagree regarding the permissibility of Ta`wil,
                            - After agreeing that the speech of Allah is eternal the Ash'aris differed with Hanabila regarding the Arabic wording (Lafdh) of the Qur`an al-karim: The Ash'aris said that it is created and that the speech of Allah ta'ala is without letters and sounds and that the Arabic words and letters are vehicles to understand the speech of Allah, which is eternal. The Hanabila however vehemently rejected this and said that God speaks with letters and sound. It should be noted here that with "sound" they ONLY intended that God's speech can be heard (and they used Allah ta'ala speaking to our Master Musa - peace be upon him - as a proof for this) (and this is accepted by Ash'aris also!) and not sound waves or something produced by tools or organs or having orofices. As for letters: They said that "Alif Lam Mim" is from the Qur`an and that in the Sunna it is proven that one is rewarded for every letter and therefore it is not allowed to say that God speaks without letters. What they at the same time clarified is that these letters and words are only following each other (Ta'aqub) in the case of human beings, but Allah's speech is without Ta'aqub. And they said that the speech of Allah is completely different from that of the creation and that one should consign the knowledge regarding the reality of Allah's speech to Him like the rest of the divine attributes.
                            The issue of the al-Harf wal Sawt (letter and sound) regarding the speech of Allah is heavily disputed among the Ash'aris and Hanbalis and both groups have attacked eachother because of this issue, but when one looks into the details of their statements one sees that both positions are actually very near to eachother to the degree that there is statement of Imam al-Tufi (d. 716 AH) (who defends the Hanbali position) where he suggests that the difference is actually only in wording between the two groups.


                            (Note: I've not mentioned the issue of 'Ilm al-Kalam, because it is also differed upon between the Hanbalis themselves and you'll find major scholars from among them using it in order to refute the innovators and the heretics. What the Hanabila however agreed upon is that Islamic belief should be based upon the divine texts and not 'Ilm al-Kalam.)



                            As for the beliefs of the modern-day "Salafis"* in comparison to the three Sunni groups mentioned above:

                            - They believe that God is not only described with attributes that are meanings (Ma'ani) subsisting in the divine essence, but also with A'yan (tangible entities) that make up the divine essence. They claim that Yad, Wajh, 'Ayn and other such attributes are Sifat 'Ayniyya!
                            - They believe that rejecting Tamthil (attributing a likeness) regarding God in an absolute way is correct, but Tashbih (attributing similarity) should not be rejected in an absolute way (as explicitly stated by Ibn 'Uthaymin). They believe that there is a Qadar Mushtarak (certain amount of having something in common) between the Creator and the creation and that this Ishtirak (having something in common) is not just regarding the wording (Lafdh) of the attributes and some of what it necessitates (Lawazim), but rather in the real meaning.
                            - Based upon the above they have a HUGE problem to reject those descriptions that apply to the creation and usually say "we neither reject them nor confirm them" or they will use the "if you intend this, then this..."-argumentation, which basically no scholar of the past - other than Ibn Taymiyya - used while discussing these issues.
                            To add to all this: They will show a whole new level of ignorance by claiming that it is 'Ilm al-Kalam to reject these descriptions (even though confirming these descriptions is Kufr!), while the Hanabila throughout all ages and no matter how much they were against 'Ilm al-Kalam did NOT find any problem in rejecting these descriptions.
                            There is one issue however where the "Salafis" openly confirm and do not reject such a description: They believe that God is subject to changes (which is the belief of the Karramiyya!).
                            - They also believe that the Qur`an is the speech of Allah, but at the same time they claim that the speech of Allah is ONLY eternal in its kind, while it is new and has a beginning as a singular. This is in complete contrast to the statement of the Hanabila, who ALL say that the Qur`an al-karim is eternal from every side.
                            - They believe that the world has a beginning as singular, but it's eternal in its kind! This is among their biggest mistakes and from the statements of the philosophers and in direct contradiction to the clear-cut divine texts!

                            Imagine this: From one side they describe the eternal speech of Allah with having a beginning and they claim that Allah ta'ala is subject to changes and from the other side they describe the creation with being eternal [in its kind] and then they claim to know Tawhid better than the rest of the Umma!
                            What Tawhid is this where the Eternal one is ascribed with temporality and the creation is described with eternity?!

                            *Their scholars are meant, because they are the ones who ascribe to the above mentioned beliefs in their books and some of their speeches. Many of their layman do not actually believe in most of the above mentioned points and are not aware of these wrong beliefs.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                              Please go elsewhere with your Bid'ah and Shubuhat. The Quran is the Speech of Allah; it consists of letters and sounds, which we recite everyday.

                              Read Ibn Qudama's Lumatul Itiqad and know that he wasn't Muffawid or else he would've agreed with you:

                              https://www.hasbunallah.com.au/luma-...m-ibn-qudamah/

                              Salamu alaykum

                              Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) would have attacked the "Salafis" even harsher than the Ash'aris, if they would have existed in his time.
                              His position regarding the Qur`an is that it is eternal (and this is the belief of the Hanbalis in general), while "Salafis” claim that the Qur`an is new and has a beginning and that the speech of Allah is only eternal in its kind.

                              As for Imam Ibn Qudama being a Mufawwidh, then there is not doubt regarding that:

                              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                              Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) said in his Lum'at al-I'tiqad:


                              موصوف بما وصف به نفسه في كتابه العظيم وعلى لسان نبيه الكريم وكل ما جاء في القرآن أو صح عن المصطفى عليه السلام من صفات الرحمن وجب الإيمان به وتلقيه بالتسليم والقبول وترك التعرض له بالرد والتأويل والتشبيه والتمثيل
                              وما أشكل من ذلك وجب إثباته لفظا وترك التعرض لمعناه ونرد علمه إلى قائله
                              ونجعل عهدته على ناقله اتباعا لطريق الراسخين في العلم الذين أثنى الله عليهم في كتابه المبين بقوله سبحانه وتعالى: { والراسخون في العلم يقولون آمنا به كل من عند ربنا } وقال في ذم مبتغي التأويل لمتشابه تنزيله: { فأما الذين في قلوبهم زيغ فيتبعون ما تشابه منه ابتغاء الفتنة وابتغاء تأويله وما يعلم تأويله إلا الله

                              [Allah] is described with what He described Himself in his magnificent book and upon the tongue of his honorable Prophet. Whatever has been mentioned in the Qur`an or has been authentically reported from al-Mustafa - peace be upon him - regarding the attributes of the Most Gracious (al-Rahman): It is obilgatory to have belief in it and to welcome it with submission and acceptance and to abstain from going against it by rejection (Radd) or interpretation (Ta`wil) or attributing similarity (Tashbih) or likeness (Tamthil).
                              And whatever is ambiguous from these [verses and narrations]: It is obligatory to affirm its wording (Lafdh) and to abstain from seeking its meaning (Ma'na) while consigning its knowledge to the One who said it
                              and we entrust it upon the one who transmitted it, following the way of those having sound knowledge, those whom Allah has praised in his manifest book by His - subhanahu wa ta'ala - statement: { And those having sound knowledge say, “We believe in it, all of it is from our Lord” } [3:7]
                              And He said censuring those seeking the interpretation of the Mutashabih (those verses which are indistinct in their meanings) of His revelation:
                              { Those in whose hearts is deviation pursue the verses having indistinct meanings, in order to cause turmoil and seeking its (wrongful) interpretation; and only Allah knows its proper interpretation } [3:7]

                              - end of quote -

                              What is obvious from the above statement is that he regards the Ayat and Ahadith regarding the divine attributes to be from the Mutashabihat (which goes against the understanding of "Salafis") and that one should believe in these verses and narrations and affirm them while consigning the knowledge of the real meaning or interpretation to Allah ta'ala (i.e. Tafwidh) and knowing that Allah ta'ala is completely different from his creation.
                              The modern day "Salafis" usually make a huge issue out if this statement and will try to find some sort if interpretation (read: distortion) for the above statement so that it goes in line with their way (and some of them even openly admit that the above is nothing but the way of Tafwidh!), but to their dismay Imam Ibn Qudama has repeated very often in quite many books what he intends thereby leaving no room for their distortion.

                              Imam Ibn Qudama said while explaining why one does not need to know the meaning of these verses and narrations in his Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam:

                              فإنه لا حاجة لنا إلى علم معنى ما أراد الله تعالى من صفاته جل وعز فإنه لا يراد منها عمل ولا يتعلق بها تكليف سوى الإيمان بها. ويمكن الإيمان بها من غير علم معناها. فإن الإيمان بالجهل صحيح. فإن الله تعالى أمر بالإيمان بملائكته وكتبه ورسله وما أنزل إليهم وإن كنا لا نعرف من ذلك إلا التسمية. وقال سبحانه وتعالى: { قولوا آمنا بالله وما أنزل إلينا وما أنزل إلى إبراهيم } الآية

                              For indeed, there is no need for us to have knowledge of the meaning (!) (Ma'na) that Allah ta'ala intended from His attributes - jalla wa 'azz -, because there is no action intended by them and neither is any responsibility attached to them besides believing in them.
                              And having faith in them without having knowledge of their meanings is possible, because having faith with ignorance [of their meanings] is correct, for indeed Allah ta'ala has commanded [us] to have belief in his angels, his books, his messengers and that which was been sent down upon them even though we do not know from them except their names.

                              [Allah] - subhanahu wa ta'ala - says: { Say, "We believe in Allah and what is sent down to us and what was sent down to Ibrahim, ... } [2:136] until the end of the Aya.

                              - end of quote -

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                Imam Ibn Qudama says in the section regarding the Muhkam and the Mutashabih in the Qur`an al-karim in his famous Rawdhat al-Nadhir:

                                وفي كتاب الله -سبحانه- محكم ومتشابه، كما قال تعالى: {هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ

                                The book of Allah - praise be to Him - contains the Muhkam (verses with clear meanings) and the Mutashabih (verses with indistinct meanings) as He ta'ala says:
                                { It is He Who has sent down to you this Book (the Qur’an) containing the verses that have a clear meaning - they are the core of the Book - and other verses the meanings of which are indistinct; ... } [3:7]

                                - end of quote -

                                Thereafter he mentions different scholarly statements until he says:

                                والصحيح: أن المتشابه: ما ورد في صفات الله -سبحانه- مما يجب الإيمان به، ويحرم التعرض لتأويله، كقوله -تعالى-: {الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى} ، {بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَان} ، {لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَي} ، {وَيَبْقَى وَجْهُ رَبِّك} ، {تَجْرِي بِأَعْيُنِنَا} ، ونحوه. فهذا اتفق السلف -رحمهم الله- على الإقرار به، وإمراره على وجهه وترك تأويله. فإن الله -سبحانه- ذم المبتغين لتأويله، وقرنهم -في الذم- بالذين يبتغون الفتنة، وسماهم أهل زيغ

                                The correct position is that the Mutashabih (verses with indistinct meanings) is that which is revealed regarding the attributes of Allah - praise be to Him -, which is obligatory to have faith in and prohibited to seek its interpretation; like His ta'ala statement:
                                { The Most Gracious Who (befitting His Majesty) established Himself upon the Throne (of control) } [20:5], { In fact, both His hands are free } [5:64], { before one whom I have created with My hands? } [38:75], { And eternal is the Entity of your Lord } [55:27], { Sailing in front of Our sight } [54:14] and whatever is similar to it.
                                Regarding these [verses and narrations] the Salaf - may Allah have mercy upon them - have agreed upon affirming them and passing them as they have come and abstaining from their interpretation, for indeed Allah - praise be to Him - has rebuked those seeking its interpretation and has included them - in censure - with those are seeking turmoil and has named them as people of deviation.

                                - end of quote -

                                Thereafter he explains the Aya 3:7 and that only Allah ta'ala knows the correct interpretation and that the correct stop is after { and only Allah knows its proper interpretation } until he says:

                                فلأنه ذم مبتغي التأويل، ولو كان ذلك للراسخين معلومًا: لكان مبتغيه ممدوحًا لا مذمومًا. ولأن قولهم {آمَنَّا بِهِ} يدل على نوع تفويض وتسليم لشيء لم يقفوا على معناه. سيما إذا اتبعوه بقولهم: {كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا} فذكرهم ربهم -ههنا- يعطي الثقة به، والتسليم لأمره، وأنه صدر منه، وجاء من عنده كما جاء من عنده المحكم

                                Since He has rebuked those seeking interpretation: If this [proper] interpretation would be known to those sound in knowledge, then the one seeking [the interpretation] would have been praised and not censured and because their statement { We believe in it } indicates a type of consignment (!) (Tafwidh) and submission (Taslim) of something regarding which they have not come across its meaning (Ma'na), especially when they followed it with their statement { all of it is from our Lord }, so their mentioning of their Lord here shows their trust in Him and their submission to His command and that it emanated from Him and that it came from Him just like the Muhkam (verses with clear meanings) came from Him.
                                - end of quote -

                                So here we see that he explicitly mentioned the consignment (Tafwidh) of the meaning (Ma'na)!

                                He kept on explaining until he said:

                                فإن قيل: فكيف يخاطب الله الخلق بما لا يعقلونه، أم كيف ينزل على رسوله ما لا يطلع على تأويله؟ قلنا: يجوز أن يكلفهم الإيمان بما لا يطلعون على تأويله؛ ليختبر طاعتهم، كما قال -تعالي-: {وَلَنَبْلُوَنَّكُمْ حَتَّى نَعْلَمَ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ مِنْكُمْ وَالصَّابِرِين} ، {وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الْقِبْلَةَ الَّتِي كُنْتَ عَلَيْهَا إِلَّا لِنَعْلَم ... } الآية، {وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الرُّؤْيا الَّتِي أَرَيْنَاكَ إِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِلنَّاس} . وكما اختبرهم بالإيمان بالحروف المقطعة مع أنه لا يعلم معناها. والله أعلم

                                If it is said: "How then does Allah address the creation with something that they do not comprehend or how does He sent down something on his Messenger regarding which the interpretation is not disclosed?"
                                We say: It is possible that He tasks them with having faith in something regarding which they do not know its interpretation in order to test their obediance as [Allah] ta'ala says:
                                { And We shall indeed test you until We make known the warriors and the steadfast among you } [47:31], { We had appointed the qiblah which you formerly observed only to see (test) ... } [2:143] until the end of the Aya, { and We did not create the spectacle which We showed you except to try mankind } [17:60].
                                Just like He has tested them with having faith in the disconnected letters (!) (al-Huruf al-Muqatta'a) even though their meaning is not known. And Allah knows best.

                                - end of quote -

                                I guess the above answer is more than clear [in defending Tafwidh] and a good response to the "Salafis" who repeat the same question today and attack the people of the Sunna by saying "How is it possible that Allah reveals something while the meaning is not known?". Know that other Hanbali A`imma have also answered this question.
                                If it’s wanted I can bring even more quotes.
                                I can also bring quotes to show that his position regarding the speech of Allah is VERY different from that of "Salafis” and that he would have attacked them.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X