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

  • Proof that "Salafis” are Mushabbiha while Hanbalis are pure Sunnis:


    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Ibn 'Uthaymin ("Salafi"): There is some degree of similarity between the Creator and the creation


    Ibn 'Uthaymin is regarded as a major scholar by the modern-day "Salafis". We've already seen how the Hanabila rejected attributing similarity (Tashbih) in an explicit and absolute way.

    So let's see wether Ibn 'Uthaymin agrees with them (the Hanbalis) or says something that no Sunni Muslim would ever say!

    Ibn 'Uthaymin (d. 1421 AH) said [as mentioned in the book Majmu' Fatawa wa Rasa`il Ibn 'Uthaymin]:

    والتعبير بنفي التمثيل أحسن من التعبير بنفي التشبيه، لوجوه ثلاثة: أحدها: أن التمثيل هو الذي جاء به القرآن وهو منفي مطلقا، بخلاف التشبيه، فلم يأت القرآن بنفيه
    الثاني: أن نفي التشبيه على الإطلاق لا يصح، لأن كل موجودين فلا بد أن يكون بينهما قدر مشترك يشتبهان فيه ويتميز كل واحد بما يختص به، فالحياة مثلا وصف ثابت في الخالق والمخلوق، فبينهما قدر مشترك، ولكن حياة الخالق تليق به وحياة المخلوق تليق به
    الثالث: أن الناس اختلفوا في مسمى التشبيه، حتى جعل بعضهم إثبات الصفات التي أثبتها الله لنفسه تشبيها، فإذا قلنا من غير تشبيه، فهم هذا البعض من هذا القول نفي الصفات التي أثبتها الله لنفسه

    The expression of denying attributing likeness (Tamthil) [between the Creator and the creation] is better than expressing the denying of attributing similarity (Tashbih), and this is from three sides:
    The first: Attributing likeness (Tamthil) is that which the Qur`an came to deny absolutely unlike attributing similarity (Tashbih), which the Qur`an did not deny.
    The second: Denying attributing similarity (Tashbih) in an absolute way is not correct, because every two existing beings / things must have [at least] a common degree between them (Qadar Mushtarak) where they are similar to each other while every one of them is different in that which makes him special. Life (Hayat) for example is a proven description for the Creator and the creation, so there is a common degree (Qadar Mushtarak) between them, but the life of the Creator is [one] befitting Him and the life of the creation is [one] befitting them.
    The third: That the people have disagreed regarding that which is named as "Tashbih" to the degree that some of them turned the affirmation of the attributes that Allah affirmed for Himself as attributing similarity (Tashbih). So if we say "without attributing similarity" some would understand from this statement the negation of the attributes that Allah affirmed for Himself.

    - end of quote -

    And Ibn 'Uthaymin also said [in the same book]:

    فإذا قلت: ما هي الصورة التي تكون لله ويكون آدم عليها؟ قلنا: إن الله عز وجل له وجه, وله عين, وله يد, وله رجل - عز وجل - لكن لا يلزم من أن تكون هذه الأشياء مماثلة للإنسان، فهناك شيء من الشبه لكنه ليس على سبيل المماثلة، كما أن الزمرة الأولى من أهل الجنة فيها شبه من القمر لكن بدون مماثلة

    If it is asked: What is the image (Sura) that Allah and Adam are [both] upon?
    Then we say: Allah - 'azza wa jall - has a face, an eye, a hand, a foot - 'azza wa jall -, but this does not necessitate that these [descriptions] are like that of human beings, for there is some [sort of] of similarity (!), but not upon the way of likeness (Mumathala); just like the first group from the people of paradise are similar to the moon (i.e. shining), but without likeness.

    - end of quote -

    And Ibn 'Uthaymin said in one of his lectures (taken word by word from a "Salafi" website!):

    نقول مثلاً وجه الله ولم نقل وجه وأطلقنا فوجه الله يكون لائقا لذاته أو لائقا بذاته ، كما لو قلت وجه الفرس ووجه القط الهر هل تفهم من قولك وجه الفرس أنه مثل وجه الهر ؟ أبداً

    We say for example "face of Allah" and we do not just say "face" in general [terms], because the face of Allah is befitting to His essence or befitting His essence.
    Just like when you say "face of a horse" and "face of a cat": Do you understand from your statement "face of a horse" that it is like (mithl) the "face of a cat"? Never...

    - end of quote -

    So this is how these people speak of Allah ta'ala! Allah's refuge is sought from this ugly Tashbih to the degree that they do not even shy away from mentioning animals while speaking about Allah ta'ala!
    So the degree that Allah ta'ala is different from his creation - according to the above statements made by Ibn 'Uthaymin - is similar to the difference between the first group to enter paradise and the moon or similar to the difference between the face of a horse and that of a cat!? Is this the Tawhid?! Well, this sounds more like Wathaniyya (paganism)!



    In response to this Tashbih I would like to remind you of the statement of Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH) in his Tabaqat al-Hanabila:

    واعتقدوا: أن الباري سبحانه استأثر بعلم حقائق صفاته ومعانيها عن العالمين وفارق بها سائر الموصوفين
    ...
    وكل ما يقع في الخواطرمن حد أو تشبيه أو تكييف: فالله سبحانه وتعالى عن ذَلِكَ وَاللَّهِ ليس كمثله شيء ولا يوصف بصفات المخلوقين الدالة عَلَى حدثهم ولا يجوز عَلَيْهِ ما يجوز عليهم من التغير من حال إلى حال ليس بجسم ولا جوهر ولا عرض وأنه لم يزل ولا يزال وأنه الَّذِي لا يتصور فِي الأوهام وصفاته لا تشبه صفات المخلوقين لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وهو السميع البصير
    ...
    أن البارىء سبحانه موصوف بأنه: حي عالم قادر مريد والخلق موصوفون بهذه الصفات ولم يدل الاتفاق فِي هَذِهِ التسمية عَلَى الاتفاق فِي حقائقها ومعانيها هكذا القول فِي أخبار الصفات


    And they (early Hanbalis) believed that the Maker - glory be to Him - is exclusive in having knowledge of the realities of his attributes and their meanings (!) [without anyone] from the worlds [having this knowledge] and He is [completely] different from all that has descriptions;
    ...
    Whatever comes to the mind from limitation (Hadd) or attributing similarity (Tashbih) or attributing modality (Takyif), then Allah is glorified and exalted above it and there is nothing like Him. He is not described with the attributes of the creation that indicate their temporality and that which is possible regarding them - from the changing of one state to another - is not possible regarding Him.
    [Allah ta'ala] is not a body (Jism) or a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) and has always existed and will always exist. He's the One who can not be imagined and his attributes are not similar to the attributes of the creation, { nothing is like Him; and He only is the All Hearing, the All Seeing. } [42:11].
    ...
    The Maker - glory be to Him - is described with being Living (Hayy), Knowing ('Alim), Powerful (Qadir) and Willing (Murid) while the creation is also described with these attributes and this agreement in the naming does not show their agreement in their realities (!) and meanings (!) and likewise is the statement regarding the narrations of the [divine] attributes;...

    - end of quote -

    This is what real Hanbalis / Atharis believed!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
      Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (part 5):



      فأما الرد عَلَى المجسمة لله: فيرده الوالد السعيد بكتاب وذكره أيضا فِي أثناء كتبه فَقَالَ: لا يجوز أن يسمى اللَّه جسما. قَالَ أَحْمَد: لا يوصف اللَّه تعالى بأكثر مما وصف به نفسه. قَالَ الوالد السعيد: فمن اعتقد أن اللَّه سبحانه جسم من الأجسام وأعطاه حقيقة الجسم من التأليف والانتقال: فهو كافر لأنه غير عارف بالله عز وجل لأن اللَّه سبحانه يستحيل وصفه بهذه الصفات وَإِذَا لم يعرف اللَّه سبحانه: وجب أن يكون كافرا

      As for the response against the Mujassima (those who regard Allah a body), then [my] blissful father (al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la (d. 458 AH))has also responded to them with a book and has mentioned [their refutation] in [other] books, so he said: It is not allowed to name Allah a body.
      [Imam] Ahmad said: Allah ta'ala is not described with more than what He described Himself with.
      [My] blissful father said: So whoever believes that Allah - glory be to Him - is a body from among the bodies (Jism min al-Ajsam) and describes Him with the reality of a body from composition (Ta`lif) and change [of place or state] (Intiqal), then he's a disbeliever (!) (Kafir) because he does not know Allah - azza wa jall. For it is impossible regarding Allah - glory be to Him - to be described with these attributes [in reality]; and if someone does not know Allah - glory be to Him -, then it necessitates him being a disbeliever.


      - end of quote -


      Know that the major points that are made by Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la in the above quote (read all 5 parts!) is found in ALL the books mentioned in my first post and in other classical Hanbali / Athari books and represents the beliefs of the Hanabila in general, so I would really recommend reading the above quote fully, even if it is long.




      So the summary of the belief of the Hanabila is as follows:

      - Whatever Allah ta'ala is described with in the Qur`an al-karim or the authentic narrations is to be regarded from the divine attributes: It's obligatory to believe in all these text and affirm them while relegating their meaning and reality to Allah ta'ala and knowing that Allah ta'ala is not like or similar to his creation in any way or form.
      - This affirmation of the attributes is one of affirming their existance and not one of defining or ascribing modality. Since one is affirming them as attributes [and not as descriptions going back to other attributes] while at the same time admitting that one does not comprehend their reality (nor is it possible to do so!), it is not allowed to interpret them metaphorically or otherwise, rather one has to pass these Ayat and narrations as they have come without adding anything to them or taking away anything from them.
      - It's obligatory to reject attributing likeness (Tamthil) OR attributing similarity (Tashbih) regarding the divine attributes. The agreement in the naming of the attributes of the Creator and the creation is only in naming, but NOT in meaning and reality! Whosoever describes Allah with the reality of a body (i.e. 3-dimensional being or object) has disbelieved!
      - The foundation upon which the Ayat and Ahadith regarding the [divine] attributes is to be understood is the Aya 3:7 (which means that they're from the Mutashabihat!) and therefore it's not allowed to interpret or explain these Ayat and Ahadith, because { only Allah knows its proper interpretation; }.
      - The reality of Allah's essence and his attributes can not be comprehended and Allah ta'ala is beyond imagination.

      To add an interesting point to the above: The words of Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la in the above quote clearly indicate that he regards the Ash'aris - whom he regards wrong in their Ta`wil - as Sunnis and includes them explicitly in the Ahl al-Hadith!
      (Note: The Ash'aris also agree with the Hanbalis regarding the correctness of Tafwidh!)

      What is interesting here is how clearly all the mentioned Hanbali scholars rejected Tashbih, while a major modern-day "Salafi" scholar like Ibn 'Uthaymin explicitly denied that Tashbih can be rejected in an absolute way.
      So how is is possible to regard the "Salafis" as Hanbalis / Atharis or let alone as Sunnis?!
      Read the above summary of Hanbali beliefs (which is based upon what can be found in Tabaqat al-Hanabila, which is written before almost 1000 years!) and then tell me do "Salafis" agree with this?!

      If anyone has any doubt regarding my summary let him read the whole quote regarding the beliefs of early Hanabila:

      - Tabaqat al-Hanabila (part 1)
      - Tabaqat al-Hanabila (part 2)
      - Tabaqat al-Hanabila (part 3)
      - Tabaqat al-Hanabila (part 4)
      - Tabaqat al-Hanabila (part 5)
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 06-02-20, 01:22 PM.

      Comment


      • @Abu sulayman

        I've already explained my position to you on a previous thread. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah(ra) codified the vernacular of the Madhhab which is commonly used today. When the previous Hanabila used terms like Qadeem, Bi La Tafsir, Tafwid, Hawadith, Jism, etc., they were not necessarily referring to these terms in the same way they're understood by the Mutakalimoon.

        The statements of the Hanabila/Salaf need to be contextualized historically and theologically in order to understand them correctly. Ibn Qudama's Aqeedah was essentially the same as Ibn Taymiyyah (outside of his Kalam positions), despite the rhetorical devices he used in some of his writings. We know this because of the implication of the Attributes he affirmed contradicts Tafwid, Tajsim, Hawadith and the KCA. The only way to make sense of these phrases is by contextualizing them historically and in light of the scholars overall theology.

        This is not to say that the Hanabali/Atharis were flawless. We admit that some of them deviated and were influenced by the Mutakalimoon. However, in order to determine which scholars were truly guilty of this and to what extent, it would require a thorough analysis of their overall theological views by an expert Salafi/Athari Muhaqiq.

        You're not an expert translator and some of these passages are extremely delicate. The tide could easily shift once you input your bias on how you interpret certain terms. AbuNajm was a professional translator and he criticized your novice/biased translations in a previous discussion.

        ---

        I would highly recommend that you take this issue to a qualified Salafi/Athari student of knowledge. I'm not going to convince you over this forum and I've already witnessed these Shubuhat being explained by the Tullabul Ilm. Why don't you set up a meeting with your local Salafi Mashayikh and allow them to resolve your Shubuhat for you?
        Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 07-02-20, 02:36 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
          @Abu sulayman

          I've already explained my position to you on a previous thread. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah(ra) codified the vernacular of the Madhhab which is commonly used today. When the previous Hanabila used terms like Qadeem, Bi La Tafsir, Tafwid, Hawadith, Jism, etc., they were not necessarily referring to these terms in the same way they're understood by the Mutakalimoon. What Atharis refer to as a Jism is different from what constitutes a Jism for a Mutakalim. Hence why you could have Ibn Taymiyyah stating "Allah can be referred to as a Jism (implying the Athari Dhat), but unlike the Ajsam of creation".

          The statements of the Hanabila/Salaf need to be contextualized historically and theologically in order to understand them correctly. Ibn Qudama's Aqeedah was essentially the same as Ibn Taymiyyah (outside of his Kalam positions), despite the rhetorical devices he used in some of his writings. We know this because of the implication of the Attributes he affirmed contradicts Tafwid, Tajsim, Hawadith and the KCA. The only way to make sense of these phrases is by contextualizing them historically and in light of the scholars overall theologically views.

          This is not to say that the Hanabali/Atharis were flawless. We admit that some of them deviated and were influenced by the Mutakalimoon. However, in order to determine which scholars were truly guilty of this, it would require a thorough analysis of their overall theology by an expert Athari/Salafi Muhaqiq.

          You're not an expert translator and some of these passages are extremely delicate. The tide could easily shift once you input your bias on how you interpret certain terms. AbuNajm was a professional translator and he criticized your novice/biased translations in a previous discussion.

          ---

          I would highly recommend that you take this issue to a qualified Salafi/Athari student of knowledge. I'm not going to convince you over this forum and I've already witnessed these Shubuhat being explained by the Tullabul Ilm. Why don't you set up a meeting with your local Salafi Mashayikh and allow them to resolve your Shubuhat for you?
          Bro AmantulBillahi,

          I would like your understanding of Yasir Qadhi comments.

          Yasir Qadhi said, “I think it is historically clear in Asma as Sifat, the early Muslims who ascribed themselves to the Sunnah affirm the attributes without thinking about their modality (howness) Bilakayf. I talking about the genesis of the Ashari-Athari divide the early manifestations of that (In his disertation). For a period of time, the division was not even clear, because it is within the same strand. You had people gravitating this way or that way. It wasn’t a clear division. Ibn Taymiyyah mentions this. And again, later scholars have their projections and coloring. Ibn Taymiyyah said Asharis and Ahlus Sunnah (Atharis) were essentially one until the Fitna of Al Qushayri took place in Baghdad. They were one against the Mutazilah. They were strands within Sunni Islam. These strands became more and more pronounced as time developed. Al Bayhaqi didn’t view himself as a different strand than Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal for example. Even within strand there were multiply understandings. Al Bayhaqi is one, Fulak is another, Juwayni is another. Al Juwayni strand because of his student Al Ghazali became the more prominent one. When Al Juwayni was alive, these were all variant strands, within Asharism, which kind of sort of attached itself to Atharism. There wasn’t thus clear cut division, that we later have. I’m just trying to point at in my humble opinion, given the current world we live in, we need to minimize this sectarian divide your average sufi, your average salafi. Stop fighting and hating one another. These differences you find the genesis of them in the third and fourth century of Islam.” (mamluk podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEUkgXVcspM )

          My Comments:

          Yasir Qadhi is saying the Asharis and Hanbalis had the same Aqida, which he describes as Bila kayf.
          I understand this to mean, Tafwid.

          Yasir Qadhi said, “Both Asharis and Atharis simplistically read their bias into the past, both sides want to claim these people (the Salafus Saleh) for themselves. But if you actually do the research and go deep in you find that history is more complex than reality. History is not as black and white. And yes treads developed. My position is that even the later Athari Aqida is a development. The Sahaba did not have the aqida as the later Athari Aqida. Ibn Taymiyyah had volumes, if Imam al Babahari read Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam al Barbahari would have rejected Ibn Taymiyyah. This is my opinion. Because al Barbahari’s mind of the third century would not have admitted Ibn Taymiyyah as a Hanbali. Ibn Taymiyyah was a development even for Hanbalis.

          With my utmost respect to my Athari brothers in the room. Please remember Ibn Taymiyyah’s greatest opponents in the beginning were his fellow Hanbalis and then Subki and other came along after. When Ibn Taymiyyah begin, his fellow Hanbali criticized him, because they couldn’t understand his methodology. So let us not romantically back projecting our own bias. This is my area of specialty.” ( Forward to about 1:01 Towards Bridging the Salafi-Ashari Divide). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WSwj_aS-6U&t=1188s

          My Comments:

          Yasir Qadhi is saying the Hanbalis were the first to oppose Ibn Taymiyyah. Not the Asharis. If the Hanbalis of his time had the same aqida as Ibn Taymiyyah, they wouldn't have opposed him.

          Yasir Qadhi is saying Ibn Taymiyyah developed a new methodology, in which the early Hanbalis such as al Barbahari would have rejected the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah, and not accept him as a Hanbali.


          In Babahari's text on Aqida, Sharh al Sunnah explains his methodology as tafwid.

          Al Barbahari said, "Everything of the narrations which you heard but cannot fully understand, like the saying of the Messenger of Allah (Sallahu alayhi wa Salam), 'The hearts of the servants are between two fingers of the Most Merciful, the Majestic' (Muslim and Ahmad), His saying, 'Indeed Allah descends to the lowest Heaven,' (Bukhari and Muslim) 'He descends on the Day of Arafat,' (Daeef- Ibn Mandah in At Tawhid) 'He descends on the Day of Resurrection,' Ar add ala Jahmiyyah al Darimee) 'Hellfire does not cease having them thrown into it until He, the Majestic, places His Foot upon it,' ( Bukhari and Muslim) Allah the Most High's saying to the servant, 'If you walk towards ME, I run towards you,' (Bukhari and Muslim) his saying, 'Allah created Adam in his image,' (Muslim) the saying of the Messenger of Allah (sallahu alayhi wa salam), 'I saw my Lord in the most excellent form' (Musand Ahmad - Sahih) and the like of these ahaadeeth, then accept them and perform Tafweed. Do not explain any of them with your feelings/desires, since believing in them is obligatory. So anyone who explains anything from them according to his desires or rejects them is a Jahmee." (Explanation of the Creed by Al Barbahaaree - Salafi translation).

          Tafwid is purely a linguistic approach. It has nothing to do with KCA.

          Here are two translations of Ibn Qudamah's statement from Lum'at ul Itiqad, "Illumination of the Creed", one from a Salafi and another from a non-Salafi Athari.

          Salafi Translation:

          Ibn Qudamah said "As for what appears unclear from that, then we are obligated to affirm its wording and not oppose it's (literal) meaning. We are to return the precise knowledge of it to the One who stated it and we entrust it upon the one who transmitted it, following the example of the one who are deeply endowed with knowledge, those whom Allah has praised in His Manifest book, saying

          "And those who are firmly grounded with knowledge say, "We believe in it (the Quran): the whole of it (clear and unclear verse) is from our Lord'" (Surat Al Imraan 3:7)"

          And He says, dispraising the one who seeks the taweel (hidden meaning) of the unclear verses of His revelation.

          As for those whose hearts there is a deviation, they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking fits (mischief) and seeking for its taweel (Hidden meaning), but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. (Surah Aali Imraan 3:7)

          Thus Allah has placed the aspect of seeking the hidden meanings (towel) as a sign of deviation. And He has placed it at the same level of seeking after mischief, in dispraise of it. Then He placed a barrier between them and that which they aspire and He cuts off their ambitions from what they seek after by saying,

          But no one knows it's hidden meanings except Allah." (Surah Aali Imraan 3:7)

          (The Explanation of Sufficiency in Creed translated by Abu Maryam Isma'eel Alarcon - Salafi translation)


          (aMuslimForLife): My Thoughts: Two things about the Salafi translation.

          (1) That which is in the parenthesis is what the translator understands, not necessarily what is in the Arabic. For example: "not oppose it's (literal) meaning." In the arabic it doesn't say literal, this is a bias projecting into the translation.

          (2) Taweel does not mean "hidden" meaning, it just means explanation or meaning.

          Non-Salafi Athari translation:

          Ibn Qudamah said, "Any expression such as that which would be ambiguous, it is necessary to affirm the wording, while abandoning the seeking of the meaning of the text. We leave the knowledge of the expression to the speaker and the responsibility of knowing its meaning to the one who narrated it. This is in accordance with following the way of those well grounded in knowledge. Allah praised these people in His Clear Book when He said,
          Those who are well grounded in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All of it has come from Our Lord." (Quran 3:7)




          He (Allah), in mentioning the blameworthy nature of those seeking the meaning of the allegorical passages of His Revelation, said,

          "Those who have a disease in their hearts follow what is ambiguous, seeking tribulation and seeking its meaning. And no one knows its meaning except Allah." ( Quran 3:7)

          Allah with this ayah made seeking the meaning of the text a sign of the disease in the heart and He equated it with seeking evil and tribulation, both being held as blameworthy. So He veiled them from that which they sought and blinded them from what they were seeking according to the words of the Glorified One,
          "And no one knows the meaning except Allah." (Quran 3:7)

          (Illumination of the Creed: The Guide to the path of Truth translated by Al Hajj Abu Jafar Al Hanbali)






          These are non-Ashari translations. And you can compare.
          Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 06-02-20, 06:18 PM.
          My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

          Comment


          • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

            Bro AmantulBillahi,

            I would like your understanding of Yasir Qadhi comments.

            Yasir Qadhi said, “I think it is historically clear in Asma as Sifat, the early Muslims who ascribed themselves to the Sunnah affirm the attributes without thinking about their modality (howness) Bilakayf. I talking about the genesis of the Ashari-Athari divide the early manifestations of that (In his disertation). For a period of time, the division was not even clear, because it is within the same strand. You had people gravitating this way or that way. It wasn’t a clear division. Ibn Taymiyyah mentions this. And again, later scholars have their projections and coloring. Ibn Taymiyyah said Asharis and Ahlus Sunnah (Atharis) were essentially one until the Fitna of Al Qushayri took place in Baghdad. They were one against the Mutazilah. They were strands within Sunni Islam. These strands became more and more pronounced as time developed. Al Bayhaqi didn’t view himself as a different strand than Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal for example. Even within strand there were multiply understandings. Al Bayhaqi is one, Fulak is another, Juwayni is another. Al Juwayni strand because of his student Al Ghazali became the more prominent one. When Al Juwayni was alive, these were all variant strands, within Asharism, which kind of sort of attached itself to Atharism. There wasn’t thus clear cut division, that we later have. I’m just trying to point at in my humble opinion, given the current world we live in, we need to minimize this sectarian divide your average sufi, your average salafi. Stop fighting and hating one another. These differences you find the genesis of them in the third and fourth century of Islam.” (mamluk podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEUkgXVcspM )

            My Comments:

            Yasir Qadhi is saying the Asharis and Hanbalis had the same Aqida, which he describe as Bila kayf.
            I understand this to mean, Tafwid.


            Yasir Qadhi said, “Both Asharis and Atharis simplistically read their bias into the past, both sides want to claim these people (the Salafus Saleh) for themselves. But if you actually do the research and go deep in you find that history is more complex than reality. History is not as black and white. And yes treads developed. My position is that even the later Athari Aqida is a development. The Sahaba did not have the aqida as the later Athari Aqida. Ibn Taymiyyah had volumes, if Imam al Babahari read Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam al Barbahari would have rejected Ibn Taymiyyah. This is my opinion. Because al Barbahari’s mind of the third century would not have admitted Ibn Taymiyyah as a Hanbali. Ibn Taymiyyah was a development even for Hanbalis.

            With my utmost respect to my Athari brothers in the room. Please remember Ibn Taymiyyah’s greatest opponents in the beginning were his fellow Hanbalis and then Subki and other came along after. When Ibn Taymiyyah begin, his fellow Hanbali criticized him, because they couldn’t understand his methodology. So let us not romantically back projecting our own bias. This is my area of specialty.” ( Forward to about 1:01 Towards Bridging the Salafi-Ashari Divide). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WSwj_aS-6U&t=1188s

            My Comments:

            Yasir Qadhi is saying the Hanbalis were the first to oppose Ibn Taymiyyah. Not the Asharis. If the Hanbalis of his time had the same aqida as Ibn Taymiyyah, they wouldn't have opposed him.

            Yasir Qadhi is saying Ibn Taymiyyah developed a new methodology, in which the early Hanbalis such as al Babahari would have rejected the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah.


            In Babahari's text on Aqida, Sharh al Sunnah. Explains his methodology is tafwid.

            Tafwid is purely a linguistic approach. It has nothing to do with KCA.

            Our comments are irrelevant. Why don't you get in contact with Shaykh Yasir and ask him to provide a detailed Tafsir? I've already advised you to do this in private a few months ago.

            Comment


            • Abu Sulayman Please refrain from making this into a debate. I purposely avoided commenting in your Hanbali thread for a reason. I shared with you my views in post #439; take it or leave it.

              I would strongly suggest that you set up a meeting with your local Salafi scholars. Don't you live in a Muslim country? I'm sure you have a way of getting into contact with people who are qualified.

              Barak Allah Feekum

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                Our comments are irrelevant. Why don't you get in contact with Shaykh Yasir and ask him to provide a detailed Tafsir? I've already advised you to do this in private a few months ago.
                Why don't you get in contact with Yasir Qadhi and report back to us? His comments in those talks, confirms what I have already researched. I already came to the conclusion that Ibn Taymiyyah developed a new strand within the Hanbali Madhab in matters of Aqida, and Yasir Qadhi confirmed it in those talks. And I already knew Salafis back project their bias into past. It sounds like you need to get into contact with him, not me.
                My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                  Abu Sulayman Please refrain from making this into a debate. I purposely avoided commenting in your Hanbali thread for a reason. I shared with you my views in post #439; take it or leave it.

                  I would strongly suggest that you set up a meeting with your local Salafi scholars. Don't you live in a Muslim country? I'm sure you have a way of getting into contact with people who are qualified.

                  Barak Allah Feekum
                  Brother, my intention is not debate. What I'm trying to is giving an advice and that is because I was in your shoes once upon a time and that AFTER I had already realized how extreme and crazy the original Najdis were. If I were to give you the statements that I made back then, you may even say that these statements are that of yours and not mine (my reasoning was EXACTLY as yours now and I was also living among the disbelievers, which meant that a lot of those so called "Salafi Du'at" (to hellfire I would say in retrospect!) were present without anyone having CLASSICAL learning of the religion or only very few people).

                  I had ONE big advantage however and that was my knowledge of the Arabic language, which made it possible for me to read books regarding beliefs from so called "Salafis", Ash'aris and later also Hanbalis / Atharis. When you read these books then you'll realize what the difference between these groups are and also why during our Islamic history the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna used to be either Ash'aris, Maturidis and Atharis and NOT "Salafis".
                  You'll also realize that the "Salafis" are not Athari in any way or form no matter what they claim.
                  And you'll see that major Hanbali / Athari scholars viewed the Ash'aris also as Sunnis (even though they disagreed with some of their positions) and this is something you'll find in Tabaqat al-Hanabila, al-'Ayn wal Athar, Lawami' al-Anwar, etc. and that the Ash'aris also viewed them as Sunnis. The only exception to this are the staunch Hanabila and staunch Ash'aris, who sometimes exaggerate and make Tabdi' upon eachother (which was a mistake), but that was not the general mindset!

                  What you're right now upon is that which "Salafis" from the "asharis"-website and some other people understood or misunderstood from the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya, whose books are difficult to understand in the first place (and it's close to impossible that these "Salafis" with their low IQ could understand him and the greatest proof for that is how their Najdi forefathers completely misunderstood him and started mass-killing Muslims!) and who himself had some abnormal views (this is not my statement but that of Hanbalis who respect him and refer to him like Imam Ibn Rajab for example) and these abnormal views have been clearly ignored by the Hanabila after him (which further shows that they regarded these statements as wrong!) even though they would refer to him and quote him extensively in his normal views.
                  FYI: Ibn Taymiyya himself has never spoke about the detailed issues of the divine attributes with the laymen, so why don't these "Salafis" leave the Muslims alone instead of trying to force them to affirm a specific meaning for the [divine] attributes (which is generally rejected by Hanbalis!)? We believe in them upon the meaning that Allah ta'ala and his Messenger - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - intended (again: this is explicitly supported by Hanbalis!) and we are not obligated to accept the clear Tashbih and Kufr stated by the likes of Ibn 'Uthaymin!
                  Likewise these "Salafis" have NO right to constantly lie against Ash'aris AND Hanbalis (go and read some books by "Salafi" scholars and see for yourself how they attack them in an open manner!!) and fool laymen and to turn them into their weapons in causing division and chaos among this Umma.

                  Everyone should know their limits! Who are the people of today so that they could raise their voices against the people who have transmitted this religion to us?!?!
                  The Ash'aris, Maturidis and Hanbalis (whom the "Salafis" accuse of contradicting themselves and only making some correct statements every now and then and also of polytheism because of issues like Tashaffu'!) are the ones who represent the Sunnis and they are the ones through whom Allah has made this religion victorious throughout the centuries and not those "Salafis" who could only raise their heads when this Umma got weak and when the Khilafa fell and when all kinds of corruption spread!

                  If anyone claims to follow Hanbali / Athari 'Aqida, then there are books that have been written by them throughout the centuries like al-Mu'tamad and its Mukhtasar [by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la], Lum'at al-I'tiqad, Nihayat al-Mubtad`in, al-'Ayn wal Athar, Qala`id al-'Iqyan, Najat al-Khalaf, al-Durra al-Mudhiyya, Lawami' al-Anwar and other books and treatises.
                  Why don't the "Salafis" teach these works (with the exception of Lum'at al-I'tiqad, which they however only teach with their own explanations without referring to other Athari books at all!)?
                  Why is it that "Salafis" print some of these works and on almost every page you'll see them rejecting the words of the Hanbali authors in the footnotes?

                  The problem is really that you haven't read anything from the above works in Arabic and are forced to rely upon the wrong informations given by those "Salafis" - who as far as I know are worthless Madkhalis! - from the "asharis"-website.
                  And please don't mention that Abu Najm guy (who LOVES to support OPEN Tahsbih and claims that God is SITTING and the like), who lacks learning and understanding and is most likely a convert living somewhere in Mexico (?) having no connection to the Muslim mindset AT ALL and thinking he's so knowledgeable. He has been even called out and criticized by his own bros on Islamic Awakening Forums more than once.

                  As for meeting "Salafi" scholars:
                  First of all: The level of understanding of their so called "scholars" is lower than that of any serious student of knowledge who studies Islam in a classical way. I have already looked into their books and have listened to many of their lectures (in Arabic) and it's a joke to call these people as scholars in the first place (with very few exceptions and even in the case of these exceptions, then ONLY in SOME Islamic sciences one can call them as scholars)!
                  Then: I'm living in a purely Sunni city (it has been always like this, since the time Islam has entered it!) with very very few Shi'a and Salafis wa lillahil hamd! Even the number of christians (which is also few!) is more than them! And I ask Allah ta'ala to keep their number low, because if they get more then this will automatically lead to chaos and death and killing as we've seen this with our own eyes in other cities!
                  The only "Salafis" (very few as already said) that exist here are the government worshiping type or the terrorist "let's kill ALL Muslims the moment our number grows a little bit... ahmm... we mean apostates"-Najdi-types. May Allah ta'ala protect us from the Shi'a and "Salafi" innovators and heretics and their corruption!

                  Anyways bro, you're free and can do what you want, but don't put your mind and Akhira into the hands of others. It would be also nice, if you could stop attacking Ash'aris, since you have not read any of their books in Arabic.
                  This is it from my side. Salam.
                  Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 06-02-20, 07:48 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
                    These are non-Ashari translations. And you can compare.
                    Brother, why should one rely on translations anyways? The Arabic is clear cut! And it's not like Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) made just one statement in one book. He made his position clear not just in his Lum'at al-I'tiqad, but also in Tahrim al-Nadhir, Dhamm al-Ta`wil, Rawdhat al-Nadhir and some other treatises.

                    He compared even the belief in the divine attributes with that in the Huruf al-Muqatta'a in his Rawdhat al-Nadhir and he explicitly mentioned Tafwidh al-Ma'na and said that the Ayat of the Sifat are from the Mutashabihat and that only Allah knows their meaning!
                    He explicitly denied Ta'aqub (following each other) of the letters (which destroys the "Salafi" position!) and clarified that with sound he only intends that it can be heard (AND NOT MORE!) in his treatises regarding the Qur`an al-karim! And repeated again and again that the Qur`an is eternal (this is REJECTED by "Salafi" scholars explicitly, because they believe that the speech of Allah is only eternal in ITS KIND).
                    What else should he do?

                    AND: What about the rest of Hanbali scholars ALL stating that one should relegate the meaning and reality of the attributes to Allah AGAIN AND AGAIN and saying that the Qur`an is eternal AGAIN and AGAIN and denying Ta`aqub and denying Tashbih and Tajsim AGAIN and AGAIN and saying that these Ayat are from the Mutashabihat and that only Allah ta'ala knows their interpretation and meaning? What else should they do that one understands them correctly?

                    But the "Salafi" Mashayikh do actually understand that all these statements are not in line with their understanding and that's why they reject ALL these statements and when they print any classical Hanbali book they make sure to ADD HUNDREDS OF FOOTNOTES in order to say that the [Hanbali] author got it wrong and that only they got it right.
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 06-02-20, 08:50 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Here just one example from Tahrim al-Nadhar of Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH)
                      (translation taken from the link of bro AmantuBillahi, so he doesn't say anything regarding the translation ;-) ):

                      وأما إيماننا بالآيات وأخبار الصفات فإنما هو إيمان بمجرد الألفاظ التي لا شك في صحتها ولا ريب في صدقها وقائلها أعلم بمعناها فآمنا بها على المعنى الذي أراد ربنا تبارك وتعالى فجمعنا بين الإيمان الواجب ونفي التشبيه المحرم.
                      وهذا أسدّ وأحسن من قول من جعل الآيات والأخبار تجسيما وتشبيها وتحيل على إبطالها وردها فحملها على معنى صفات المخلوقين بسوء رأيه وقبح عقيدته ونعوذ بالله من الضلال البعيد

                      As for our belief in the Quranic verses and the traditions treating of the divine attributes, it is purely a belief in the expressions themselves, the soundness of which may not be doubted, nor their veracity suspected. Their Author knows best their intended sense; so we believe in them according to the meaning intended by our Lord. Thus we combine faith, which is obligatory, with the rejection of tashbih-anthropomorphism, which is prohibited. This is a more true and a more worthy doctrine than the doctrine of him who considers the Quranic verses and the traditions as tajsim- and tashbih-anthropomorphism, and contrives artfully to nullify and refute them by making them accord in meaning with the meaning intended by the attributes of created beings, through the badness of his private opinion and the evilness of his creed—We seek protection by God from far-reaching error!
                      - end of quote -

                      In the Arabic it says that the Iman is "bi Mujarrad al-Alfadh"! So it's clear cut!

                      Right after that he says:

                      وأما قوله هاتوا أخبرونا ما الذي يظهر لكم من معنى هذه الألفاظ الواردة في الصفات
                      ...
                      وكم قد شرح هو مقالة أهل السنة في هذه المسألة وبين الحق فيها بعد توبته من هذه المقالة وبين أنه إذا سألنا سائل عن معنى هذه الألفاظ قلنا لا نزيدك على ألفاظها زيادة تفيد معنى بل قراءتها تفسيرها من غير معنى بعينه ولا تفسير بنفسه ولكن قد علمنا أن لها معنى في الجملة يعلمه المتكلم بها فنحن نؤمن بها بذلك المعنى.
                      ومن كان كذلك كيف يسأل عن معنى وهو يقول لا أعلمه وكيف يسأل عن كيفية ما يرى أن السؤال عنه بدعة والكلام في تفسيره خطأ والبحث عنه تكلف وتعمق

                      He says to us: “Speak up and tell us what appears to you to be the meaning of these expressions revealed in connection with the divine attributes!
                      ...
                      Many a time did he himself expound the doctrine of the people of the Sunna with regard to this question, and make clear the truth with regard to it after he had retracted the present discourse; and many a time did he himself show that if anyone should ask us about the intended meaning of expressions regarding the divine attributes, our answer should be: “We have nothing to offer you by way of an addition to these expressions which would convey a meaning; nay rather their very recitation is their interpretation, without any meaning or interpretation in particular. But we do know that they have a meaning, among others, which is known by Him who uttered them. So we believe in them according to that meaning.” Now, how can he, whose position is such, ask about the meaning of something, when he himself says, “I do not know it”? And how can he ask about the nature of what he himself thinks to be a heretical innovation to ask about, a transgression to discuss its interpretation, meddlesomeness and heretical exaggeration to examine?

                      - end of quote -

                      And again: Clear as the sun!

                      And one could go on and on quoting from the above book and from others and the result would be always the same: It's not in line with "Salafi" understanding!
                      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 06-02-20, 08:46 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        Here just one example from Tahrim al-Nadhar of Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH)
                        (translation taken from the link of bro AmantuBillahi, so he doesn't say anything regarding the translation ;-) ):

                        وأما إيماننا بالآيات وأخبار الصفات فإنما هو إيمان بمجرد الألفاظ التي لا شك في صحتها ولا ريب في صدقها وقائلها أعلم بمعناها فآمنا بها على المعنى الذي أراد ربنا تبارك وتعالى فجمعنا بين الإيمان الواجب ونفي التشبيه المحرم.
                        وهذا أسدّ وأحسن من قول من جعل الآيات والأخبار تجسيما وتشبيها وتحيل على إبطالها وردها فحملها على معنى صفات المخلوقين بسوء رأيه وقبح عقيدته ونعوذ بالله من الضلال البعيد

                        As for our belief in the Quranic verses and the traditions treating of the divine attributes, it is purely a belief in the expressions themselves, the soundness of which may not be doubted, nor their veracity suspected. Their Author knows best their intended sense; so we believe in them according to the meaning intended by our Lord. Thus we combine faith, which is obligatory, with the rejection of tashbih-anthropomorphism, which is prohibited. This is a more true and a more worthy doctrine than the doctrine of him who considers the Quranic verses and the traditions as tajsim- and tashbih-anthropomorphism, and contrives artfully to nullify and refute them by making them accord in meaning with the meaning intended by the attributes of created beings, through the badness of his private opinion and the evilness of his creed—We seek protection by God from far-reaching error!
                        - end of quote -

                        In the Arabic it says that the Iman is "bi Mujarrad al-Alfadh"! So it's clear cut!

                        Right after that he says:

                        وأما قوله هاتوا أخبرونا ما الذي يظهر لكم من معنى هذه الألفاظ الواردة في الصفات
                        ...
                        وكم قد شرح هو مقالة أهل السنة في هذه المسألة وبين الحق فيها بعد توبته من هذه المقالة وبين أنه إذا سألنا سائل عن معنى هذه الألفاظ قلنا لا نزيدك على ألفاظها زيادة تفيد معنى بل قراءتها تفسيرها من غير معنى بعينه ولا تفسير بنفسه ولكن قد علمنا أن لها معنى في الجملة يعلمه المتكلم بها فنحن نؤمن بها بذلك المعنى.
                        ومن كان كذلك كيف يسأل عن معنى وهو يقول لا أعلمه وكيف يسأل عن كيفية ما يرى أن السؤال عنه بدعة والكلام في تفسيره خطأ والبحث عنه تكلف وتعمق

                        He says to us: “Speak up and tell us what appears to you to be the meaning of these expressions revealed in connection with the divine attributes!
                        ...
                        Many a time did he himself expound the doctrine of the people of the Sunna with regard to this question, and make clear the truth with regard to it after he had retracted the present discourse; and many a time did he himself show that if anyone should ask us about the intended meaning of expressions regarding the divine attributes, our answer should be: “We have nothing to offer you by way of an addition to these expressions which would convey a meaning; nay rather their very recitation is their interpretation, without any meaning or interpretation in particular. But we do know that they have a meaning, among others, which is known by Him who uttered them. So we believe in them according to that meaning.” Now, how can he, whose position is such, ask about the meaning of something, when he himself says, “I do not know it”? And how can he ask about the nature of what he himself thinks to be a heretical innovation to ask about, a transgression to discuss its interpretation, meddlesomeness and heretical exaggeration to examine?

                        - end of quote -

                        And again: Clear as the sun!

                        And one could go on and on quoting from the above book and from others and the result would be always the same: It's not in line with "Salafi" understanding!
                        Ibn Qudama believes that Allah is Above His Throne and He Descends to the lowest Heaven in the last 3rd of the night. If Allah is Above the Throne, then this contradicts the Ashari concept of Jism/Tajsim. He would indirectly be calling Allah a contingent creation which requires an eternal predecessor.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                          Ibn Qudama believes that Allah is Above His Throne and He Descends to the lowest Heaven in the last 3rd of the night. If Allah is Above the Throne, then this contradicts the Ashari concept of Jism/Tajsim. He would indirectly be calling Allah a contingent creation which requires an eternal predecessor.
                          Great, but the Ash'aris also believe that Allah ta'ala is above the throne and above every thing! (They have explicitly stated that!)

                          The only difference is that the Hanabila used sometimes the expression of direction (Jiha), while OPENLY rejecting the necessitities of Jismiyya (corporeality), while the Ash'aris denied this expression [of direction] in the first place AND THAT'S IT. So the difference is NOTHING MORE THAN IN WORDING (Lafdhi). This is obviously not explained on the "asharis"-website!

                          Anyways the Hanbali position has been clarified by Imam Mar'i bin Yusuf al-Karmi al-Hanbali (d. 1033 AH) in his Aqwal al-Thiqat:

                          وإعلم أن كثيرا من الناس يظنون أن القائل بالجهة
                          هو من المجسمة لأن من لازم الجهة التجسيم وهذا ظن فاسد فإنهم لايقولون بذلك لأن لازم المذهب ليس بلازم عند المحققين
                          فكيف يجوز أن ينسب للإنسان شيء من لازم كلامه وهو يفر منه بل قالوا: نحن أشد الناس هربا من ذلك وتنزيها للباري
                          تعالى عن الحد الذي يحصره فلايحد بحد يحصره بل بحد يتميز به عظمة ذاته من مخلوقاته
                          - end of quote -

                          Until he said:

                          ومنهم من يتوهم أنه يلزم على ذلك قدم الجهة ولاقديم إلا الله ويلزم أن يكون مظروفا في الجهة وهو
                          محال وهذا كله لعدم فهم مذهب القائل بالجهة فإن القائل بالجهة يقول: إن الجهات تنقطع بإنقطاع العالم وتنتهي بإنتهاء
                          آخر جزء من الكون والإشارة إلى فوق تقع على أعلى جزء من الكون حقيقة -كما مر- قالوا ومما يحقق هذا أن الكون الكلي
                          لا في جهة لأن الجهة عبارة عن المكان والكون الكلي لا في مكان فلما عدمت الأماكن من جوانبه لم يقل إنه يمين ولايسار
                          ولاقدام ولاوراء ولافوق ولاتحت وقالوا: إن ماعدا الكون الكلي وماخلا الذات القديمة ليس بشيء ولايشار إليه ولايعرف بخلاء
                          ولاملاء وانفرد الكون الكلي بوصف التحت لأن الله تعالى وصف نفسه بالعلو وتمدح به وقالوا إنه سبحانه أوجد الأكوان في
                          محل وحيز وهو سبحانه في قدمه منزه عن المحل والحيز فيستحيل عقلا وشرعا عند حدوث العالم أن يحل فيه أو يختلط به
                          لأن القديم لايحل في الحادث وليس هو محلا للحوادث
                          - end of quote -

                          As it's clear from the above: The difference is only in wording and NOT MORE.
                          And: I'm not translating it ;-)
                          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 06-02-20, 09:30 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                            Great, but the Ash'aris also believe that Allah ta'ala is above the throne and above every thing! (They have explicitly stated that!)

                            The only difference is that the Hanabila used sometimes the expression of direction (Jiha), while OPENLY rejecting the necessitities of Jismiyya (corporeality), while the Ash'aris denied this expression [of direction] AND THAT'S IT. So the difference is NOTHING MORE THAN IN WORDING (Lafdhi). This is obviously not explained on the "asharis"-website!

                            Anyways the Hanbali position has been clarified by Imam Mar'i al-Karmi al-Hanbali in his Aqwal al-Thiqat:

                            وإعلم أن كثيرا من الناس يظنون أن القائل بالجهة
                            هو من المجسمة لأن من لازم الجهة التجسيم وهذا ظن فاسد فإنهم لايقولون بذلك لأن لازم المذهب ليس بلازم عند المحققين
                            فكيف يجوز أن ينسب للإنسان شيء من لازم كلامه وهو يفر منه بل قالوا: نحن أشد الناس هربا من ذلك وتنزيها للباري
                            تعالى عن الحد الذي يحصره فلايحد بحد يحصره بل بحد يتميز به عظمة ذاته من مخلوقاته
                            - end of quote -

                            And he said:

                            ومنهم من يتوهم أنه يلزم على ذلك قدم الجهة ولاقديم إلا الله ويلزم أن يكون مظروفا في الجهة وهو
                            محال وهذا كله لعدم فهم مذهب القائل بالجهة فإن القائل بالجهة يقول: إن الجهات تنقطع بإنقطاع العالم وتنتهي بإنتهاء
                            آخر جزء من الكون والإشارة إلى فوق تقع على أعلى جزء من الكون حقيقة -كما مر- قالوا ومما يحقق هذا أن الكون الكلي
                            لا في جهة لأن الجهة عبارة عن المكان والكون الكلي لا في مكان فلما عدمت الأماكن من جوانبه لم يقل إنه يمين ولايسار
                            ولاقدام ولاوراء ولافوق ولاتحت وقالوا: إن ماعدا الكون الكلي وماخلا الذات القديمة ليس بشيء ولايشار إليه ولايعرف بخلاء
                            ولاملاء وانفرد الكون الكلي بوصف التحت لأن الله تعالى وصف نفسه بالعلو وتمدح به وقالوا إنه سبحانه أوجد الأكوان في
                            محل وحيز وهو سبحانه في قدمه منزه عن المحل والحيز فيستحيل عقلا وشرعا عند حدوث العالم أن يحل فيه أو يختلط به
                            لأن القديم لايحل في الحادث وليس هو محلا للحوادث
                            - end of quote -

                            I'm not translating it ;-)
                            If Allah's Essence is Above the Throne and not somewhere else i.e. here on Earth, then He would essentially be in a place and with a limit. This entails Tajsim by Ash'ari standards.

                            Don't Asharis believe that Allah is without a place? The question "Where is Allah?" is a redundant one that doesn't apply to Allah?

                            Comment


                            • Abu Sulayman I don't mind you translating if you want to get your point across. However, they are not binding upon us to follow. These terms are extremely delicate at times and I believe you know that.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                                If Allah's Essence is Above the Throne and not somewhere else i.e. here on Earth, then He would essentially be in a place and with a limit. This entails Tajsim by Ash'ari standards.
                                Don't Asharis believe that Allah is without a place? The question "Where is Allah?" is a redundant one that doesn't apply to Allah?
                                And who told you that the statement that Allah ta'ala is above the throne means that He's in a place?
                                According to Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) this statement does not mean that Allah ta'ala is in contact to the throne or located there or occupied by one of its directions, rather it means that He's beyond or distinct (ba`in) from his creation! (See A'lam al-Hadith!)
                                And this is what the Ash'aris also mentioned!
                                And this is what is also understood by Imam al-Mar'is quote above!

                                AND: Imam Ibn Hamdan al-Hanbali (d. 695 AH) stated in his Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in AFTER affirming the Istiwa` of Allah ta'ala without modality (bila kayf) that whoever says that the divine essence is in every place or in a place, then he is a DISBELIEVER. This is explicitly stated by him and in Qala`id al-'Iqyan and by other than them.
                                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 06-02-20, 09:47 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X