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 Abu Sulayman View Post

    Forget my impression bro, because you’re not a real "Salafi" anyways and are repeating some of their statements without fully realizing what their scholars actually intend by these statements.

    As for the classical Hanabila, then they should really not be be mixed up with the "Salafis" because their statements in their own relied upon books clearly differ with that of "Salafis" and that‘s why "Salafi“ editors only print their books when they add hundreds of footnotes in order to say "the author is wrong... Shaykh al-Islam said...".
    The classical Hanabila were real scholars and when they said something then they didn’t just say it without understanding or without intending what they explicitly stated. Saying otherwise is like accusing them of not knowing what they were saying or accusing them of lying and Nifaq, we seek refuge from accusing them any of the two.
    So your claim is simply not acceptable. When we find statements regarding beliefs clearly and obviously stated throughout the centuries in their books then it‘s not allowed to reinterpret their words or accuse them of being contradictory as "Salafis“ do.

    As for the issue of literally believing that God is upon the throne: I ask you: Where did you get this word "literally" from? And what does that mean? Are you establishing a physical direction or what do you intend?
    Why are you not simply abiding by the statement of Allah ta‘ala without going beyond that?

    As for the issue of limit: If you‘re saying that God is literally on the throne, then this actually leads to affirming a limit from at least one side otherwise your affirmation is actually not literally no matter what you claim thereafter.

    And: "Salafi" scholars do actually believe that God is limited and they believe more (i.e. worse) than that! You‘ve simply not come across their words.
    The administrator of the English "ahlalhdeeth"-website Haitham Hamdan for example even explicitly claimed that God has size (which is DISBELIEF according to the Hanabila!):

    https://www.google.de/amp/s/wahhabis...as-a-size/amp/
    You're not a real Ashari either because you have not studied the basics of Ilm al-Kalam. Half of our discussion is going over your head.

    Anyone who believes that Allah is Above the Arsh by His Essence (Bi Dhatihi) has committed Tajsim. It doesn't matter if you say that He's Above the Throne by His Essence without modality or a Jism. The mere fact that you believe His Essence is somewhere to exclusion of another contradicts the Ashari concept of Tajsim and the KCA. So therefore whoever believes in this cannot be considered a Muffawid.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

      You're not a real Ashari either because you have not studied the basics of Ilm al-Kalam. Half of our discussion is going over your head.

      Anyone who believes that Allah is Above the Arsh by His Essence (Bi Dhatihi) has committed Tajsim. It doesn't matter if you say that He's Above the Throne by His Essence without modality or a Jism. The mere fact that you believe His Essence is somewhere to exclusion of another contradicts the Ashari concept of Tajsim and the KCA. So therefore whoever believes in this cannot be considered a Muffawid.
      I‘m a normal Sunni Muslim who respects our Sunni scholarship be they Ash'aris, Maturidis or Hanbalis!
      I don’t try to act as if I‘m more knowledgeable than 1400 years of Sunni scholarship unlike "Salafis".

      As for your claim that half of the discussion is going over my head: You can think that, but that doesn’t really change that it‘s not the case.
      The thing is that you think we have to discuss based upon what you've read on the "asharis"-website and I don’t want to entertain that because of the amount of half-true, imprecise and even wrong infos and premises that can be found on that website.

      Tajsim: Believing that God is a 3-dimensional being or let‘s say: Having height, breadth and depth.
      Do Sunnis (the above 3 mentioned groups) believe this? No!

      Do "Salafi" scholars believe this? Yes, definetly.

      By the way: Where did you get this "bi dhatihi" from? Isn‘t it better to abide by the word of Allah and not add things by oneself?
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 07-02-20, 10:09 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

        I‘m a normal Sunni Muslim who respects our Sunni scholarship be they Ash'aris, Maturidis or Hanbalis!
        I don’t try to act as if I‘m more knowledgeable than 1400 years of Sunni scholarship unlike "Salafis".

        As for your claim that half of the discussion is going over my head: You can think that, but that doesn’t really change that it‘s not the case.
        The thing is that you think we have to discuss based upon what you've read on the "asharis"-website and I don’t want to entertain that because of the amount of half-true, imprecise and even wrong infos and premises that can be found on that website.

        Tajsim: Believing that God is a 3-dimensional being or let‘s say: Having height, breadth and depth.
        Do Sunnis (the above 3 mentioned groups) believe this? No!

        Do "Salafi" scholars believe this? Yes, definetly.

        By the way: Where did you get this "bi dhatihi" from? Isn‘t it better to abide by the word of Allah and not add things by oneself?
        http://www.as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=119&lang=en
        http://www.as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=93&lang=ar

        This is the true creed of Ahl al-Sunnah.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

          You're not a real Ashari either because you have not studied the basics of Ilm al-Kalam. Half of our discussion is going over your head.

          Anyone who believes that Allah is Above the Arsh by His Essence (Bi Dhatihi) has committed Tajsim. It doesn't matter if you say that He's Above the Throne by His Essence without modality or a Jism. The mere fact that you believe His Essence is somewhere to exclusion of another contradicts the Ashari concept of Tajsim and the KCA. So therefore whoever believes in this cannot be considered a Muffawid.
          To say Allah is above the Throne with His Essence, is pure innnovation. Like the companions, didn’t say it, the Tabieen didn’t say it, and the Tabi tabieen didn’t say it.

          The four Imams didn’t say it. It is pure innovation.
          My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

          Comment


          • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

            To say Allah is above the Throne with His Essence, is pure innnovation. Like the companions, didn’t say it, the Tabieen didn’t say it, and the Tabi tabieen didn’t say it.

            The four Imams didn’t say it. It is pure innovation.
            Some of the Salaf have used the term and its application is clearly sound. The Salaf refuted the Jahmiyyah by quoting the Ayat of Istawa and affirming Allah's Uluw. If the Salaf were not intending that Allah's Essence is Above the Throne, then their methodology for refuting the Jahmiyyah would've been flawed and ambiguous.

            What Asharis intend behind their belief in Istawa/Uluw is that they make Tafwid/Ta'weel and negate "Where?" (modality) for Allah. When an Ashari says "Allah is Above His Throne", what he really means is that Allah is not Above His Throne except metaphorically (Status, Control over creation, etc). The correct response to "Where is Allah?" is that "Where?" does not apply to God and He is not in any place. This is the approach most Asharis take when conveying the position of their school.

            With that said, it would be absurd for anyone to think that when the Salaf refuted the Jahmiyyah by explicitly affirming Istawa/Uluw, what they were actually intending to convey was that "Where?" (modality) does not apply to Him and His Uluw is metaphorical. They used the relevant Ayat to refute their misconceptions and establish where Allah is.

            Could you imagine someone responding to "Where is Allah?" with [Ta Ha: 05] and expecting the questioner to take from this that Allah is not Above the Throne because the implications of "Where?" is a modality? Wouldn't it be more precise to make Tafwid/Ta'weel of these Ayat/Hadith and use Laysa Ki Mithilihi Shay to regulate the question?

            Comment


            • "Ibn Al-Mubarak (d 181 H.) : Ali Ibn al-Hasan Ibn Shaqeeq reported: I asked Abdullah Ibn al-Mubarak: “How are we to know our Lord –Azza wa Jal-? ”
              He replied: «He is over the seventh Heaven over His Throne. We do not say as the Jahmiyyah say: that He is here on the earth.» (10) Sahih.

              Jarir Ibn Abdul-Hamid Ad-Dabbi (d. 188 H.) said: «The beginning of the speech of the Jahmiyah is honey, and the end of it is poison, verily they are only trying to say: that there is no ilah (diety) above the heavens.» (11)

              Sa`eed bin `Aamir Ad-Dab`i (d. 208 H.), one of Imam Bukhari’s teachers, said: «The Jahmiyyah have said worse than the Jews and Christians, the Jews, Christians and the people of religions have agreed that Allah –Tabaraka wa Ta`ala- is over the Throne, and they (the Jahmiyyah) said: ‘There is nothing over the Throne.'» (12) Sahih chain."

              https://www.as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=81&lang=en

              There are so many references from the Salaf where they explicitly state their creed on "Where is Allah?". The Jahmiyyah were making a claim concerning the Being/Essence of Allah and the Salaf responded with the Ayat of Istawa/Uluw. Had they been influenced by Kalam and feared the possibility of attributing to modality to Allah, they wouldn't have articulated their views in such a blunt manner.

              The statements of the Salaf on Allah's Uluw are clear cut proofs that they were not Ashari/Muffawid. The scholars from the blessed generations were protected (to a large extent) from the Shubuhat of the Mutakalimoon. They could have cared less what pseudo-intellectual concept they're potentially at odds with when affirming the Sifat. Neither is it Tashbih to affirm what Allah has revealed in the Wahih. Tashbih is only when you say "Hand like my hand. Hand similar to", and Allah did not reveal a Book with an inconsistent theology.

              Comment


              • This is a proper representation of the Ashari view:



                1. The first Daleel he used to establish his creed was 42:11

                2. He followed 42:11 with rational objections: "Hence, it (42:11) shows that Allah exists without a place, because whatever exists inside a place by nature is composed of particles, and that is a body which is occupying space. Allah Ta'ala is clear of occupying spaces." Shortly after this he claims that existing in a place contradicts eternality, and how ascribing Allah with "change/development" would make him dependent.

                3. The authenticity of the Ahadith he quoted need to be verified. In any case, Salafis do not necessarily believe that Allah is in a "place". Above the Heavens is outside of the creation and Allah is not confined by anything.

                4. The KCA is the theological criterion of the Asha'ira. When the Quranic passages conflict with established rational proofs, then preference is given to Aql and the Naql is to be reinterpreted.

                The Quran, Sunnah and Salaf as-Salih are in agreement that Allah Ta'ala is Above His Throne.
                Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 09-02-20, 01:33 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                  This is a proper representation of the Ashari view:



                  1. His very first Daleel for Allah existing without a place is [42:11]

                  2. He follows this with the rational principles from the KCA: "Hence, it (42:11) shows that Allah exists without a place, because whatever exists inside a place by nature is composed of particles, and that is a body which is occupying space. Allah Ta'ala is clear of occupying spaces." Shortly after this he claims that existing in a place contradicts eternality, and how ascribing Allah with "change/development" would make him dependent.

                  3. The authenticity of the Ahadith he quotes need to be verified. In any case, Salafis do not necessarily believe that Allah is in a "place". Above the Heavens is outside of the creation and Allah is not confined by anything.

                  4. The KCA is the theological criterion of the Asha'ira. When the Quranic passages conflict with rational proofs, then preference is given to Aql and the Quran is to be reinterpreted. An example of this would be the Quran's teaching that Allah created the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days *Thumma* (then) He Rose Over the Throne. This passage would provoke Hawadith (change) and Tajsim (corporeal) and would require Tafwid/Ta'weel.
                  "Shaykh Abdul Ghani al-Nabulsi said: He who believes that Allah Ta'ala fills the Heavens and Earth, or He is Above it Sitting Above the Arsh - which is the ceiling of Paradise, the Throne - exits Islam" [11:25]

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                    The statements of the Salaf on Allah's Uluw are clear cut proofs that they were not Ashari/Muffawid. The scholars from the blessed generations were protected (to a large extent) from the Shubuhat of the Mutakalimoon. They could have cared less what pseudo-intellectual concept they're potentially at odds with when affirming the Sifat. Neither is it Tashbih to affirm what Allah has revealed in the Wahih. Tashbih is only when you say "Hand like my hand. Hand similar to", and Allah did not reveal a Book with an inconsistent theology.
                    As for the other website you linked to:
                    I know that website since a very long time. Don‘t think that you will be able to teach me anything new (in these issues at least).

                    As for your statement that the scholars from the blessed generations were protected:
                    This religion has been transmitted to us through the classical scholars. To act as if the first generations ONLY understood Islam correctly while those after them who have DIRECT chains going to these same people were confused or made contradictory statements or did not know Allah ta'ala and only made some correct statements is a HUGE mistake.
                    How is it possible that the scholars of the 4 Madhahib - who were usually either Ash‘ari, Maturidi or Hanbali in creed - did NOT understand the foundations of the religion while people coming 1400 years after the Hijra understand them correctly?
                    Just look at this contradiction that you’re getting yourself in:
                    The people who TRANSMITTED this religion and ALL islamic scienes with direct chains that go through the Salaf al-salih to the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - have NOT understood the religion correctly, while people who lack in learning and understanding and have NO chain that goes back to the Salaf at all have got it right?!

                    The problem is that the "Salafis" present you only a set of Athar from the Salaf with their OWN explanations without presenting you the whole picture!

                    As for Tashbih: Ibn 'Uthaymin explicitly said more than once that there is some degree of similarity between the Creator and the creation. I‘ve already quoted it and you ignored it!
                    So there is no doubt that Ibn 'Uthaymin is a Mushabbih! He is explicit AFFIRMING Tashbih and even uses the word. What else do you want?

                    As for consistency:
                    If someone wants to be consistent, then he‘s not allowed to distort the meaning of the Ayat and Ahadith, so that they contradict eachother!
                    Where in the Qur`an al-karim does it say that Allah‘s Highness is a sensory (Hissi) one? Where?
                    Rather what is clear from the book of Allah ta'ala is that the Highness of Allah ta'ala is an absolute one!

                    Just tell me:
                    When someone claims that God is literally above the throne (i.e. in a sensory manner) while literally descending at the end of the night and he further claims that while God is descending he does not indwell the heaven that He‘s descending to and that the throne does not become empty of Him, but all of that is still literal!
                    Does that in any way or form sound like consistency?
                    No, by Allah! This is completely contradictory and from the way of the christians, who believe in trinity and say that the father is not the son and the son is not the holy spirit and the holy spirit is not the father while all three are one god?!

                    I ask again: Who told you that Allah‘s Highness is a sensory one? What is your proof that Allah‘s descent is a literal one? Do you even know what a literal descent is?
                    Or do you make statements without even realizing the meaning of your statements?

                    Who allowed you to speak regarding the Lord of the worlds in such a manner? Please remember that Allah ta‘ala is the Lords of the worlds and we‘re His slaves and NOT the other way around!
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 09-02-20, 03:57 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                      As for your statement that the scholars from the blessed generations were protected:
                      This religion has been transmitted to us through the classical scholars. To act as if the first generations ONLY understood Islam correctly while those after them who have DIRECT chains going to these same people were confused or made contradictory statements or did not know Allah ta'ala and only made some correct statements is a HUGE mistake.
                      How is it possible that the scholars of the 4 Madhahib - who were usually either Ash‘ari, Maturidi or Hanbali in creed - did NOT understand the foundations of the religion while people coming 1400 years after the Hijra understand them correctly?
                      Just look at this contradiction that you’re getting yourself in:
                      The people who TRANSMITTED this religion and ALL islamic scienes with direct chains that go through the Salaf al-salih to the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - have NOT understood the religion correctly, while people who lack in learning and understanding and have NO chain that goes back to the Salaf at all have got it right?!
                      Like most Sufi/Ashari laymen, your conviction in the validity of your Aqeedah largely depends on your faith in the scholars of the Madhahib and other household names. There's nothing I can do for you if you're not willing to contextualize the historical spread of Asharism and condemn the scholars you look up to.

                      The Hanbalis/Atharis were the majority of the Ummah until the Fitna transpired and Asharism was pushed on a state-level. Some of the classical Asha'ira have confessed in their writing that they were the minority of the Ummah and how this does not invalidate their creed. Yasir Qadhi referencces this in many of his talks and there should be a summary of the events in his PhD dissertation.

                      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                      The problem is that the "Salafis" present you only a set of Athar from the Salaf with their OWN explanations without presenting you the whole picture!
                      Every Hizb could be criticized for backprojecting their views on the Salaf. The clearest example of this is how Asharis affirm a metaphorical Uluw in a desparate attempt to remain consistent with the Salaf. Modern Asharis do not agree with the statements/methodology of the Salaf concerning "Where is Allah?". The only way to make sense of your Aqeedah (and the KCA) is to shamelessly smear the Salaf with metaphorical interpretations of their clear statements.

                      I'm confident that the way Salafis contextualize the statements and creeds of the Salaf is the most correct. The Mutakalimoon are compelled to backproject the KCA with the general concensus of the Salaf. So when the KCA is clearly being compromised by a faction of the Salaf, then that is sufficient for me to conclude that those scholars were inconsistent with the Asha'ira.


                      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                      As for Tashbih: Ibn 'Uthaymin explicitly said more than once that there is some degree of similarity between the Creator and the creation. I‘ve already quoted it and you ignored it!
                      So there is no doubt that Ibn 'Uthaymin is a Mushabbih! He is explicit AFFIRMING Tashbih and even uses the word. What else do you want?
                      This is another issue where Asharis backproject their views on the Salaf in order to remain consistent with Ilm al-Kalam.

                      The Salafis understand Bi La Kayf to mean "without inquiring how". The people of Kalam understood the statement as "without modality" in conformity with their version of the KCA.

                      1. Without modality contradicts what Allah described Himself with in the Quran/Hadith and requires Asharis to make Tafwid/Ta'weel
                      2. Without modality contradicts the established theology of the Salaf (Allah's Uluw)

                      ^ Before you copy and paste a compilation of quotes, please remember that I'm concerned about beliefs, not rhetorical devices/incoherent statements. For example, it is a square-circle to proclaim that Allah is Above His Throne by His Essence without modality or a place. If the scholar believes that Allah's Essence is Above the Throne and not mixed with His creation, then he has contradicted Tajsim by Ashari standards and invalidates your point.

                      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                      I ask again: Who told you that Allah‘s Highness is a sensory one? What is your proof that Allah‘s descend is a literal one? Do you even know what a literal descend is?
                      Or do you make statements without even realizing the meaning of your statements?

                      Who allowed you to speak regarding the Lord of the worlds in such a manner? Please remember that Allah ta‘ala is the Lords of the worlds and we‘re his slaves and NOT the other way around!
                      I'll make things easy for you. Asharis believe Allah's Uluw is of status (Majaz) and Salafis believe Allah's Uluw is Bi Dhatihi (Haqeeqah). This is what I believe and what has been confirmed by various sources to have been attributed to the Salaf. Imam Muzzane, the student of Imam Shafi'i, explicitly affirmed Allah's Uluw Bi Dhatih in Sharh us-Sunnah. This clearly proves that the Salaf did not negate "How" or fear falling into philosophical definition of Tajsim.

                      Comment


                      • Can you tell me why you‘re running away from my questions?
                        Why are you not clarifying what you believe?
                        When you say that Allah is literally above the throne and that he descends literally, what do you intend by saying this? Do you know what literal aboveness and literal descent even is?

                        If you were to ask me what do I intend with the saying that Allah ta'ala is above His creation, I would easily tell you:
                        The Highness of Allah ta‘ala is an absolute one and NOT sensory.

                        And if that is still not clear enough, then let me quote Imam Ibn Furak (d. 406 AH) who clarified the issue beautifully:

                        Know that when we say that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is above what He has created that does not mean that He is above in terms of a physical place, or that He has risen above physical places by a certain distance and He supervises these places by applying Himself to something from them.
                        Rather, our saying that He is above them carries two senses;
                        one of them means that He is the Absolute Master, in charge of them and establishing His all-encompassing power over them, as well as His comprehensive mastery over them and them being under his direction, progressing in accordance with His knowledge and His will.
                        The second sense is that He is above them meaning He is distinct (mubāyin) of His creation. He is different in terms of His attributes and qualities, and that which is possible for temporal beings, such as defects, imperfection, incapacity, problems, and needs, are not befitting of Him at all and it is not possible for him to be attributed with any of them.
                        It is also commonplace in the language that it is said that ‘so-and-so is above so-and-so’3, and what is meant is a higher rank and position. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is above His creation in both senses while the third sense is impossible for him, which is, being confined in some direction, or in a specific place as opposed to another place.

                        - end of quote -

                        (Source: What is Meant When We Say Allah is Above What He Created)

                        Note how he clarified what we believe and what not in a clear and open way.
                        Instead of saying this and saying and that and making claims, I have a very simple request:
                        Please clarify what you believe just like I did!
                        If you believe you‘re upon the truth you won’t run away from answering what you intend by literal aboveness and literal descent?! Why don‘t you share that which you regard as truth with us?
                        Do you intend the third sense mentioned by Imam Ibn Furak, or what do you intend?
                        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 09-02-20, 06:04 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          Can you tell me why you‘re running away from my questions?
                          Why are you not clarifying what you believe?
                          When you say that Allah is literally above the throne and that he descends literally, what do you intend by saying this? Do you know what literal aboveness and literal descent even is?

                          If you were to ask me what do I intend with the saying that Allah ta'ala is above his creation, I would easily tell you:
                          The Highness of Allah ta‘ala is an absolute one and NOT sensory.

                          And if that is still not clear enough, then let me quote Imam Ibn Furak (d. 406 AH) who clarified the issue beautifully:

                          Know that when we say that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is above what He has created that does not mean that He is above in terms of a physical place, or that He has risen above physical places by a certain distance and He supervises these places by applying Himself to something from them.
                          Rather, our saying that He is above them carries two senses;
                          one of them means that He is the Absolute Master, in charge of them and establishing His all-encompassing power over them, as well as His comprehensive mastery over them and them being under his direction, progressing in accordance with His knowledge and His will.
                          The second sense is that He is above them meaning He is distinct (mubāyin) of His creation. He is different in terms of His attributes and qualities, and that which is possible for temporal beings, such as defects, imperfection, incapacity, problems, and needs, are not befitting of Him at all and it is not possible for him to be attributed with any of them.
                          It is also commonplace in the language that it is said that ‘so-and-so is above so-and-so’3, and what is meant is a higher rank and position. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is above His creation in both senses while the third sense is impossible for him, which is, being confined in some direction, or in a specific place as opposed to another place.


                          Source: http://marifah.info/articles/Allah%2...bn%20Furak.pdf

                          Note how he clarified what we believe and what not in an clear and open way.
                          Instead of saying this and saying and that and making claims, I have a very simple request:
                          Please clarify what you believe just like I did!
                          If you believe you‘re upon the truth you won’t run away from answering what you intend by literal aboveness and literal descent?! Why don‘t you share that which you regard as trieb with us?
                          Do you intend the third sense mentioned by Imam Ibn Furak, or what do you intend?
                          I'm not here to debate for the sake of debating. I've already answered this question in clear terms in the last portion of my post. Salafis affirm Uluw Haqeeqa (Bi Dhatihi) and Ahul Kalam affirm it Majaz (Status/Control).

                          Ibn Furak's statement brings nothing new to the discussion. He confirmed everything I said including the fact that the "3rd sense being impossible" i.e. Tajsim.

                          Look, anyone who believes that Allah's Essence is Above the Arsh has effectively contradicted the Ashari concept of Tajsim. Do you understand what this statement means? It's as if you're mind skips everytime you read the word Tajsim, Hawadith or Ilm al-Kalam.

                          Hence, anyone who believes that Allah is Above His Throne by His Esseence could never be a pure Muffawid by Ashari standards. Their rhetorical devices would need to be contextualized in light of their actual theology.

                          P.S. If you're going to ask me to explain my beliefs again -- I believe Allah is Above His Throne by His Essence and His Knowledge and Power is everywhere. I cannot elaborate further because Ahl al-Sunnah understands Bi La Kayf as not delving into the howness.

                          Comment


                          • Abu Sulayman

                            Article from IslamQA:

                            "But does the fact that Allaah comes down mean that He vacates the Throne or not? Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said concerning a similar question: we say that this question is based on unnecessary and excessive questioning, and that the one who asked this is not to be thanked for his question. We ask, are you more keen than the Sahaabah to understand the attributes of Allaah? If he says yes, we tell him, you are lying. And if he says no, we tell him, then be content with what they were content with. They did not ask the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), ‘O Messenger of Allaah, when He comes down, does He vacate the Throne?’ Why do you need to ask this question? Just say, He comes down. Whether or not the Throne is vacated is not your business. You are commanded to believe the reports, especially concerning the essence of Allaah and His attributes, for this matter is above rational thought."

                            Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh Muhammad al-‘Uthaymeen, 1/204-205

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                              I'm not here to debate for the sake of debating. I've already answered this question in clear terms in the last portion of my post. Salafis affirm Uluw Haqeeqa (Bi Dhatihi) and Ahul Kalam affirm it Majaz (Status/Control).

                              Ibn Furak's statement brings nothing new to the discussion. He confirmed everything I said including the fact that the "3rd sense being impossible" i.e. Tajsim.

                              Look, anyone who believes that Allah's Essence is Above the Arsh has effectively contradicted the Ashari concept of Tajsim. Do you understand what this statement means? It's as if you're mind skips everytime you read the word Tajsim, Hawadith or Ilm al-Kalam.

                              Hence, anyone who believes that Allah is Above His Throne by His Esseence could never be a pure Muffawid by Ashari standards. Their rhetorical devices would need to be contextualized in light of their actual theology.

                              P.S. If you're going to ask me to explain my beliefs again -- I believe Allah is Above His Throne by His Essence and His Knowledge and Power is everywhere. I cannot elaborate further because Ahl al-Sunnah understands Bi La Kayf as not delving into the howness.
                              Note that since several posts I'm not saying anything regarding the Hanabila anymore, because you've already rejected what they explicitly stated and that was:
                              "Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not with a limitation [that limits him], rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that which is besides it [from the creation]; and Allah is above (fawq) that without place (Makan) or limit (Hadd), because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place."

                              So you mentioning them any further does not help you in any way. Either you accept THEIR OWN explanations or stop claiming that "Salafis" agree with them.
                              And: From the quote of Imam Mar'i (d. 1033 AH) it's also clear that the difference of Ash'aris and Hanbalis in this issue is NOT a real one, but rather only in wording (i.e. whether the expression of direction can be used or not) and NOT in meaning!
                              Look what Imam al-Mar'i said at the end of the quote:
                              The creation in total (al-Kawn al-Kulli) is distinguished by the description of "being under" (Taht), because Allah ta'ala has described Himself with Highness ('Uluw) and praised Himself with this [description] and they (who accepted the expression of direction) said that [Allah] - glory be to Him - has brought the creation into existance in [having] location (Mahall) and spatial confinement (Hayz) and Allah ta'ala in His eternal [existance] is transcendent from space (Mahall) and spatial confinement (Hayz)...
                              - end of quote -

                              What did someone like the great Imam al-Iji [al-Ash'ari] (d. 756 AH) say in his famous al-Mawaqif regarding the one who makes the expression of direction while at the same time believing in transcendence?:
                              The argument with the one stating this goes back to the wording (Lafdh) [only] without the meaning (Ma'na), and stating this in wording is depending on whether it can found in the divine law [or not].
                              - end of quote -

                              And by the way: The Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - explicitly stated as reported in Sahih al-Bukhari that Allah ta'ala existed while nothing else existed with him.
                              Stating that Allah ta'ala existed while there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place (something both Hanbalis and Ash'aris - in spite of every ignorant and stubborn "Salafi" - explicitly stated in their books!) means that His existance has always been and will always be without place or spatial confinement. This belief is directly based upon the words of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, but the "Salafis" reject it!


                              As for the 3rd sense mentioned by Imam Ibn Furak (d. 406 AH) - that He is above in terms of a physical place, or that He has risen above physical places by a certain distance and He supervises these places by applying Himself to something from them - being impossible, then there is NO DOUBT regarding this being impossible! How could you even dare to claim otherwise?!


                              As for the rest of your post:
                              To make it short: You're unable to tell us what you personally or the "Salafis" believe. So how do you want us to accept your belief without clarifying what you intend (in the same way I clarified what I believe)?
                              (Note: I wanted a clarification and NOT repeating general words!)

                              But let me tell you one thing: The "Salafi" scholars do actually explain what they intend (they intend exactly the 3rd sense!) - even if you have not read it! - and they do believe that God is limited in reality (which you don't believe)!
                              So don't argue on behalf of these Mujassima, may Allah guide them or destroy them!

                              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                              Just say, He comes down. Whether or not the Throne is vacated is not your business. You are commanded to believe the reports, especially concerning the essence of Allaah and His attributes, for this matter is above rational thought."
                              WOW, just wow!
                              The question in itself is Tashbih!
                              The question is based upon the imagination that God is settling upon the throne and filling it up! So the answer of the question in this manner is yet another Tashbih and Kufr! And High Exalted is Allah ta'ala above what these criminals claim!

                              What else can we expect from someone like Ibn 'Uthaymin who explicitly says:
                              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.
                              - end of quote -

                              And he says (I think I've read this quote once even on "Islamqa"*):

                              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 -

                              (*I've found it now and as you see my translation is correct [without any distorsion], and these "Salafis" affirm and repeat this disbelief: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/2065...m-in-his-image)

                              And these statements are clear-cut affirmations of Tashbih and therefore Kufr by agreement of the classical Hanabila and Asha'ira!!!
                              We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being.
                              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 09-02-20, 09:13 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                                Note that since several posts I'm not saying anything regarding the Hanabila anymore, because you've already rejected what they explicitly stated and that was:
                                "Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not with a limitation [that limits him], rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that which is besides it [from the creation]; and Allah is above (fawq) that without place (Makan) or limit (Hadd), because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place."

                                So you mentioning them any further does not help you in any way. Either you accept THEIR OWN explanations or stop claiming that "Salafis" agree with them.
                                And: From the quote of Imam Mar'i (d. 1033 AH) it's also clear that the difference of Ash'aris and Hanbalis in this issue is NOT a real one, but rather only in wording (i.e. whether the expression of direction can be used or not) and NOT in meaning!
                                Look what Imam al-Mar'i said at the end of the quote:
                                The creation in total (al-Kawn al-Kulli) is distinguished by the description of "being under" (Taht), because Allah ta'ala has described Himself with Highness ('Uluw) and praised Himself with this [description] and they (who accepted the expression of direction) said that [Allah] - glory be to Him - has brought the creation into existance in [having] location (Mahall) and spatial confinement (Hayz) and Allah ta'ala in His eternal [existance] is transcendent from space (Mahall) and spatial confinement (Hayz)...
                                - end of quote -
                                From my point of view I have no problem accepting these statements from the Hanabila. I also believe that Allah is literally Above the Throne by His Essence, without being in a place (outside of the creation is not a "place"), without being confined by anything (there's nothing to confine him), and His Essence is not limited.

                                Pay close attention because there is a technicality here:

                                What I just stated above contradicts the Ashari concept of Tajsim and invalidates me from being a Muffawid. The reason is because I'm claiming that Allah's Essence is Above the Throne to the exclusion of being mixed with His creation. This belief would rationally justify "Where?" for Allah and provoke the Ashari concept of Tajsim. My Tanzih of Makkan, Hadd, etc., are not sufficient enough to prevent me from falling into contradictions.
                                Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 18-02-20, 07:52 PM. Reason: Fixed a mistake

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X