Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hijra Thread

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

  • Concerning the Affirmation and Negation of al-Hadd and the doubts of the Jahmites:

    "From the talbīs of the Jahmiyyah is their deceiving of the people regarding the words ḥadd, and taḥdīd, and the manner in which they have been used by the Imams of the Salaf in various contexts and situations - all in order to support their Jahmite creed of negating their is a Lord above the Throne."

    http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...he-jahmite.cfm

    Download link:

    http://www.asharis.com/creed/dld.cfm...add-tahdid.pdf

    Comment


    • Imām `Uthmān b. Sa`īd al-Dārimī states in al-Radd `Alā al-Jahmīyyah:

      Some of them have said, “No, we base our view on the rational (ma`qūl).”

      We say: it is here that you have strayed from the right path and fallen into misguidance from which you have no escape, for reason (ma`qūl) is not a monolithic entity with uniformly defined limits for all people such that it would be sufficient. If such were the case, it would be a relief for the people and we would also base our view upon it and go no further. In that case, Allāh would not have said:

      “Each sect rejoices in what it has.” [Al-Mu’minūn:53]

      Thus, we find that according to each group, the “rational” (ma`qūl) is that which they are upon while that which opposes them they regard to be “irrational” (majhūl). Consequently, O assembly of Jahmīs, we find your factions to be in dispute as to what is “rational”. Each faction amongst you claims that reason is with it and that is calling to it, while that which opposes it is irrational. Thus, having seen that “reason” is disputed amongst us and you and all the People of Desires, we have not been able to find a precise definition for it in all things. Consequently, we hold that the most guided way is to refer all manners of reasoning to the order of Allāh’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and to that which was considered rational by his Companions and was well-known amongst them, because it was in their midst that the revelation would descend. Hence, they are more knowledgeable of its meanings than you or us. Furthermore, they were in agreement about the fundamentals of the religion (Usūl al-Dīn). They did not divide into factions concerning them, innovations did not appear amongst them nor desires which lead one astray from the path.

      Hence, in our view, the rational is that which corresponds with their guidance and the irrational is that which opposed them. Furthermore, there is no way to know their guidance and their way except by these Āthār, and you have detached yourself from them and claim to select only some of them, so how can you be guided?

      https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2007/0...aql-ad-darimi/

      Comment


      • Repost:

        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
        Notes from Yasir Qadhi's Ilm al-Kalam lecture:

        https://m2w4k5m5.stackpathcdn.com/wp...erspective.pdf

        The Theological Implications of Ibrahim and the Story of the Stars (Ibn Taymiyyah vs the Mutakalimin) -- Yasir Qadhi:

        https://muslimmatters.org/2009/07/27...n-yasir-qadhi/

        Comment


        • To know who the so called "Salaf“ (who are in no way connected to the noble companions or those who who followed them!) of these "Salafis“ are and what they believe you just have to know the following:

          That these people print a book which is named as "Ithbat al-Hadd lillah - 'azza wa jall - wa bi annahu qa'id wa jalis 'ala 'arshih" ("Affirmation of a limit for Allah - 'azza wa jall - and that He is seated and sitting upon His throne") by al-Dashti (d. 661 AH).

          The Latin American convert [to "Salafism“] and Mujassim Abu Najm - whom Allah ta‘ala has not guided to know Him subhanahu wa ta'ala - says on his blog the following:

          It is an amazing book filled with proofs and evidences that support exactly what the title says.
          - end of quote -

          It‘s rather shocking how one could print such a disgusting book or praise it!
          May Allah ta'ala give these criminals what they deserve!
          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 13-02-20, 04:46 PM.

          Comment


          • Taḥrīm al-naẓar fī kutub ahl al-kalām (Prohibition of Studying Kalam) - Ibn Qudama:

            "Do you suppose that the Prophet be wrong in accepting that from them and being contented with their pure and simple submission to God, rather than they should study the science of speculative theology (Kalam) and examine the "accident" ('Aradh), the "substance" (Jawahar), and the body (Jism); and on the other hand, that the speculative theologians (Mutakalimun) be right with regards to the transgressions of him who has not studied those things? If this be so, then let them claim for themselves a law and a system of worship other than that of Islam, and leave the religion of Muhammad alone" (Pg. 21)

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

            It's a very profound statement for the objective truthseeker.
            Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 13-02-20, 06:32 PM.

            Comment


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

              "Do you suppose that the Prophet be wrong in accepting that from them and being contented with their pure and simple submission to God, rather than they should study the science of the speculative theology (Kalam) and examine the "accident" ('Aradh), the "substance" (Jawahar), and the body (Jism); and on the other hand, that the speculative theologians (Mutakalimun) be right with regards to the transgressions of him who has not studied those things? If this be so, then let them claim for themselves a law and a system of worship other than that of Islam, and the leave the religion of Muhammad alone" (Pg. 21)

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

              It's a very profound statement for the objective truthseeker.
              "First, it entails accusing the Apostle of God of a fault of omission; for the Prophet did not order any one of his community to learn speculative theology (Kalam), and to examine the rational proofs, that one might thereby know the soundness of his creed" (Pg. 21)

              Comment


              • "Salafîs" are fond of quoting his (Ibn Abdul Barr al-Maliki d.463) apparent attribution of place, direction, and corporeality to Allâh Most High in al-Tamhîd:

                The hadîth [of the descent of Allâh] provides evidence that Allâh is in () the heaven, on (`alâ) the Throne, above (fawq) seven heavens, as the Congregation (jamâ`a) said, and this is part of their proof against the Mu`tazila and the Jahmiyya's claim that Allâh is in every place and not on the Throne.[2] ... An entity cannot be conceived to exist without place in relation to us, and whatever is without place is non-existent.[3]

                http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/ibn_abd_al_barr.htm


                Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                Here's an interesting article on an early Ashari scholar, Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 386), who affirmed Allah's Uluw bi-Dhatihi:

                http://www.abovethethrone.com/arsh/a...-bil-dhaat.cfm
                "His contravention of the Imâm of North Africa, Abû al-Walîd al-Bâjî, is famous. It reached a point that the eminent people of North Africa would say: "No one in North Africa holds this position except he and Ibn Abî Zayd!" although some of the people of knowledge cited an excuse for Ibn Abî Zayd in the text of the great qâdî Abû Muhammad `Abd al-Wahhâb [ibn `Alî ibn Nasr al-Baghdâdî (d 422)] al-Baghdâdî al-Mâlikî[5] - may Allâh have mercy on him.[6]"

                http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/ibn_abd_al_barr.htm

                Comment


                • Great article detailing Imam as-Saffarini's position on Uluw:

                  Glory be to Him’, the author mentioned the Glorification of Lord, referring to sanctifying Allah from the beliefs of the negators (mu’attila) and the beliefs of the anthropomorphists (al-mumathila). ‘He has risen’ over His Throne, above (fawq) the seven heavens, a rising that befits his Essence, ‘as has been mentioned in the text’ of the Quranic verses, and the Prophetic traditions, and the Salafi texts (from the Salaf), which are too numerous to be investigated. This is the Book of Allah, from beginning to the end, and the Sunnah of His Messenger, from the beginning to the end, then the general statements of the companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and the Successors to them in good, may Allah be merciful with them; then the statements of the rest of the Imams of religion, whose statements are held in high regard, and no one disputes therein, except every stubborn and arrogant person; that Allah Ta’ala is (mustawin) established above His Throne, separate from His creation. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya and his student al-Imam al-Muhaqqiq Ibn al-Qayyim said, in his book al-Juyush al-Islamiyya (which Keller calls anthropomorphic)…’ He then quotes Ibn al-Qayyim for about half of the page, then begins to quote the Quranic verses in support for Allah’s literal elevation upon His creation... (it continues)

                  ...He then quotes Ibn Taymiyya literally affirming Allah’s elevation upon His creation saying: ‘Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: As for the traditions and narrations from the Companions and the Successors, then no one knows how numerous they are accept Allah. He (Ibn Taymiyya) said: Either, that which these texts contribute towards from affirming Highness of Allah Ta’ala over His creation and Rising above the Throne, that it is the truth, or the truth is the opposite of that, since the truth must either be of the two opposing possibilities. Either He, Jalla Sha’nuhu, Himself (nafsuhu) above the Creation, or He is not above the Creation as the Jahmites say; those who say that He Subhanahu is not above them, nor in them, nor inside the world, nor outside of it, nor separate, nor attached. Often they say, He is in Essence everywhere, while in both beliefs, they avoid saying that He Himself is above (fawq)…’ The quote then continues over two pages, up until Ibn Taymiyya says: ‘The scholars of Hadeeth have compiled the narrations from the Salaf concerning affirmation (of Highness), that none can count except the Lord of the Heavens; yet, no one has been able to narrate from them in negation (of Highness) a single letter, except fabricated lies narrated by one who is the most furthest of all from understanding their statements.’

                  I say (al-Saffarini): ‘The scholars wrote numerous works, and greatly endeavored to produce books, in affirmation of (Allah’s) Highness and Rising, pointing it out using the verses and traditions and what they comprise of. Hence, from them is one who narrates the traditions with chains, whilst from them is one who excludes the chains bringing meaningful wording. From them is one who extensively elaborates, whilst from them is one who wrote small-sized, medium-sized works, or refined existing ones. From such works is Mas’alat al-‘Uluw (The Issue of Allah’s Elevation) by Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya; al-‘Uluw by al-Imam al-Muwaffaq, the author of various Sunni works; al-Juyush al-Islamiyya by al-Imam al-Muhaqqiq Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya; Kitab al-‘Arsh by al-Hafidh Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi, the author of highly precious works; and other works which cannot be counted except with difficulty, while Allah Ta’ala is the source of ability.’... (continues)


                  https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...and-direction/
                  Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 14-02-20, 02:56 AM.

                  Comment


                  • It's a known issue that Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) refers to the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728) in his Lawami' al-Anwar a lot.

                    There is however a very huge difference between him and the so called "Salafis“:
                    He refers to the Shaykh as a scholar from among the Hanabila and does NOT treat his words like revelation (unlike what "Salafis" do!).
                    He agrees and disagrees with him based on the issue that is discussed.
                    And his understanding of the words of the Shaykh clearly differs with the [lack of] understanding of the "Salafis".

                    There is another important thing to know:
                    These "Salafis" are not allowed to cite the Imam al-Saffarini acting as if he supports their wrong way (which he definitely does not do!), because their major scholars have accused him of polytheism!
                    Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) said to one of his students in a letter that he and his teachers (which includes Imam al-Saffarini) and their teachers did not know Tawhid and did not differentiate between Islam and the religion of 'Amr bin Luhayy!!!
                    As for the Ibn 'Uthaymin: He explicitly accused the Imam of polytheism!

                    So these "Salafis" are fooling no one except themselves by citing this Hanbali Imam (who by the way regards Ash'aris as Sunnis!).
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 14-02-20, 09:04 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) mentioned the affirmation of the Highness of Allah ta'ala in his Lawami' al-Anwar and clarified that this affirmation of Istiwa` and 'Uluw does not necessitate Tajsim.
                      Until he said:

                      قال الإمام القرطبي ، وابن أبي زيد ، والقاضي عبد الوهاب من المالكية ، وجماعة من شيوخ الحديث والفقه ، وابن عبد البر ، والقاضي أبو بكر بن العربي ، وابن فورك ، وغيرهم ممن لا يحصى عددهم أنه سبحانه مستو على العرش بذاته ، وأطلقوا في بعض الأماكن : فوق عرشه ، قال القاضي أبو بكر - وهو الصحيح الذي أقول به - : من غير تحديد ، ولا تمكن في مكان ولا مماسة

                      Imam al-Qurtubi and Ibn Abi Zayd and al-Qadhi 'Abd al-Wahhab from the Malikis and a group from among the scholars of Hadith and Fiqh and Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and al-Qadhi Abu Bakr bin al-'Arabi and Ibn Furak and others whose number can not be counted said that [Allah] - glory be to Him - is elevated upon the throne by his essence. In some places [of their books] they stated "above His throne".
                      Al-Qadhi Abu Bakr said - and that is the correct [position] which I [also] say: Without limitation (Tahdid) nor being located (Tamakkun) in [a] place (Makan) nor touching (Mumassa).

                      - end of quote -

                      So here we see again: That the Highness that is affirmed here is one befitting Allah‘s majesty and not a sensory one and that the statement "with his essence" - even though disliked and rejected by many other scholars - does not necessitate affirmation in a sensory manner!

                      The interesting thing here is that the scholars that he ascribes this position to are mostly Ash'aris and it's a known thing that Asha'ira do NOT believe in any [divine] attribute in a SENSORY manner, rather explicitly state that the reality of Allah ta‘ala is beyond imagination and comprehension.
                      Imam al-Saffarini obviously knows that (and he agreed with that!).

                      Further proof:

                      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                      Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) said in his Lawami' al-Anwar:

                      فمذهب السلف في آيات الصفات أنها لا تؤول ، ولا تفسر بل يجب الإيمان بها ، وتفويض معناها المراد منها إلى الله تعالى ، فقد روى اللالكائي الحافظ عن محمد بن الحسن قال اتفق الفقهاء كلهم من المشرق إلى المغرب على الإيمان بالصفات من غير تفسير ولا تشبيه

                      So the way (Madhhab) of the Salaf regarding the verses of the attributes (Ayat al-Sifat) is that they're not to be interpreted nor to be explained, rather it is obligatory to have belief in them and to consign (!) (Tafwidh) their intended meanings (Ma'na) to Allah ta'ala for Al-Lalika`i, the Hafidh, reported from Muhammad bin al-Hassan that he said:
                      All the Fuqaha` (scholars of Islamic jurisprudence) from the east and the west have agreed upon having faith in the [divine] attributes without explanation (Tafsir) or attributing similarity (Tashbih).

                      - end of quote -
                      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 14-02-20, 04:24 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                        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.
                        https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/1...rthodox-creed/

                        "...After the demise of al-Ash’ari, there remained a few number of scholars who adhered to the Ash’ari school, yet they, far from being prominent, were constantly attacked every now and then by the scholars of the four schools, and often cursed publicly on the pulpits, precisely for employing Kalam in theology. The famous creed authored by the ‘Abbasid Caliph al-Qadir was written and publicly read to endorse the traditionalist beliefs and attack the rationalist movement, including the Mu’tazilites and the Ash’arites.

                        It was only in the 5th Islamic century when the Nidham al-Mulk, a vizier who favoured the Shafi’is and the Ash’aris, took control and established a network of colleges that became known after him as Nidhamiyya Colleges, that the Ash’arites were finally able to breath and propagate their rationalism freely. A sudden influx of power for the neo-rationalist movement caused many riots in Baghdad between the traditionalist and the rationalists, now being represented by the Ash’arites.

                        The reason why the Nidhamiyya Colleges worked so well in favour of Ash’arism, is that Nidham al-Mulk had stipulated conditions, making the fiqh lessons to be exclusively Shafi’i. This was a perfect opportunity for the Ash’arites to convince their co-madhabists from the Shafi’i school of Ash’arism. However, their efforts failed due to the opposition they received from the traditionalist Shafi’is, and hence the Ash’ari struggle for recognition moved to Damascus.

                        Damascus there appeared two main Ash’arite propagandists, one before Ibn Taymiyya, and the other after. The first one being Ibn ‘Asakir al-Dimashqi, and the other being al-Subki."

                        Ibn ‘Asakir also made an attempt to gain approval for Ash’arite rationalism from his Shafi’i colleagues, and to this end he wrote his famous defence of Ash’arism called: Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari. In this book he presents a laudatory biography of al-Ash’ari, then lists more than 80 Ash’arite theologians, and finally ends with a section dealing with problematic reports from al-Shafi’i in particular concerning the censure of Kalam. Here, Ibn ‘Asakir is obviously addresses his colleagues from the Shafi’i school and tries convince them that Shafi’i only opposed the Kalam used by the Qadariyya, and not the science of Kalam itself as used by the Ash’arite Mutakallims. This effort by Ibn ‘Asakir was also destined to fail, for the bulk of the Shafi’is remained faithful to traditionalism..."

                        Comment


                        • How Asharism Spread | al-Maqrizi (d. 845):

                          "...Thus, this was the reason behind the fame of the Ash’ari school and its spread in various Islamic lands, such that the rest of the schools were forgotten and gone; to such an extent that there remains no school today that opposes the Ash’ari school, with the exception of the school of the Hanbalis – the followers of Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal – may Allah be pleased with him. For they are upon what the Salaf were upon, that is to avoid allegorical interpretation of texts pertaining to attributes.

                          Such was the case up until 700 years after Hijra, when there rose to fame, in Damascus and the outskirts, Taqi al-Din Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Halim b. ‘Abd al-Salam b. Taymiyya al-Harrani. He undertook to champion the school of the Salaf and did his utmost to refute the Ash’ari school and openly censured them, the Rafida and the Sufis.

                          Thereafter, the people were divided into two groups over him. A group that followed him, relied upon his views, acted in accordance with his opinions, held him as Shaykh al-Islam and the most prominent preservers of the Islamic nation. The other group declared him to be a heretic, a deviant, rebuked him for affirming attributes, and censured him over his juristic opinions, of them are those where he had a predecessor, and of them are those where they claimed he opposed the consensus and had no predecessor. He and his adversaries, both had mishaps, and their reckoning is with Allah, the one from whom nothing is hidden in the earth and the heavens. He still has, up until today, many followers in Syria, and a few in Egypt."

                          https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/1...ad-al-maqrizi/

                          Comment


                          • Except from Yasir Qadhi's PhD dissertation:

                            "The theological school that is of most interest to us is, of course, the Ash'aris. Up until the 4th Islamic century, the Ash'aris had failed to take over any of the famous legal schools, and hence did not enjoy the legitimacy the traditionalist enjoyed. However, the process of infiltration had begun, and the first school that was successfully taken over was the Shafi'i Madhhab. As we enter the era we are concerned with, it is essential to understand that the Ash'arization of the Shafi'i school was still an ongoing process; while some Shafi'i scholars were inclined to the Ash'ari school, there were still major scholars who still clung on to traditionalist theology" (Pg. 27)

                            https://archive.org/details/YasirQad...e/n31/mode/1up

                            "The Political Establishment of Ash'arism" starts on page 22.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                              Interesting blog on Ibn Qudama and Tafwid:

                              https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...ama-on-tafwid/
                              The author of the blog is Abdullah.

                              So he says,


                              Ibn Qudama says in Lum’at al-I’tiqad: ‘From the verses that have come in relation to Allah’s attributes is the saying of Allah, ‘the Face of your Lord…’, and His saying, ‘Rather His two Hands are outstretched’. He then mentions a number of verses affirming a self for Allah, His Coming, His Pleasure, His Love, His Anger and Dislike. He then mentions the Hadeeth about Allah’s descent every night, His Amazement, and His Laugh, and considering it all from His Attributes. He then says:

                              ‘These texts and the like, the chain of which has been authenticated, and the narrators of which are upright, we believe in them, and do not reject them nor deny them, nor do we give them a ta’wil which opposes their dhahir.’

                              From this we deduce, a) If he had negated the dhahir of the texts, he would not have affirmed the Face and Hands of Allah as His Attributes, and b) his objection to any ta’wil which opposes the dhahir of the texts clearly shows that he does not negate the dhahir, rather he affirms it, and therefore, he is not a mufawwidh.
                              1) This is not true, Salafus Saleh, the early Asharis and Hanbalis affirmed these verses and Hadiths among the Allah's Attributes, and still were muwaffid. The argument doesn't make sense to me.

                              2) Ibn Qudamah usage of the word dhahir in Lum’at al-I’tiqad, is not an indication that he means the literal or apparent meaning.Dhahir can have many meanings, two of which are, dhahir lafz (apparent wording – external wording - text) or dhahir ma'na (apparent meaning), depending on the intend of the author. When you read all that which proceeded, this word dhahir in Lum’at al-I’tiqad by Ibn Qudamah, it is clear that he intended dhahir lafz and not dhahir ma'na. Both the early Asharis and Hanbalis used dhahir like this in their books of Aqida.


                              Ibn Qudamah said, "He is to be described in the manner that He has spoken of Himself in his Grand Book or according to the statements of His Noble Prophet.

                              All of what has been brought in the Quran or is authentically related by the Chosen One, peace and blessings be upon him, regarding the Attributes of the Most High Merciful is compulsory to believe. Whatever has been related must be met with submission and acceptance, while abandoning investigation into by way of rejection, interpretation, likening the expressions to the creation or giving likeness to the Creator as we would the creation.

                              "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."
                              COMMENT: Abandoning the seeking of the meaning of the text.This is pretty clear.


                              Then Ibn Qudamah says, "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)
                              COMMENT: Before proceeding with the words of Imam Ahmad,he quotes Allah saying, "And no one knows the meaning except Allah." (Quran 3:7)

                              Reading the verse, "And no one knows the meaning except Allah." (Quran 3:7) would indicate Dhahir Lafz.

                              Reading the verse, "And no one knows that meaning except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge." (Quran 3:7) would indicate Dhahir Ma'na.


                              Then Ibn Qudamah quotes Imam Ahmad

                              "Imam Abu Abdullah Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Hanbali, may Allah have mercy on him, regarding the statements of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon, “Indeed Allah descends to the lowest sky” and Indeed Allah wil be seen in the Hereafter.” And other statements, said the following:

                              “We believe in it, attest to it, without how and without meaning.
                              COMMENT: Imam Ahmad says, without meaning. It is pretty clear.


                              Imam Ahmad continues,

                              We do not deny any of it; but we know that what the Messenger came with is true and we do not reject the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. We do not describe Allah with more than what He has described Himself with, (but He is) without boundary and without limit.

                              There is nothing like Him. He is the All Seeing, the All Hearing. (42:11)

                              We say just as He said. We describe Him how He has described Himself and we do not transgress that.
                              COMMENT: This to me means, we only quote the Quran, and we don't add extra words like some scholars have, Literally (haqiqatan), or by His Essense (Bidhatihi) or by His Self (Nafsihi)
                              .
                              Imam Ahmad continues,

                              No description given could reach Him. We believe in all of the Quran, the decisive and the allegorical. We do not use falsehood to negate any of His Attributes.
                              We do not transgress the Quran and the Hadith. We do not know the essence of it, only testifying to the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and affirming the Quran.”
                              End of Imam Ahmad's quote.

                              After reading this over and over again, I don't know how Ibn Qudamah could have intended, Dhahir Ma'na when he said dhahir, in the quote, ‘These texts and the like, the chain of which has been authenticated, and the narrators of which are upright, we believe in them, and do not reject them nor deny them, nor do we give them a ta’wil which opposes their dhahir.’

                              Ibn Qudamah was a Muwaffid when he wrote, Lum’at al-I’tiqad.

                              Lum’at al-I’tiqad is a book defending and proving Tafwid as the Aqida of the Salafus Saleh. And then he quotes Imam Ahmad to defend that position.

                              It is intellectually dishonest to say that Lumat al Itiqad is a text in defense of the modern Salafi position of dhahir ma'na, when you read the text, minus the commentaries. Knowing that dhahir has been used by scholars in both way, Dhahir lafz, and Dhahir ma'na.

                              Based on what I've read:

                              Ibn Qudamah and Al Barbahari were Hanbalis who were Muwaffid.
                              Ibn Jawzi was a Hanbali who used Tawil.
                              Ibn Taymiyyah was a Hanbali who believed in the Dhahir, but in his defense, he has his own definition of dhahir, and I believe, he used it in a way that was not used before him.

                              Ibn Taymiyyah said, "Dhahir is an ambiguous term." (Majmu al Fatawa) This means that dhahir has many meanings, its understanding and usage depends on the intent of the author.

                              And Allah knows best.
                              Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 16-02-20, 11:51 PM.
                              My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                              Comment


                              • "Returning to our story, exactly one decade after the opening of the Nizamiyya, another significant incident occurred, which is mentioned in Hanbali sources as the "Fitna of al-Qushayri". While Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi was clearly an Ash'ari, it appears that certain factors prevented him from preaching the doctrines of his school as publically as Nizam al-Mulk would have wanted. Hence, the decision was made to send an even bolder theologian: one that would not shy away from the heat that would inevitably be generated by teaching anti-Hanbali doctrines in a Hanbali-dominated city. The person chosen for this endeavour was Abd al-Karim al-Qushayri (d. 514). This was the first attempt to publicly and boldly advertise Ash'ari doctrines in Baghdad, and it was proved to he a disaster.

                                Al-Qushayri was sent from Nishapur to Bagdhad sometime in 469AH, whence he immediately began to preach Ash'ari theology, publicly criticizing the Hanbalis and labeling them Mujasimma or anthropomorphists." (Pg. 56)

                                https://archive.org/details/YasirQad...e/n64/mode/1up

                                What's interesting to note is that al-Qushayri was labelling the Hanbali traditionalists as Mujasimma, not the Hanafi Karramis (who both Salafis and Ash'aris would agree were blatant Mujasimma).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X