Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dr. Hatem al-Haj on the term "Salafi"

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

  • #31


    The above is the Athari scholar explaining the differences in terminology.
    Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
    "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
    Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

    Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
    1/116

    Comment


    • #32
      Ash'ari: "Do not affirm the Zahir that is Tajsim" For the Zahir is the dictionary definition.

      Athari and Taymiyyan: "We must affirm it upon the Zahir" For the Zahir is the word without definition.

      No if the a Taymiyyan negates spatial place, spatial direction for Allah and says He is as He was (as is required by Sunni Orthodoxy since the time we took the Mu'tazila to task), and any likeness for Allah's attributes besides then we will not have an issue with him in these matters of Ilahiyyat.
      Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
      "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
      Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

      Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
      1/116

      Comment


      • #33
        No if the a Taymiyyan negates spatial place
        * So
        Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
        "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
        Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

        Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
        1/116

        Comment


        • #34
          (No the above does not excuse the later Ash'ari of making Ta'til of the Sifat al-Khabariyyah, it is an explanation for when the Ash'ari such as Ibn Kathir who make Tafwid/Ithbat say that the Zahir that comes to the mind of the anthropomorophist is negated).
          Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
          "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
          Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

          Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
          1/116

          Comment


          • #35
            Making Ta'til of the Sifat al-Khabariyyah does not take one out of Ahlus Sunnah - otherwise would Imam as-Saffarini who criticises the Ash'ari for affirming Uluww, call those same Ash'ari as members of Ahlus Sunnah?


            (The reasoning is that they still affirm the divine transcendence Tanzih unlike the Jahmiyyah/Muqatiliyyah).
            Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
            "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
            Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

            Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
            1/116

            Comment


            • #36
              No if the a Taymiyyan negates spatial place
              So if a Taymiyyan negates spatial place
              Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
              "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
              Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

              Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
              1/116

              Comment


              • #37
                "The Prohibition of Studying Works on Speculative Theology (refutation of Ibn Aqil al-Hanbali)" by Ibn Qudamah:

                https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...hUKEwj91eb_s67 tAhXxFVkFHW51AN4QFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw17gmG3J7My 3JZ__TFVQz1j&cshid=1606881760489

                Ibn Qudamah's treatise on the Speech of Allah and its Recitation (refutation of the Ash'aris):

                https://www.google.com/amp/s/islamth...ecitation/amp/

                Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani on the position of the Hanaabilah on the Speech of Allah:

                And the fifth: is that it (the Qur’ān) is the speech of Allah, uncreated, and that He has been – since before creation – speaking whenever He pleases. Ahmad expressed that in Kitāb al-Radd ‘ala Al-Jahmiyya. But his disciples have split into two factions: One of them says: that it is inseparable from His being while the letters and sounds are on an even plain (muqtarina), not following one another in a sequence (muta’āqiba). And he allows whomever He pleases to hear His speech. However, most of them said: ‘Verily He is one who speaks (mutakallim) with what He pleases and when He pleases. And when he summoned Musa (pbuh) when He spoke to him He had not summoned him prior to that time [in pre-eternity].” (Translation taken from an Ash'ari website)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                  I implore you sister to not blindly follow any individual. Listen to the different sides before coming to a decision and defending something that turns out to be heretical.
                  Truthfully, I'm not. I'm as confused as ever. I did find it an interesting read (just like I found your comment now FWIW). My confusion doesn't necessarily stem from what I believe regarding these matters, but rather the differences between the Athari/Salafis (Taymiyyans) and Traditional Hanbalis. Because to me, it sounds merely like semantics when it comes to the Attributes. I enjoy reading both sides to this and am reserving judgment on either side. Which I don't think will change anytime soon to be honest, wa Allaahu a3lam.

                  As for finding a teacher, then I would love to. However, circumstances don't allow me to switch places now. If it were possible I would consider the suggestion of brother aMuslimForLife to find an online teacher at the site he linked, but also that isn't possible for me now. Which doesn't help my confusion. Alhamdulillaah alaa kulli haal.

                  Anyways, you must know this by now, I don't usually address brothers as "brother" on here. But before you leave I just want you to know that I really do appreciate your efforts in trying to advise me brother. It doesn't matter if we've not always seen eye to eye, it doesn't take from the fact that I appreciate it. May Allaah reward you and account you for it.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                    The apparent clash between faith and rational thinking (i.e. rationalism):


                    Ibn Taymiyyah's Epistemic Critique by Dr. Nazir Khan

                    Introduction:

                    Epistemology is the academic discipline that addresses the question, “How do I know what I know?” In other words, it studies how knowledge is established, what makes a belief justified, what constitutes proof, and so on. Often surface-level polemics are in fact representative of deeper epistemological issues. This is certainly the case with debates over the existence of God. Before answering the demand, “Prove to me that God exists,” one must first examine what actually constitutes proof, what needs to be proven, and whether the one requesting proof has a coherent notion of proof to begin with. The present essay extracts and analyzes the common epistemological thread that runs through three seemingly disparate discussions: the problems of philosophical skepticism in the Hellenic and Hellenistic periods in Ancient Greece,[2] the critique of safsaṭah (sophistry) as it relates to philosophical proofs for the existence of God in the writings of the Muslim theologian Ibn Taymīyyah (d. 728 AH/1328 CE), and the core epistemic area of contention in contemporary debates between theists and atheists.

                    Living in what has been described as an era of doubt or the ‘Age of Atheists,’[3] people are far more skeptical towards religion and view faith derisively as ‘belief without evidence,’ or beliefs lacking justification. Faith’s ultimate justification, however, is encountered through the meaningfulness of its own message and not through the pursuit of philosophical argumentation. The essential idea at the core of this essay is the following: philosophical proof is not required in order to believe in God, nor to justify one’s belief in God.[4] That doesn’t mean that people are not to be persuaded by some sort of explanation or justification, only that the justification offered must primarily focus on Islam’s theocentric message regarding the purpose and meaning of life rather than on syllogistic cosmological, teleological, or ontological arguments. People can entertain doubts about all sorts of things; just as a person does not need philosophical proof to rescue them from the idea that ‘the physical world does not exist’ or that ‘moral values do not exist,’ they do not need philosophical proof to escape atheism. There is a fallacy, then, in thinking that we must necessarily doubt and demand proof for something before it can be established as veritable truth—a fallacy one can term the ‘Pyrrhonian fallacy’ after the radical skepticism of the Ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho of Elis (d. 270 BCE), who is discussed in detail later in the essay.

                    The use of philosophical proofs to substantiate doctrines of faith was common in the discipline of kalām,[5] becoming a central feature of the discourse.[6] However, the eminent Ashʿarī theologian Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 505 AH) explained that it was not the means of securing certitude for many people since this was not its original aim. Rather, according to him, kalām was intended as a discourse for the rational defense of doctrine that demonstrated the logical contradictions of heterodox groups.[7] In his spiritual autobiography, al-Munqidh min al-ḍalāl, al-Ghazālī describes how he overcame his own struggle with Pyrrhonian doubt through spiritual experience and enlightenment rather than philosophical argumentation.[8]

                    The most voluminous and vociferous intellectual opposition to the use of philosophical argumentation to establish religious doctrine was to come in the writings of Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyyah. As numerous academics have noted, Ibn Taymīyyah’s writings demonstrate that he is not an unthinking anti-rational literalist, but rather a deeply analytical and systematic rationalist, intimately familiar with the vast philosophical tradition drawn upon by his opponents.[9] He advocated for a logically coherent epistemology that gave scripture its due reverence rather than what he perceived to be rendering it subservient to fallible man-made ideologies.[10] Perhaps Ibn Taymīyyah’s most salient contribution has been to refocus debates over the interpretation of scripture back to their epistemological roots, namely, the presumption that theological doctrines must be substantiated by philosophical argumentation in order to be regarded as true.

                    According to the Qur’anic epistemology elaborated by Ibn Taymīyyah and his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzīyah (d. 751 AH), a person’s faith in God is fully justified and meaningfully grounded without need for logical deductive argumentation.[11] It is instead justified because it is the only meaningful outlook that emerges naturally from a person’s fiṭrah (innate disposition)—just like belief in the existence of good and evil, causality, numbers, truth, existence itself, and so on.[12] To deny a core pillar of one's fiṭrah leaves a person without a coherent system of interpreting existence in a meaningful way and, if taken to its logical conclusion, one’s beliefs dissolve into endless doubt as in safsaṭah—a term used in the Islamic tradition to designate radical (Pyrrhonian) skepticism. These terms will be further unpacked and explored in the course of this essay.

                    Three works of Ibn Taymīyyah are of particular significance in noting his views on philosophical justification: the gargantuan ten-volume work entitled Darʾ taʿāruḍ al-ʿaql wa al-naql (Repudiating the Conflict between Reason and Revelation), his work on Aristotelian epistemology entitled al-Radd ʿalá al-manṭiqīyīn (Refutation of the [Greek] Logicians), and his work entitled Naqḍ al-manṭiq (Nullifying [Greek] Logic).[13] Over the course of a sustained epistemological critique, Ibn Taymīyyah traces his interlocutors’ methodology of argumentation back to a philosophy prone to radical skepticism and doubt, in order to advance the case for scripturalist (atharī) theology.[14] He argues that those who took up the path of philosophical argumentation to attain certainty were often the ones most afflicted by uncertainty, confusion, and doubts, and in many cases, they ended up acknowledging a stalemate on arguments.[15]

                    https://yaqeeninstitute.org/amp/nazi...temic-critique

                    Ibn Taymiyyah on the Fitrah, intellect and revelation:


                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It's one thing to respect al-Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) as a Hanbali scholar, but it's a different one to try to spread his abnormal ideas and act as if the Hanabila were in agreement with him on these views.

                      Some of the major abnormal views of Ibn Taymiyya on creedal issues:

                      1) Rejection of relegating the knowledge of the correct interpretation [of the texts regarding the divine attributes] to Allah ta'ala (Tafwidh): This is something that no Hanbali scholar before him ever did. Rather they would defend Tafwidh - and state that these texts are from the Mutashabihat - and regard it as the only correct way and criticize the Ash'aris for Ta`wil ONLY, but never for Tafwidh.
                      Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) mentions Tafwidh explicilty in his Rawdhat al-Nadhir and defends it!

                      2) The claim that God is subject to changes (Hulul al-Hawadith): The Hanbali authorities BEFORE him explicitly stated that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from this. In fact it's mentioned in the Hanbali creedal work al-Idhah fi Usul al-Din [by Imam Ibn al-Zaghuni (d. 527 AH) that there is consensus among this nation regarding this being impossible ("لأن ذلك يوجب كون ذاته تعالى محلا للحوادث وهذا محال اتفقت الأمة قاطبة على إحالته")!
                      Ibn Taymiyya knew about this consensus (he mentions it!) and also that his own Hanbali forefathers - including his grandfather the Imam Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 652 AH) (who is among the greatest authorities of the Madhhab!) - believed Allah ta'ala to be transcendent from this, yet he explicitly mentioned that he disagrees with them on this and has left their way on this and on other issues of the foundations of religion and jurisprudence!

                      3) The claim that emergent things have no first (Hawadith la Awwala laha) and that the creation maybe eternal in kind (Qadim al-Naw'): No Hanbali has ever uttered such a thing! This entails open rejection of religious texts and al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) regards this as the belief of atheists (!) in his al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din.

                      4) The claim that the annihilation of the hellfire (Fana` al-Nar) is a correct opinion: We again do not know of any Hanabila before him ever supporting such a deviant position, which is refuted by the religious texts. His student Ibn Qayyim (d. 751 AH) mentioned that this position was adopted by him later in his life. He has a book on this called as "al-Radd 'ala man qala bi Fana` al-Janna wal Nar", where he refutes the deviant position that both paradise and hellfire will come to an end, but defends at the same time the deviant position that hellfire alone will come to an end.

                      There are other points, but I would say the above are the major points and some of them have been called as disbelief by Sunni authorities who lived before him.
                      The above points are wrong according to both groups of classical Sunnis: Ash'aris and Hanbalis.


                      Another major problem with Taymiyyans is the following:
                      They do not openly state what they believe and do not clarify it even after being asked again and again: This is especially true regarding the issue of corporeality (Tajsim). No one knows whether they believe God to be a 3-dimensional (or n-dimensional) being or whether they regard Him to be transcendent from this.
                      This point in itself is enough to stay away from them, because it seems that they are hiding something and don't want the people to know it. If not, then what stops them from clarifying that which they regard as correct without coming up with a dichotomy that the one asking them is obviously not intending?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post

                        Truthfully, I'm not. I'm as confused as ever. I did find it an interesting read (just like I found your comment now FWIW). My confusion doesn't necessarily stem from what I believe regarding these matters, but rather the differences between the Athari/Salafis (Taymiyyans) and Traditional Hanbalis. Because to me, it sounds merely like semantics when it comes to the Attributes. I enjoy reading both sides to this and am reserving judgment on either side. Which I don't think will change anytime soon to be honest, wa Allaahu a3lam.

                        As for finding a teacher, then I would love to. However, circumstances don't allow me to switch places now. If it were possible I would consider the suggestion of brother aMuslimForLife to find an online teacher at the site he linked, but also that isn't possible for me now. Which doesn't help my confusion. Alhamdulillaah alaa kulli haal.

                        Anyways, you must know this by now, I don't usually address brothers as "brother" on here. But before you leave I just want you to know that I really do appreciate your efforts in trying to advise me brother. It doesn't matter if we've not always seen eye to eye, it doesn't take from the fact that I appreciate it. May Allaah reward you and account you for it.
                        Mostly semantics, the main difference is that some salafis will neither affirm nor negate spatial direction, place and size for Allah.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                          Mostly semantics, the main difference is that some salafis will neither affirm nor negate spatial direction, place and size for Allah.
                          Na3am.. may Allaah guide us all.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                            2) The claim that God is subject to changes (Hulul al-Hawadith): The Hanbali authorities BEFORE him explicitly stated that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from this. In fact it's mentioned in the Hanbali creedal work al-Idhah fi Usul al-Din [by Imam Ibn al-Zaghuni (d. 527 AH) that there is consensus among this nation regarding this being impossible ("لأن ذلك يوجب كون ذاته تعالى محلا للحوادث وهذا محال اتفقت الأمة قاطبة على إحالته")!
                            Ibn Taymiyya knew about this consensus (he mentions it!) and also that his own Hanbali forefathers - including his grandfather the Imam Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 652 AH) (who is among the greatest authorities of the Madhhab!) - believed Allah ta'ala to be transcendent from this, yet he explicitly mentioned that he disagrees with them on this and has left their way on this and on other issues of the foundations of religion and jurisprudence!
                            Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) stated in his al-Tis'iniyya 2/492:

                            وقد ظن من ذكر من هؤلاء كأبي علي وأبي الحسن بن الزغواني، أن الأمة قاطبة اتفقت على أنه لا تقوم به الحوادث، وجعلوا ذلك الأصل الذي اعتمدوه، وهذا مبلغهم من العلم، وهذا الإجماع نظير غيره من الإجماعات الباطلة المدعاة في الكلام وغيره -وما أكثرها- فمن تدبر وجد عامة المقالات الفاسدة يبنونها على مقدمات لا تثبت إلّا بإجماع مدعى أو قياس، وكلاهما عند التحقيق يكون باطلًا
                            - end of quote -

                            So he mentions Abu 'Ali al-Hashimi [al-Hanbali] (d. 428 AH) and Ibn al-Zaghuni [al-Hanbali] (d. 527 AH) and their statement regarding the consensus that Allah ta'ala is not subject to changes.
                            He thereafter rejects that such a consensus exists.


                            Now just look at the death dates: There is LITERALLY 300 years between them and we do not find a single Hanbali telling to Imam Abu 'Ali al-Hashimi "no you're wrong"! In fact we find it explicitly stated in the creedal books of the Hanabila BEFORE AND AFTER Ibn Taymiyya that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from being subject to changes. We likewise see Ibn Taymiyya explicitly stating that he has left the position of his [Hanbali] forefathers on this and other issues.

                            Yet we're supposed to believe Dr. Hatem al-Haj that there is no difference between him and [most of] the rest of the Hanabila.
                            If only people would start reading the actual sources.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                              * So
                              Any word on this?

                              Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                              Where? I don't remember...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                                Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) stated in his al-Tis'iniyya 2/492:

                                وقد ظن من ذكر من هؤلاء كأبي علي وأبي الحسن بن الزغواني، أن الأمة قاطبة اتفقت على أنه لا تقوم به الحوادث، وجعلوا ذلك الأصل الذي اعتمدوه، وهذا مبلغهم من العلم، وهذا الإجماع نظير غيره من الإجماعات الباطلة المدعاة في الكلام وغيره -وما أكثرها- فمن تدبر وجد عامة المقالات الفاسدة يبنونها على مقدمات لا تثبت إلّا بإجماع مدعى أو قياس، وكلاهما عند التحقيق يكون باطلًا
                                - end of quote -

                                So he mentions Abu 'Ali al-Hashimi [al-Hanbali] (d. 428 AH) and Ibn al-Zaghuni [al-Hanbali] (d. 527 AH) and their statement regarding the consensus that Allah ta'ala is not subject to changes.
                                He thereafter rejects that such a consensus exists.


                                Now just look at the death dates: There is LITERALLY 300 years between them and we do not find a single Hanbali telling to Imam Abu 'Ali al-Hashimi "no you're wrong"! In fact we find it explicitly stated in the creedal books of the Hanabila BEFORE AND AFTER Ibn Taymiyya that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from being subject to changes. We likewise see Ibn Taymiyya explicitly stating that he has left the position of his [Hanbali] forefathers on this and other issues.

                                Yet we're supposed to believe Dr. Hatem al-Haj that there is no difference between him and [most of] the rest of the Hanabila.
                                If only people would start reading the actual sources.
                                So which strand of Hanbalism did Ibn Taymiyyah follow? Who before him held the same views?

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X