Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis"

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

  • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

    How do you know what that word means and is it literal?
    Al Salaf Al Saalih know it means Allah. Go see what they say. If it meant literal then Euzubillah His hands would also perish, which is impossible. Do you need me to S P E L L it for you?

    Comment


    • It really seems that the brothers and sisters on this forum are unable to stay on topic.

      This thread is a comparison between the 'Aqida of mainstream Hanbalis and that of modern day "Salafis".
      Why bringing up all kinds of issues, which are not the topic of this thread?
      It really destroys the thread.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
        It really seems that the brothers and sisters on this forum are unable to stay on topic.

        This thread is a comparison between the 'Aqida of mainstream Hanbalis and that of modern day "Salafis".
        Why bringing up all kinds of issues, which are not the topic of this thread?
        It really destroys the thread.
        Could you prove using modern Salafi sources that each one of the scholars you listed (especially Ibn Hamdan) is recognized as representing "mainstream" Hanbali Aqeedah? I want quotes from Albani and Ibn Uthaymeen validating these scholars and attempting to justify why they've chosen to deviate from the mainstream.

        Also, why isn't Imam al-Barbahari on your list? What methodology did you employ to determine which scholars represent the mainstream Hanbali creed?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
          This for example is a Qur`anic Aya and below it the English translation or say explanation:

          { ุฅูู†ูŽู‘ ูฑู„ูŽู‘ุฐููŠู†ูŽ ูŠูุจูŽุงูŠูุนููˆู†ูŽูƒูŽ ุฅูู†ูŽู‘ู…ูŽุง ูŠูุจูŽุงูŠูุนููˆู†ูŽ ูฑู„ู„ูŽู‘ู‡ูŽ ูŠูŽุฏู ูฑู„ู„ูŽู‘ู‡ู ููŽูˆู’ู‚ูŽ ุฃูŽูŠู’ุฏููŠู‡ูู…ู’ ููŽู…ูŽู† ู†ูŽู‘ูƒูŽุซูŽ ููŽุฅูู†ูŽู‘ู…ูŽุง ูŠูŽู†ูƒูุซู ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ูฐ ู†ูŽูู’ุณูู‡ู ูˆูŽู…ูŽู†ู’ ุฃูŽูˆู’ููŽู‰ูฐ ุจูู…ูŽุง ุนูŽุงู‡ูŽุฏูŽ ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ูฑู„ู„ูŽู‘ู‡ูŽ ููŽุณูŽูŠูุคู’ุชููŠู‡ู ุฃูŽุฌู’ุฑุงู‹ ุนูŽุธููŠู…ุงู‹ }

          { Those who swear allegiance to you, swear allegiance to Allah. The hand of Allah is over their hands; so who-soever breaks his oath, he breaks it to his own loss, and whosoever fulfils the covenant which he had made with Allah, then Allah shall soon give him a great reward. }

          [48:10]

          Now concentrate on the actual Aya and its context and donโ€™t forget to consider the other Ayat who make clear that Allah ta'ala has no likeness or similarity to the creation.

          Is it possible here to understand Yad as power (Quwwa) here? Yes, it is. This has been mentioned by Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) in his Tafsir regarding the Aya under the second interpretation.
          Is it possible to understand it as bounty (Ni'ma), support (Nusra) or protection (Hifdh) in this context? Yes! This has been all mentioned by Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) in his Tafsir regarding the Aya.

          Is it possible to say based upon this Aya and other Ayat and Ahadith that Yad is a divine attribute additionally to other attributes, but not to be understood in a corporeal way. This is also possible.

          The Ash'ari position now is that all of the above are possible options and they relegate the reality of this issue to Allah ta'ala.
          The Hanbali position is that itโ€˜s a divine attribute and not something corporeal and they also relegate the reality to Allah ta'ala.

          As for the "Salafis": They disagree with both the Ash'aris and the Hanbalis and believe that a literal hand is intended and that to deny or affirm corporeality is not allowed. Note that a "literal hand" already implies corporeality!
          Did you now get the difference?

          The Ash'ari position:

          Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said in his commentary upon [Sahih] Muslim the following in explaining the general approach regarding the narrations of the divine attributes (translation taken from here: Commentary on the Hadฤซth: Where is Allah? by Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH)):

          ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ุญุฏูŠุซ ู…ู† ุฃุญุงุฏูŠุซ ุงู„ุตูุงุช ุŒ ูˆููŠู‡ุง ู…ุฐู‡ุจุงู† ุชู‚ุฏู… ุฐูƒุฑู‡ู…ุง ู…ุฑุงุช ููŠ ูƒุชุงุจ ุงู„ุฅูŠู…ุงู† . ุฃุญุฏู‡ู…ุง : ุงู„ุฅูŠู…ุงู† ุจู‡ ู…ู† ุบูŠุฑ ุฎูˆุถ ููŠ ู…ุนู†ุงู‡ ุŒ ู…ุน ุงุนุชู‚ุงุฏ ุฃู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู„ูŠุณ ูƒู…ุซู„ู‡ ุดูŠุก ูˆุชู†ุฒูŠู‡ู‡ ุนู† ุณู…ุงุช ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ุงุช . ูˆุงู„ุซุงู†ูŠ ุชุฃูˆูŠู„ู‡ ุจู…ุง ูŠู„ูŠู‚ ุจู‡

          This is one of the แธคadฤซth which concerns the attributes [of Allฤh]. There are two schools of thought (madhhab) in regards to such แธคadฤซth both of which I have discussed repeatedly in the chapter Kitฤb al-ฤชmฤn.
          The first madhhab is to believe in it without concerning oneself with its meaning, while maintaining categorically that Allฤh, hallowed is He, does not resemble anything, and maintaining that He transcends the attributes of created things [which madhhab is called tafwฤซแธ].
          The second madhhab is to interpret (taโ€™wฤซl) the แธคadฤซth in a way which is commensurate with His greatness.
          - end of quote -

          The Hanbali position:

          Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) said in his Lawami' al-Anwar:

          ูู…ุฐู‡ุจ ุงู„ุณู„ู ููŠ ุขูŠุงุช ุงู„ุตูุงุช ุฃู†ู‡ุง ู„ุง ุชุคูˆู„ ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ุชูุณุฑ ุจู„ ูŠุฌุจ ุงู„ุฅูŠู…ุงู† ุจู‡ุง ุŒ ูˆุชููˆูŠุถ ู…ุนู†ุงู‡ุง ุงู„ู…ุฑุงุฏ ู…ู†ู‡ุง ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุŒ ูู‚ุฏ ุฑูˆู‰ ุงู„ู„ุงู„ูƒุงุฆูŠ ุงู„ุญุงูุธ ุนู† ู…ุญู…ุฏ ุจู† ุงู„ุญุณู† ู‚ุงู„ ุงุชูู‚ ุงู„ูู‚ู‡ุงุก ูƒู„ู‡ู… ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ุดุฑู‚ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ู…ุบุฑุจ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุฅูŠู…ุงู† ุจุงู„ุตูุงุช ู…ู† ุบูŠุฑ ุชูุณูŠุฑ ูˆู„ุง ุชุดุจูŠู‡

          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 -
          That which the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH ) obviously supports as a Hanbali [in his Lawami' al-Anwar (see this POST)] is the third:
          He says that the correct way reagarding these Ayat and Ahadith 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".
          When he then spoke regarding Yadayn, he says that they are divine attributes "additionally to Qudra and Ni'ma", but "not with the meaning of an organ or a limb or corporeality or a part or a quantity".

          Conclusion:
          Ashโ€™aris and Hanbalis agree on Tafwidh, but they differ on Ta`wil. The Ash'ari Tafwidh includes the figurative meanings that one reaches through Ta`wil as possible options, while the Hanbali Tafwidh excludes.
          They do however both agree on denying corporeality.


          "Salafi" Mashayikh disagree with both of them and do not agree with denying corporeality!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            "Salafi" Mashayikh disagree with both of them and do not agree with denying corporeality!
            The "Salafi" rejection of the Hanbali rejection of corporeality:

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post


            Ibn 'Uthaymin's claim: al-Saffarini is wrong and declaring God to be transcendent from being a body is not allowed


            Ibn 'Uthaymin (d. 1421 AH) first spoke regarding the wording which is found in the poem of Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH), so he stated in his "commentary" (read: attempt of refutation!) upon al-'Aqida al-Saffariniyya (i.e. al-Durra al-Mudhiyya):

            ู‚ูˆู„ู‡ : ( ูˆู„ูŠุณ ุฑุจู†ุง ุจุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ูˆู„ุง ุนุฑุถ ูˆู„ุง ุฌุณู… ) : ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ูƒู„ุงู… ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ุคู„ู ูŠุญุชู…ู„ ู…ุนู†ูŠูŠู† :... ุฃู…ุง ุงู„ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ุฃูˆู„ : ูู‡ุฐุง ุตุญูŠุญ ูˆู‡ูˆ ุฃู† ู†ู†ููŠ ุงู„ู‚ูˆู„ ุจุฃู†ู‡ ุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ุŒู„ุฃู†ู‡ ู„ูŠุณ ู„ู†ุง ุฃู† ู†ู‚ูˆู„ : ุฅู†ู‡ ุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ู„ู†ุง ุฃู† ู†ู‚ูˆู„ : ุฅู†ู‡ ู„ูŠุณ ุจุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ุŒูˆุฃู…ุง ุงู„ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ุซุงู†ูŠ : ูˆู‡ูˆ ุงู„ู‚ูˆู„ : ุจุฃู†ู‡ ู„ูŠุณ ุจุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ุŒ ูู‡ุฐุง ุบูŠุฑ ุตุญูŠุญ ุŒูˆุธุงู‡ุฑ ูƒู„ุงู… ุงู„ู…ุคู„ู ู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุซุงู†ูŠ ุŒูŠุนู†ูŠ ุฃู† ุงู„ู…ุคู„ู ุฑุญู…ู‡ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูŠุฑู‰ ุฃู† ู…ู† ุนู‚ูŠุฏุฉ ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุฌู…ุงุนุฉ ุฃู†ู‡ู… ูŠู‚ูˆู„ูˆู† : ( ุฅู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ู„ูŠุณ ุจุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ูˆู„ุง ุนุฑุถ ูˆู„ุง ุฌุณู… ) ุŒูˆู„ุง ุดูƒ ุฃู† ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ู†ููŠ ู„ูŠุณ ุจุตุญูŠุญ ูˆู„ู… ูŠู‚ู„ ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ุจุฐู„ูƒ ุŒ ูˆู„ูŠุณ ู‡ุฐุง ู…ุฐู‡ุจู‡ู… ุŒู„ุฃู†ู‡ู… ู„ุง ูŠุฌุฒู…ูˆู† ุจู†ููŠ ุดูŠุก ุฃูˆ ุฅุซุจุงุชู‡ ุฅู„ุง ุจุฏู„ูŠู„ ูˆู‡ุฐุง ู„ูŠุณ ููŠู‡ ุฏู„ูŠู„ ู„ุง ุฅุซุจุงุช ูˆู„ุง ุจู†ููŠ

            [As for] his statement (i.e. al-Saffarini) that "Our Lord is not a substance / particle (Jawhar) nor /// [is He] an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism)", then this statement from the author can have two meanings:..
            As for the first way [to understand it]: Then it's correct and that is that we reject the statement that He's a substance (Jawhar), because it is not allowed for us to say that "He's a substance", and likewise it's not allowed for us to say that "He's not a substance".
            As for the second way [to understand it]: Then it's the statement that "He's not a substance", then this is not (!) correct, and the apparent from the saying of the author is the second.
            This means that the author - may Allah have mercy upon him - is upon the position that the belief of Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a is that they say [and believe that] "Allah is indeed not a substance nor [is He] an accident or a body", and there is no doubt that this negation is not correct and the Ahl al-Sunna did not say this, nor is this their way (Madhhab), for they do not declare to be sure regarding negation of something or its affirmation except with a proof while there is no proof regarding this [issue], not [for its] affirmation nor [for its] negation.

            - end of quote -

            It should be noted here that the statement of Imam al-Saffarini can actually have only one meaning and that is the second way that Ibn 'Uthaymin mentions. But at least he admits here that the author intended the second meaning, so let's overlook this.
            What we can not overlook here is his claim that the Ahl al-Sunna did not say this. It seems for Ibn 'Uthaymin only the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) is from the Ahl al-Sunna, while all the Hanabila - and the non-Hanabila anyways - who have stated the same as Imam al-Saffarini stated - like al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) in al-Mu'tamad, Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH) in Tabaqat al-Hanabila, Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in, Imam 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH) in al-'Ayn wal Athar, Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH) in Qala`id al-'Iqyan, Imam 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH) in Najat al-Khalaf and many others - are "not upon the way of Ahl al-Sunna" in this.


            Ibn 'Uthaymin then went on and referring to the explanation of these terms and said (so this time he's speaking regarding the meaning and not just the terms!):

            ุฃู…ุง ุนู† ุชูุณูŠุฑ ุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ูˆุนุฑุถ ูˆุฌุณู… ููƒุงู„ุขุชูŠ : ุงู„ุฌูˆู‡ุฑ : ู…ุง ู‚ุงู… ุจู†ูุณู‡ ุŒูˆุงู„ุนุฑุถ : ู…ุง ู‚ุงู… ุจุบูŠุฑู‡ ุŒูˆุงู„ุฌุณู… : ุงู„ู‚ุงุฆู… ุงู„ู…ุฌุณู… ุŒ ูุงู„ู…ุคู„ู ูŠุฑู‰ ุฃู† ู…ู† ุนู‚ูŠุฏุชู†ุง ุฃู† ู†ู†ููŠ ู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ุซู„ุงุซุฉ ุนู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนุฒ ูˆุฌู„ ุŒ ูˆู„ูƒู† ู‡ุฐุง ู„ูŠุณ ุจุตุญูŠุญ ุŒูˆู„ูŠุณ ู…ู† ู…ุฐู‡ุจ ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุฌู…ุงุนุฉ

            As for the explanation of [the expressions] substance (Jawhar), accident ('Aradh) and body (Jism), then it is as follows:
            A substance (Jawhar): That which subsists in itself.
            An accident ('Aradh): That which subsists in others.
            A body: The corporeal [thing or being] subsisting [in itself[.
            So the author (i.e. al-Saffarini) is on the position that it's from our beliefs to deny these three regarding Allah ta'ala - 'azza wa jall -, but this is not correct and not from the way (Madhhab) of Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a.

            - end of quote -

            It should be noted here that his definition of substance and accident is way too broad and not complete (!) and not in accordance with what Imam al-Saffarini said, but let's concentrate on the explanation of body - which is correct - even though he does not use the terms used by Imam al-Saffarini (as quoted ABOVE).
            So according to Ibn 'Uthaymin it's "not from the way of Ahl al-Sunna" to deny that God is a "corporeal [thing or being] subsisting [in itself]", nor is it allowed to affirm this.


            To make it short: Ibn 'Uthaymin does not know our Lord! He does not know what he's worshipping and what not! He claims that this ignorance is the correct way, but the Hanabila quoted in this thread said all the exact opposite!
            So let no one try to claim that the "Salafis" agree with the Hanabila on Tanzih and Tajsim, for they EXPLICILTY reject the statement of mainstream Hanabila as shown here.



            PS: Ibn 'Uthaymin is the same person who explicitly claimed that "there is some [sort of] of similarity (!) [between the Creator and the creation]" (see HERE), and this claim is what is against the Madhhab of Ahl al-Sunna in reality and shows even more that he does not know the Creator, Exalted is He above what his likes claim!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mavikick View Post

              Al Salaf Al Saalih know it means Allah. Go see what they say. If it meant literal then Euzubillah His hands would also perish, which is impossible. Do you need me to S P E L L it for you?
              If it means Allah, why do you translate it as face?

              Comment


              • Hanbali rejection of corporeality is not just rejecting a term, but rather a well known Kufri meaning!

                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                Allah is not composed of parts and the three dimensions do not apply to Him

                Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) said in his 'Aqida poem al-Durra al-Mudhiyya:

                ูˆู„ูŠุณ ุฑุจู†ุง ุจุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ูˆู„ุง /// ุนุฑุถ ูˆู„ุง ุฌุณู… ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุฐูˆ ุงู„ุนู„ุง

                Our Lord is not a substance / particle (Jawhar) nor /// [is He] an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism), Exalted is He who is [Most] High
                - end of quote -




                In his Lawami' al-Anwar - which is the explanation of his poem - he clarified his statement "Our Lord is not... a body":

                ูˆู„ุง ) ) ู‡ูˆ ุณุจุญุงู†ู‡ : ( ( ุฌุณู… ) ) ูˆู‡ูˆ ู…ุง ุชุฑูƒุจ ู…ู† ุฌุฒุฆูŠู† ูุตุงุนุฏุง ูˆุนู†ุฏ ุจุนุถ ุงู„ู†ุธุงุฑ ู„ุง ุจุฏ ู…ู† ุชุฑูƒุจู‡ ู…ู† ุซู„ุงุซุฉ ุฃุฌุฒุงุก ู„ุชุชุญู‚ู‚ ุงู„ุฃุจุนุงุฏ ุงู„ุซู„ุงุซุฉ ุฃุนู†ูŠ ุงู„ุทูˆู„ ูˆุงู„ุนุฑุถ ูˆุงู„ุนู…ู‚ ุŒ ูˆุนู†ุฏ ุงู„ุจุนุถ ู…ู† ุซู…ุงู†ูŠุฉ ู„ูŠุชุญู‚ู‚ ุชู‚ุงุทุน ุงู„ุฃุจุนุงุฏ ุนู„ู‰ ุฒูˆุงูŠุง ู‚ุงุฆู…ุฉ ุŒ ู‚ุงู„ ุงู„ุณุนุฏ : ...ุง
                ู‚ุงู„ ุงู„ูƒุฑู…ุงู†ูŠ ููŠ ุดุฑุญ ุงู„ุฌูˆุงู‡ุฑ : ...ุง
                ูู‚ูˆู„ู‡ " ูŠู…ูƒู† " ู…ุดุนุฑ ุจุฃู† ู…ู†ุงุท ุงู„ุฌุณู…ูŠุฉ ู„ูŠุณ ูุฑุถ ุงู„ุฃุจุนุงุฏ ุจุงู„ูุนู„ ุญุชู‰ ูŠุฎุฑุฌ ุงู„ุฌุณู… ุนู† ุงู„ุฌุณู…ูŠุฉ ุจุฃู† ู„ุง ูŠูุฑุถ ููŠู‡ ุงู„ุฃุจุนุงุฏ ุจุงู„ูุนู„ ุจู„ ู…ุฌุฑุฏ ุฅู…ูƒุงู† ุงู„ูุฑุถ ุŒ ูˆุฅู† ู„ู… ุชูุฑุถ ุฃุตู„ุง ูƒุงู ุŒ ูˆุชุตูˆูŠุฑ ูุฑุถ ุงู„ุฃุจุนุงุฏ ููŠ ุงู„ุฌุณู… ุจุนุฏ ุชุฃู„ูŠู ู…ุง ูƒุงู† ุŒ ูˆู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุทูˆู„ ุŒ ูˆุจุนุฏ ุขุฎุฑ ู…ู‚ุงุทุน ู„ู‡ ุนู„ู‰ ุฒูˆุงูŠุง ู‚ุงุฆู…ุฉ ูˆู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุนุฑุถ ุŒ ูˆุจุนุฏ ุขุฎุฑ ู…ู‚ุงุทุน ู„ู‡ู…ุง ูƒุฐู„ูƒ ูˆู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุนู…ู‚ ุŒ ูู‚ูˆู„ู‡ ุนู„ู‰ ุฒูˆุงูŠุง ู‚ุงุฆู…ุฉ ู„ูŠุณ ู„ู„ุงุญุชุฑุงุฒ ุจู„ ุจูŠุงู† ุงู„ูˆุงู‚ุน ุŒ ูุฅู† ุญู‚ูŠู‚ุฉ ุงู„ุฌุณู… ู„ุง ูŠูƒูˆู† ุฅู„ุง ูƒุฐู„ูƒ
                ูˆู„ู…ุง ู†ูู‰ ูƒูˆู† ุงู„ุจุงุฑูŠ ุฌู„ ูˆุนุฒ ุฌูˆู‡ุฑุง ุฃูˆ ุนุฑุถุง ุฃูˆ ุฌุณู…ุง ุ› ู„ุงุชุตุงู ุงู„ุฃูˆู„ ุจุงู„ุฅู…ูƒุงู† ูˆุงู„ุญู‚ุงุฑุฉ ุŒ ูˆุงู„ุซุงู†ูŠ ู„ุงุญุชูŠุงุฌู‡ ุฅู„ู‰ ู…ุญู„ ูŠู‚ูˆู… ุจู‡ ุŒ ูˆุงู„ุซุงู„ุซ ู„ุฃู†ู‡ ู…ุฑูƒุจ ููŠุญุชุงุฌ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ุฌุฒุก ูู„ุง ูŠูƒูˆู† ูˆุงุฌุจุง ู„ุฐุงุชู‡ ูˆู„ุง ู…ุณุชุบู†ูŠุง ุนู† ุบูŠุฑู‡ ุŒ ูˆููŠ ุถู…ู† ู…ุง ู†ูุงู‡ ุฑุฏ ุนู„ู‰ ุจุนุถ ูุฑู‚ ุงู„ุถู„ุงู„ ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ุฌุณู…ุฉ ูƒู…ุง ุชู‚ุฏู…ุช ุงู„ุฅุดุงุฑุฉ ุฅู„ู‰ ุฐู„ูƒ ููŠ ุตุฏุฑ ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ูƒุชุงุจ ุŒ ุฃุนู‚ุจ ุฐู„ูƒ ุจู‚ูˆู„ู‡ ( ( ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ) ) ูˆุชู‚ุฏุณ ( ( ุฐูˆ ุงู„ุนู„ู‰ ) ) ููŠ ุฐุงุชู‡ ูˆุตูุงุชู‡ ุงู„ู‚ุฏุณูŠุฉ ุนู…ุง ูŠู‚ูˆู„ ุงู„ุธุงู„ู…ูˆู† ุนู„ูˆุง ูƒุจูŠุฑุง

                "[N]or" is He - glory be to Him - "a body (Jism)"; and [body] is that which is composed from two parts or more, and according to some polemicists it is necessary for it to be composed of three parts [at least], so that the three dimensions (al-Ab'ad al-Thalatha) - I mean length [or height], width [or breadth] and depth - are fulfilled, and according to some [it is necessary for it to be composed] of eight parts so that the intersection of the dimensions upon right angles are fulfilled.
                Al-Sa'ad said: "..."
                Al-Kirmani said in explanation of the substances: "..."
                His statement "[where] it is possible" gives the impression that the limit for corporeality (Manat al-Jismiyya) is not [whether] dimensions can be established by action such that a body does not get regarded as corporeal if dimensions can not be established regarding it by action, rather the possibility of establishing [dimensions] even if it can not be established at all is enough and the depiction of [the possibiliy of] establishing dimensions regarding a body after it being composed in whatever way; that is the length [or height], and another dimension that is intersected to it on a right angle and that is the width [or breadth], and another dimension that is intersected to both [mentioned dimensions upon a right angle] and that is the depth. So his statement "upon right angles" is not out of cautiousness, but rather in order to make the reality [of a body] clear, because the reality of body is not except like this.
                When [the author of the poem] (he's intending himself) negated that the Maker (al-Bari) - jalla wa 'azz - is a substance (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism), [then this was] due the description of the first (i.e. substance or particle) with being possible [in existance] and insignificant [in size], and the second (i.e. accident) because it is in need for a locus to subsist in, and the third (i.e. body) because it is composed (murakkab) [of parts], so that it is in need of a part and is therefore not essential in his essence nor free of need of something else.
                That which was negated [by the author of the poem] contains a response against some of the deviant groups from among the corporealists (Mujassima) as already pointed to in the beginning of this book. [The author of the poem] followed this by his statement "Exalted is He" and sanctified "He who is [Most] High" in His divine self / essence (Dhat) and [perfect] attributes (Sifat) above what the oppressors claim.

                - end of quote -



                From this quote we can conclude with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that Imam al-Saffarini believes God to be transcendent from being a 3-dimensional being or being composed of parts.

                The question that remains here: Do the modern day "Salafi" scholars agree with the above or not? (They do not as shall be shown.)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                  It really seems that the brothers and sisters on this forum are unable to stay on topic.

                  This thread is a comparison between the 'Aqida of mainstream Hanbalis and that of modern day "Salafis".
                  Why bringing up all kinds of issues, which are not the topic of this thread?
                  It really destroys the thread.
                  tru say lol

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                    tru say lol
                    Lol no. It adds flavor. U 2 guys like ur food w/out spices? Mmmmm. Me not.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mavikick View Post

                      Lol no. It adds flavor. U 2 guys like ur food w/out spices? Mmmmm. Me not.
                      You can't talk to a Hanafi like me about spices.

                      Comment


                      • Abu Sulayman

                        is there a difference between Similarity (ุชุดุจูŠู‡) and likeness (ุชู…ุซูŠู„) ?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                          Could you prove using modern Salafi sources that each one of the scholars you listed (especially Ibn Hamdan) is recognized as representing "mainstream" Hanbali Aqeedah? I want quotes from Albani and Ibn Uthaymeen validating these scholars and attempting to justify why they've chosen to deviate from the mainstream.

                          Also, why isn't Imam al-Barbahari on your list? What methodology did you employ to determine which scholars represent the mainstream Hanbali creed?
                          First of all: The one who decides who is mainstream Hanbali and who not are the classical Hanabila themselves and not modern day "Salafis" or even Ash'aris!

                          Then: I think Iโ€˜ve already explained the reasoning based upon which I mentioned the relied upon books and authors for Hanbali creed in the OP. My reasoning was that these books and treatises were specifically written for the purpose of teaching and theyโ€™re not too long.

                          There are obviously other books and other authors who are also reliable from a Hanbali perspective. Me not mentioning them in the OP does not exclude them from being reliable.

                          As for al-Albani or Ibn 'Uthaymin deviating from the way of these Hanbali scholars: Why are you surprised by this? Both of them are not Hanbalis, even though Ibn 'Uthaymin is obviously much nearer to Hanbalis in Fiqh than al-Albani (who is one big mess in Fiqh!).


                          Now as for the reliability of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH):

                          - Isnโ€˜t it enough for you to know that Hanbali scholars who wrote regarding creed like the author of al-'Ayn wal Athar and the author of
                          Qala`id al-'Iqyan and the author of Najat al-Khalaf relied on the very wording of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in?
                          The 'Allama Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH) even mentioned that Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in is one of the best books regarding creed and that it was accepted [by the Hanabila in general] and that is why his Qala`id al-'Iqyan is an Ikhtisar to the 'Aqida of Ibn Hamdan!
                          - When the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188) mentioned short and reliable books of creed that he himself also teached he mentioned: Lum'at al-I'tiqad by Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH), the Mukhtasar of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in (i.e. Qala`id al-'Iqyan!) by the 'Allama Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH) - whom he refers to as the teacher of our teachers! - and al-'Ayn wal Athar by the 'Allama 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH).
                          - Major Hanbali scholars like Imam Ibn Muflih (d. 763 AH) - the author of al-Furu' - and Imam al-Mawardi (d. 885 AH) - the author of al-Insaf - and Imam Ibn al-Najjar al-Futuhi (d. 972 AH) - the author of Muntaha al-Iradat - and Imam al-Buhuti (d. 1051 AH) - the author of Kashaf al-Qina' - and many others regarded Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in to be reliable in creed.
                          - At the end of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in Imam Ibn Hamdan mentions that all that is found in his book is taken from the books of the Ashab (he intends the major Hanbali scholars before him) and that most of it is explicitly stated by Imam Ahmad and many [other] issues are indicated towards it by him.

                          Now if a book finds such great acceptance among the major scholars of the Hanbali Madhhab, then it means that they indeed regarded it as representative of the creed of Imam Ahmad himself!

                          As for al-'Ayn wal Athar, then it should be enough for you to know that ALL Hanabila after the 'Allama 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH) regarded it as reliable and learned and teached it!
                          As for Qala`id al-'Iqyan by the 'Allama Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH), then itโ€˜s the Mukhtasar of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in. Is there anything more to be said after you have learnt how the Hanabila in general accepted Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in as representative of their creed!

                          By the way: Both these scholars are in the broken and so called "chain of knowledge" of Ibn 'Uthaymin (who has no connection to them in reality!) and this should be enough for you to know their status among the Hanabila!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Farah. A View Post
                            Abu Sulayman

                            is there a difference between Similarity (ุชุดุจูŠู‡) and likeness (ุชู…ุซูŠู„) ?
                            Yes, and it is established by revelation and reason that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from likeness and similarity to the creation.
                            This is explicitly stated by Ash'aris and Hanbalis.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                              Yes, and it is established by revelation and reason that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from likeness and similarity to the creation.
                              This is explicitly stated by Ash'aris and Hanbalis.
                              I agree but..
                              when I say Allah SWT hears and we , humans, also hear.
                              what do you call that? Similarity or likeness or do you have another word for it?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Farah. A View Post

                                I agree but..
                                when I say Allah SWT hears and we , humans, also hear.
                                what do you call that? Similarity or likeness or do you have another word for it?
                                Itโ€˜s neither similarity nor likeness in meanings or reality.
                                The detection of that which can be heard (Idrak al-Masmu'at) is what is necessitated from the divine attribute of Sam', but the attribute itself is completely different in its reality.
                                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 22-04-20, 09:24 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X