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 Sulayman View Post

    Itโ€˜s neither similarity nor likeness,
    Then what is it?

    Comment


    • So what I am trying to say is there is a difference between ุดุจูŠู‡ and ู…ุซูŠู„.

      ุดุจูŠู‡ have something in common. Similar but in a different way.
      while ู…ุซูŠู„ means identical.

      so we can now say that regarding โ€œhearingโ€ there is a similarity which is that hearing is PRESENT in Allah and his creation. But no likeness. Not identical. We canโ€™t even make a comparison Astghfiruallah.

      thatโ€™s why in the Quran Allah SWT uses ู…ุซูŠู„
      ู„ูŽูŠู’ุณูŽ ูƒูŽู…ูุซู’ู„ูู‡ู ุดูŽูŠู’ุกูŒ


      I hope you now read ibn uthaymeenโ€™s statement from a different perspective.
      Last edited by Farah. A; 22-04-20, 09:35 PM.

      Comment


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


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

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

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

        ูˆุงู„ุชุนุจูŠุฑ ุจู†ููŠ ุงู„ุชู…ุซูŠู„ ุฃุญุณู† ู…ู† ุงู„ุชุนุจูŠุฑ ุจู†ููŠ ุงู„ุชุดุจูŠู‡ุŒ ู„ูˆุฌูˆู‡ ุซู„ุงุซุฉ: ุฃุญุฏู‡ุง: ุฃู† ุงู„ุชู…ุซูŠู„ ู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุฐูŠ ุฌุงุก ุจู‡ ุงู„ู‚ุฑุขู† ูˆู‡ูˆ ู…ู†ููŠ ู…ุทู„ู‚ุงุŒ ุจุฎู„ุงู ุงู„ุชุดุจูŠู‡ุŒ ูู„ู… ูŠุฃุช ุงู„ู‚ุฑุขู† ุจู†ููŠู‡
        ุงู„ุซุงู†ูŠ: ุฃู† ู†ููŠ ุงู„ุชุดุจูŠู‡ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุฅุทู„ุงู‚ ู„ุง ูŠุตุญุŒ ู„ุฃู† ูƒู„ ู…ูˆุฌูˆุฏูŠู† ูู„ุง ุจุฏ ุฃู† ูŠูƒูˆู† ุจูŠู†ู‡ู…ุง ู‚ุฏุฑ ู…ุดุชุฑูƒ ูŠุดุชุจู‡ุงู† ููŠู‡ ูˆูŠุชู…ูŠุฒ ูƒู„ ูˆุงุญุฏ ุจู…ุง ูŠุฎุชุต ุจู‡ุŒ ูุงู„ุญูŠุงุฉ ู…ุซู„ุง ูˆุตู ุซุงุจุช ููŠ ุงู„ุฎุงู„ู‚ ูˆุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ุŒ ูุจูŠู†ู‡ู…ุง ู‚ุฏุฑ ู…ุดุชุฑูƒุŒ ูˆู„ูƒู† ุญูŠุงุฉ ุงู„ุฎุงู„ู‚ ุชู„ูŠู‚ ุจู‡ ูˆุญูŠุงุฉ ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ ุชู„ูŠู‚ ุจู‡
        ุงู„ุซุงู„ุซ: ุฃู† ุงู„ู†ุงุณ ุงุฎุชู„ููˆุง ููŠ ู…ุณู…ู‰ ุงู„ุชุดุจูŠู‡ุŒ ุญุชู‰ ุฌุนู„ ุจุนุถู‡ู… ุฅุซุจุงุช ุงู„ุตูุงุช ุงู„ุชูŠ ุฃุซุจุชู‡ุง ุงู„ู„ู‡ ู„ู†ูุณู‡ ุชุดุจูŠู‡ุงุŒ ูุฅุฐุง ู‚ู„ู†ุง ู…ู† ุบูŠุฑ ุชุดุจูŠู‡ุŒ ูู‡ู… ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ุจุนุถ ู…ู† ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ู‚ูˆู„ ู†ููŠ ุงู„ุตูุงุช ุงู„ุชูŠ ุฃุซุจุชู‡ุง ุงู„ู„ู‡ ู„ู†ูุณู‡

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

        - end of quote -

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

        ูุฅุฐุง ู‚ู„ุช: ู…ุง ู‡ูŠ ุงู„ุตูˆุฑุฉ ุงู„ุชูŠ ุชูƒูˆู† ู„ู„ู‡ ูˆูŠูƒูˆู† ุขุฏู… ุนู„ูŠู‡ุงุŸ ู‚ู„ู†ุง: ุฅู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนุฒ ูˆุฌู„ ู„ู‡ ูˆุฌู‡, ูˆู„ู‡ ุนูŠู†, ูˆู„ู‡ ูŠุฏ, ูˆู„ู‡ ุฑุฌู„ - ุนุฒ ูˆุฌู„ - ู„ูƒู† ู„ุง ูŠู„ุฒู… ู…ู† ุฃู† ุชูƒูˆู† ู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ุฃุดูŠุงุก ู…ู…ุงุซู„ุฉ ู„ู„ุฅู†ุณุงู†ุŒ ูู‡ู†ุงูƒ ุดูŠุก ู…ู† ุงู„ุดุจู‡ ู„ูƒู†ู‡ ู„ูŠุณ ุนู„ู‰ ุณุจูŠู„ ุงู„ู…ู…ุงุซู„ุฉุŒ ูƒู…ุง ุฃู† ุงู„ุฒู…ุฑุฉ ุงู„ุฃูˆู„ู‰ ู…ู† ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุฌู†ุฉ ููŠู‡ุง ุดุจู‡ ู…ู† ุงู„ู‚ู…ุฑ ู„ูƒู† ุจุฏูˆู† ู…ู…ุงุซู„ุฉ

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

        - end of quote -

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

        ู†ู‚ูˆู„ ู…ุซู„ุงู‹ ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูˆู„ู… ู†ู‚ู„ ูˆุฌู‡ ูˆุฃุทู„ู‚ู†ุง ููˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูŠูƒูˆู† ู„ุงุฆู‚ุง ู„ุฐุงุชู‡ ุฃูˆ ู„ุงุฆู‚ุง ุจุฐุงุชู‡ ุŒ ูƒู…ุง ู„ูˆ ู‚ู„ุช ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ูุฑุณ ูˆูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ู‚ุท ุงู„ู‡ุฑ ู‡ู„ ุชูู‡ู… ู…ู† ู‚ูˆู„ูƒ ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ูุฑุณ ุฃู†ู‡ ู…ุซู„ ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ู‡ุฑ ุŸ ุฃุจุฏุงู‹

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

        - end of quote -

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



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

        ูˆุงุนุชู‚ุฏูˆุง: ุฃู† ุงู„ุจุงุฑูŠ ุณุจุญุงู†ู‡ ุงุณุชุฃุซุฑ ุจุนู„ู… ุญู‚ุงุฆู‚ ุตูุงุชู‡ ูˆู…ุนุงู†ูŠู‡ุง ุนู† ุงู„ุนุงู„ู…ูŠู† ูˆูุงุฑู‚ ุจู‡ุง ุณุงุฆุฑ ุงู„ู…ูˆุตูˆููŠู†
        ...
        ูˆูƒู„ ู…ุง ูŠู‚ุน ููŠ ุงู„ุฎูˆุงุทุฑู…ู† ุญุฏ ุฃูˆ ุชุดุจูŠู‡ ุฃูˆ ุชูƒูŠูŠู: ูุงู„ู„ู‡ ุณุจุญุงู†ู‡ ูˆุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุนู† ุฐูŽู„ููƒูŽ ูˆูŽุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ู„ูŠุณ ูƒู…ุซู„ู‡ ุดูŠุก ูˆู„ุง ูŠูˆุตู ุจุตูุงุช ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ูŠู† ุงู„ุฏุงู„ุฉ ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ ุญุฏุซู‡ู… ูˆู„ุง ูŠุฌูˆุฒ ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ู…ุง ูŠุฌูˆุฒ ุนู„ูŠู‡ู… ู…ู† ุงู„ุชุบูŠุฑ ู…ู† ุญุงู„ ุฅู„ู‰ ุญุงู„ ู„ูŠุณ ุจุฌุณู… ูˆู„ุง ุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ูˆู„ุง ุนุฑุถ ูˆุฃู†ู‡ ู„ู… ูŠุฒู„ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุฒุงู„ ูˆุฃู†ู‡ ุงู„ู‘ูŽุฐููŠ ู„ุง ูŠุชุตูˆุฑ ูููŠ ุงู„ุฃูˆู‡ุงู… ูˆุตูุงุชู‡ ู„ุง ุชุดุจู‡ ุตูุงุช ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ูŠู† ู„ูŽูŠู’ุณูŽ ูƒูŽู…ูุซู’ู„ูู‡ู ุดูŽูŠู’ุกูŒ ูˆู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุณู…ูŠุน ุงู„ุจุตูŠุฑ
        ...
        ุฃู† ุงู„ุจุงุฑู‰ุก ุณุจุญุงู†ู‡ ู…ูˆุตูˆู ุจุฃู†ู‡: ุญูŠ ุนุงู„ู… ู‚ุงุฏุฑ ู…ุฑูŠุฏ ูˆุงู„ุฎู„ู‚ ู…ูˆุตูˆููˆู† ุจู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ุตูุงุช ูˆู„ู… ูŠุฏู„ ุงู„ุงุชูุงู‚ ูููŠ ู‡ูŽุฐูู‡ู ุงู„ุชุณู…ูŠุฉ ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ ุงู„ุงุชูุงู‚ ูููŠ ุญู‚ุงุฆู‚ู‡ุง ูˆู…ุนุงู†ูŠู‡ุง ู‡ูƒุฐุง ุงู„ู‚ูˆู„ ูููŠ ุฃุฎุจุงุฑ ุงู„ุตูุงุช


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

        - end of quote -

        This is what real Hanbalis / Atharis believed!
        I mean this one

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

          Itโ€˜s neither similarity nor likeness in meaning 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.
          Remember the statement from Tabaqat al-Hanabila regarding the creed of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) and his Hanbali predecessors:

          ุฃู† ุงู„ุจุงุฑู‰ุก ุณุจุญุงู†ู‡ ู…ูˆุตูˆู ุจุฃู†ู‡: ุญูŠ ุนุงู„ู… ู‚ุงุฏุฑ ู…ุฑูŠุฏ ูˆุงู„ุฎู„ู‚ ู…ูˆุตูˆููˆู† ุจู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ุตูุงุช ูˆู„ู… ูŠุฏู„ ุงู„ุงุชูุงู‚ ูููŠ ู‡ูŽุฐูู‡ู ุงู„ุชุณู…ูŠุฉ ุนูŽู„ูŽู‰ ุงู„ุงุชูุงู‚ ูููŠ ุญู‚ุงุฆู‚ู‡ุง ูˆู…ุนุงู†ูŠู‡ุง ู‡ูƒุฐุง ุงู„ู‚ูˆู„ ูููŠ ุฃุฎุจุงุฑ ุงู„ุตูุงุช ูˆู„ุง ูŠู„ุฒู… ุนู†ุฏ ุชุณู„ูŠู…ู‡ุง ู…ู† ุบูŠุฑ ุชุฃูˆูŠู„ ุฅุซุจุงุช ู…ุง ูŠู‚ุชุถูŠู‡ ุงู„ุญุฏ ูˆุงู„ุดุงู‡ุฏ ูููŠ ู…ุนุงู†ูŠู‡ุง.

          The Maker - glory be to Him - is described with being Living (Hayy), Knowing ('Alim), Powerful (Qadir) and Willing (Murid) while the creation is also described with these attributes and this agreement in the naming does not show their agreement in their realities (!) and meanings (!) and likewise is the statement regarding the narrations of the [divine] attributes; submitting to them without interpretation does not necessitate to affirm that which is implied by limitation (Hadd) and by the Shahid (that which we can perceive) regarding their meanings.
          - end of quote -

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Farah. A View Post
            So what I am trying to say is there is a difference between ุดุจูŠู‡ and ู…ุซูŠู„.

            ุดุจูŠู‡ have something in common. Similar but in a different way.
            while ู…ุซูŠู„ means identical.

            so we can now say that regarding โ€œhearingโ€ there is a similarity which is that hearing is PRESENT in Allah and his creation. But no likeness. Not identical. We canโ€™t even make a comparison Astghfiruallah.

            thatโ€™s why in the Quran Allah SWT uses ู…ุซูŠู„
            ู„ูŽูŠู’ุณูŽ ูƒูŽู…ูุซู’ู„ูู‡ู ุดูŽูŠู’ุกูŒ


            I hope you now read ibn uthaymeenโ€™s statement from a different perspective.
            The only common thing is the naming and that which follows from the attribute (i.e. Idrak al-Masmu'at from Sam')!
            As for the meaning and reality then there is no likeness or similarity between the Creator and the creation whatsoever.
            Remember that in al-Tahawiyya itโ€˜s explicitly stated that the one who ascribes a meaning from among the meanings that apply to humans to Allah ta'ala has disbelieved!

            There is nothing about Ibn 'Uthaymin to be defended here. He clearly establishes similarity between the Creator and the creation and his examples are more than clear! Look at his example with the first group to enter paradise and the moon and also at his example with animals!
            This man clearly believed that the Creator is not exactly like the creation, but similar just like itโ€™s the case in his examples! This is clearly understood.
            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 22-04-20, 09:48 PM.

            Comment


            • Ok. I think we are not getting anywhere with this. I said what I have. May Allah guide us all to the right path and grant us jannatul firdaws in shaa Allah.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                There is nothing about Ibn 'Uthaymin to be defended here. He clearly establishes similarity between the Creator and the creation and his examples are more than clear! Look at his example with the first group to enter paradise and the moon and also at his example with animals!
                This man clearly believed that the Creator is not exactly like the creation, but similar just like itโ€™s the case in his examples! This is clearly understood.
                He gave these two examples to show that the Creator is not like the creation, but similar to a certain degree:

                - He said that the first group to enter paradise is similar to the moon, but not upon the way of likeness. There is however one thing here: This first group is shining and that is why they are similar to the moon. So is he ascribing this degree of similarity between the Creator and the creation?
                - He said that when one says "face of a horse" and "face of a cat", then this does not mean that they are like eachother. But the problem is that both are similar to eachother and are corporeal and have a form! Is this degree of similarity that he wants to establish between the Creator and the creation?

                Both his examples make the disbelief in his statement even more obvious and clear and no Sunni scholar would ever make such a statement!
                Note how in the Tabaqat al-Hanabila it is stressed that similarity is only in naming and not in meaning or reality. This shows you yet another clear difference between Hanbalis and modern day "Salafis".

                Originally posted by Farah. A View Post
                Ok. I think we are not getting anywhere with this. I said what I have. May Allah guide us all to the right path and grant us jannatul firdaws in shaa Allah.
                Amin.
                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 22-04-20, 10:13 PM.

                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?
                  This is the list of traditional Hanbali texts in Aqida, by Abu Jafar al Hanbali, who studied with traditional Hanbalis in Saudi Arabia.

                  https://jurjis.wordpress.com/2019/12...dy-of-muslims/

                  THE THEOLOGY OF THE MAIN BODY OF MUSLIMS
                  by Abu Jafar al Hanbali


                  I am often asked about the theology of the first three generations and what that entails. People will ask, โ€œWhat is the Hanbali theology?โ€ Or they will say, โ€œWhat is Athari or Hambali?โ€ I have answered these questions that many times that I think it would be of great benefit to put together an article that will put these pieces together for posterity. I have found that when two people have a question, then several others have it as well.

                  So what is Hanbali/Hambali?

                  Firstly, some pronounce it with an โ€˜mโ€™ sound but it should not be spelled that way. The word is spelled with the letters ุญ ู† ุจ ู„ ูŠ

                  At no time should it be spelled with a โ€˜m.โ€™ It is more often pronounced with a โ€˜nโ€™ sound as making the โ€˜mโ€™ sound is to do with tajwid and this word has nothing to do with that.

                  So what is Hanbali Creed?

                  This is the creed of the first three generations and continuously the creed of the most of the Ummah down through the ages. The laity have been and always will have this theology based upon the nature of the Ummah. Most of the Ummah are not scholars, logicians or specialists in speculative theology.

                  The first one to ever describe the theology of the first three generations as โ€˜Hanbaliโ€™ was in the time of Abu Isma`il Al-Ansari (d. 481). He was passing through Ar-Ray in Persia and was asked his theology and he answered that his theology was that which had been defended by the Imam, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 (AD 855). [1] Before this time, [2] there was no name for our theology other that the First Three Generations. [3]

                  So what are the books of theology for the creed of the First Three Generations

                  The earliest books are:

                  Al-I`tiqad by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

                  Mujmal ul-I`tiqad by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

                  Qawl fil-I`tiqad by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

                  Al-Jama`ah by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

                  Kitab us-Sunnah Harb ibn Isma`il Al-Kirmani (d. 280)

                  As-Sunnah by Imam Abu Bakr Al-Athram (d. 281)

                  Nasikh ul-Hadith wa Mansukh by Imam Abu Bakr Al-Athram (d. 281)

                  Sharh us-Sunnah by Imam Abu Muhammad Al-Barbahari (d. 329)

                  Al-Ibanah by Imam Ibn Battah (d. 387)

                  Al-Mu`tamad by Imam Al-Qadi Abu Ya`la Al-Baghdadi (d. 458)

                  Ibtal ut-Taโ€™wilat by Imam Al-Qadi Abu Ya`la Al-Baghdadi (d. 458)

                  At-Tabsirah fi Usul id-Din Abul Faraj Ash-Shirazi (d. 487)

                  Al-Manzumah fil-I`tiqad by Imam Mahfuz Al-Kalwadhani (d. 510)

                  Al-Idah fi Usul id-Din by Imam Ibn Az-Zaghuni (d. 528)

                  Al-I`tiqad by Imam `Abdul Qadir Al-Jilani (d. 561)

                  Al-Ghunyah by Imam `Abdul Qadir Al-Jilani (d. 561)

                  Al-Iqtisad fil-I`tiqad by Imam `Abdul Ghani ibn `Abdul Wahid Al-Maqdisi (d. 600)

                  Kitabut-Tawhid by Imam `Abdul Ghani ibn `Abdul Wahid Al-Maqdisi (d. 600)

                  Lum`at ul-I`tiqad by Imam Muwaffaq ud-Din Ibn Qudamah (d. 620)

                  Riyad ul-Jannah li-Athari Ahl is-Sunnah by Imam Ibn `Abdul Baqi (d. 1071)

                  (Lum`at ul-I`tiqad is a summary of all of Imam Ahmadโ€™s theological works reduced into poetry while the evidences have been kept in the form of one ayah/one hadith for each point of creed)

                  These are the most well-known and lauded texts from the elders of the way of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and their students. These deal with the complete theology in detail. There are other books besides these but they tend to touch on one or two issues that were raised.

                  So if anyone notices that his particular scholar was not mentioned, I have not rejected them. It is merely based on the fact that a particular book or scholar wrote a book dealing with a particular subject. I havenโ€™t even quoted all of Imam Muwaffaq ud-Din Ibn Qudamahโ€™s theology works as after the Lum`at ul-I`tiqad, the rest touch on a particular subject or a few subjects. The most studied are the following.

                  So what did you study in this theology?

                  I was taught in the following capacity. I memorised Lum`at ul-I`tiqad. There are three narrations of it. I had to do all three of them. After this, I studied its first commentary, Najat ul-Khalaf fi I`tiqad is-Salaf by Imam Ibn Qaโ€™id An-Najdi (d. 1097).

                  The second commentary I had to study was Al-I`tiqad by Imam Al-Balbani (d. 1083) (there is a smaller text called Qalaโ€™id ul-`Iqyan by Ibn Hamdan). Sometimes this creed is called the โ€ I`tiqad Al-Balbaniโ€ and then the third was the Nihayah by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695)

                  Then there is the poetry by Imam Muhammad As-Saffarini (d. 1189) in which he combined all three texts together and shortened them into the poetry Ad-Durrat ul-Madiyyah fi `Aqd Ahli l-Firqat il-Mardiyyah. Then he wrote a commentary on that which is two volumes. And this was based upon questions asked of him by people of the Najd at the time that Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab was causing his wickedness.

                  So the order of study is:
                  1. Lum`at ul-I`tiqad (memorise it in first narration) with a teacher
                  2. Najat ul-Khalaf (study this after memorising Lum`at ul-I`tiqad) with a teacher
                  3. memorise the second narrative of Lum`at ul-I`tiqad with a teacher
                  4. go through Al-Balbani I`tiqad with a teacher
                  5. memorise third narrative of Lum`at ul-I`tiqad with a teacher
                  6. go through Nihayah with a teacher with a teacher
                  7. reference Ad-Durrat ul-Madiyyah and its commentary in full for a year along with Shattiโ€™s notes on it with a teacher.

                  This is not only the most useful it is the same structure that was gone through by As-Saffarini (and what he based his commentary upon) and many of the Palestinian and Egyptian students of knowledge and scholars of that time and before.

                  So is Tahawiโ€™s creed Athari/Hanbali?

                  No, At-Tahawi was Maturidi. His text has been commented upon by all of the three scholars (Hanbali, Maturidi and Ash`ari) but he is Maturidi. There are statements about Iman as well as other affairs that Imam Ahmad and his successors would have never uttered.

                  He is also never quoted in the foundational source literature. His text is sound but it is not the direct representation of the first three generations in theology. I memorised this text as well from a teacher and it is a good start for beginning the process of comparative theology within Muslim Orthodoxy and also Muslim Orthodoxy contrasted with the cults. It is a sound text.

                  Ash`aris and Maturidis?

                  They are from Muslim Orthodoxy as they base their statements on the point that they say they follow Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in theology. The degree to which they do that and how true those statements are is under discussion depending upon speculative theology and which era of those scholars is being consulted.

                  So the commentary of At-Tahawi Ibn Abil `Izz is Athari/Hanbali

                  No. That commentary actually has a number of grievous errors in it regarding the Names and Attributes. One of the best and most lauded commentaries is Bayan us-Sunnah by Imam Al-Maydani (d. 1298).

                  And Adh-Dhahabi and Ibn Abi Zayd Al-Qayrawani?

                  No. They are never quoted as foundational sources in any of our books. This is folklore.

                  What about Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim?

                  In Taqi ud-Dinโ€™s final work, Kitab ul-Iman il-Kabir, this is sound. But the 37 vol. Majmu`a Fatawa has never been used as our scholars as a source or depended upon. He is weighed against all the other texts.

                  As an aside, Ibn Hamdan (d. 695) makes no reference to him in theology and neither does Ibn Qaโ€™id An-Najdi, Al-Balbani. As-Saffarini does not cite him comparatively until his commentary. The same holds for Ibn ul-Qayyim in terms of citations in theology.

                  [1] Please see Adh-Dhail `ala Tabaqat il-Hanabilah, vol.3, pp. 43-44

                  [2] Please see Adh-Dhail `ala Tabaqat il-Hanabilah, vol.3, pp. 43-44

                  [3] Please see Adh-Dhail `ala Tabaqat il-Hanabilah, vol.3, pp. 43-44
                  Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 23-04-20, 06:32 AM.
                  My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                    He gave these two examples to show that the Creator is not like the creation, but similar to a certain degree:

                    - He said that the first group to enter paradise is similar to the moon, but not upon the way of likeness. There is however one thing here: This first group is shining and that is why they are similar to the moon. So is he ascribing this degree of similarity between the Creator and the creation?
                    - He said that when one says "face of a horse" and "face of a cat", then this does not mean that they are like eachother. But the problem is that both are similar to eachother and are corporeal and have a form! Is this degree of similarity that he wants to establish between the Creator and the creation?

                    Both his examples make the disbelief in his statement even more obvious and clear and no Sunni scholar would ever make such a statement!
                    Note how in the Tabaqat al-Hanabila it is stressed that similarity is only in naming and not in meaning or reality. This shows you yet another clear difference between Hanbalis and modern day "Salafis".



                    Amin.
                    You are really misunderstanding the examples and why he is giving these examples in the first place because you donโ€™t read all his words you just pick and choose what you want to believe. I donโ€™t know if this is your conclusion or you read it somewhere but i am sorry this is totally wrong.

                    the title under which he gave these examples is to use the word ู…ุซูŠู„ instead of ุดุจูŠู‡ as mentioned in the Quran.
                    "ู†ุณู…ุน ูƒุซูŠุฑุง ู…ู† ุงู„ูƒุชุจ ุงู„ุชูŠ ู†ู‚ุฑุฃู‡ุง ูŠู‚ูˆู„ูˆู† ุชุดุจูŠู‡ ุŒ ูŠุนุจุฑูˆู† ุจุงู„ุชุดุจูŠู‡ ูˆู‡ู… ูŠู‚ุตุฏูˆู† ุงู„ุชู…ุซูŠู„ ุŒ ูุฃูŠู…ุง ุฃูˆู„ู‰ : ุงู† ู†ุนุจุฑ ุจุงู„ุชุดุจูŠู‡ ุฃูˆ ู†ุนุจุฑ ุจุงู„ุชู…ุซูŠู„ุŸ ู†ู‚ูˆู„ ุจุงู„ุชู…ุซูŠู„ ุฃูˆู„ู‰ and he stated three reasons why it is better to use the word ู…ุซูŠู„.

                    Because in the hadith of people of jannah we canโ€™t say that they are โ€œalikeโ€ the moon! Does that mean they are identical? Made of rocks? He said no they are only similar in one sense which is the brightness.

                    the same goes with other ahadith he mentioned like โ€œAllah created adam in his own imageโ€. All these examples he gave is in fact to refute people who claim that Allah SWT is like his creation.

                    I am not gonna reply more in shaa Allah but my only advise to you is to read before judging. Donโ€™t pick and choose words. You have good aqeeda ma shaa Allah and it is really good to see that someone is reading and searching but I hope you do it in a better way in shaa Allah.
                    walahi I donโ€™t mean any offense. Barak Allah feek
                    Asslamu Alaykum.

                    Comment


                    • aMuslimForLife Abu Sulayman

                      What do pseudo Salafi scholars say about these scholars? Do they acknowledge that these Hanbali scholars have tafwid?

                      Ibn Rajab (d. 795), Al-Mardawi (d. 885), Al-Hajjawi (d. 968), Ibn al-Najjar al-Futuhi (d. 980), Marโ€™i b. Yusuf al-Karmi (d. 1033), Mansur b. Yunus al-Buhuti (d. 1051), โ€˜Abd al-Baqi al-Baโ€™li (d. 1071), Abu al-Mawahib (d. 1126), Muhammad Hayat bin Ibrahim as-Sindi (d. 1163)
                      Last edited by Rauf; 23-04-20, 09:55 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Farah. A View Post
                        You are really misunderstanding the examples and why he is giving these examples in the first place because you donโ€™t read all his words you just pick and choose what you want to believe. I donโ€™t know if this is your conclusion or you read it somewhere but i am sorry this is totally wrong.
                        the title under which he gave these examples is to use the word ู…ุซูŠู„ instead of ุดุจูŠู‡ as mentioned in the Quran.
                        "ู†ุณู…ุน ูƒุซูŠุฑุง ู…ู† ุงู„ูƒุชุจ ุงู„ุชูŠ ู†ู‚ุฑุฃู‡ุง ูŠู‚ูˆู„ูˆู† ุชุดุจูŠู‡ ุŒ ูŠุนุจุฑูˆู† ุจุงู„ุชุดุจูŠู‡ ูˆู‡ู… ูŠู‚ุตุฏูˆู† ุงู„ุชู…ุซูŠู„ ุŒ ูุฃูŠู…ุง ุฃูˆู„ู‰ : ุงู† ู†ุนุจุฑ ุจุงู„ุชุดุจูŠู‡ ุฃูˆ ู†ุนุจุฑ ุจุงู„ุชู…ุซูŠู„ุŸ ู†ู‚ูˆู„ ุจุงู„ุชู…ุซูŠู„ ุฃูˆู„ู‰ and he stated three reasons why it is better to use the word ู…ุซูŠู„.
                        Because in the hadith of people of jannah we canโ€™t say that they are โ€œalikeโ€ the moon! Does that mean they are identical? Made of rocks? He said no they are only similar in one sense which is the brightness.
                        the same goes with other ahadith he mentioned like โ€œAllah created adam in his own imageโ€. All these examples he gave is in fact to refute people who claim that Allah SWT is like his creation.
                        I am not gonna reply more in shaa Allah but my only advise to you is to read before judging. Donโ€™t pick and choose words. You have good aqeeda ma shaa Allah and it is really good to see that someone is reading and searching but I hope you do it in a better way in shaa Allah.
                        walahi I donโ€™t mean any offense. Barak Allah feek
                        Asslamu Alaykum.
                        Wa 'alaykum al-Salam,

                        Listen sister, we are not allowed to do Taqlid in 'Aqida. This is something explicitly mentioned by Hanbalis and Ash'aris. (I'm mentioning specifically these two groups, because the Sunni scholars throughout our history would be one of the two in creed.)

                        If someone is a layman, then he should simply adhere to the clear and general foundations of the religion and that is it. You simply believe in Allah taโ€™ala without any partners in his lordship and divinity and that Heโ€˜s described with the attributes of absolute perfection and is free from likeness, similarity or any flaws and thatโ€™s it.
                        If anything goes beyond that (and this whole discussion regarding the divine attributes falls under this!), then as a layman youโ€™re not even asked to go into this. If you however go into it, then Taqlid is forbidden! So just because Fulan or 'Allan said something, then youโ€™re not obliged to believe it or defend it.

                        Then: You yourself say that "He said no they are only similar in one sense which is the brightness" and this shows that there is no misunderstanding here.
                        I ask you: Do we as Muslims believe that the Creator is similar in one sense with the creation?! No!
                        Go and study any reliable Hanbali or Ash'ari creed book and see whether they will ever make such a claim or whether they will stress the importance that there is no likeness or similarity from any way!

                        As for his example with animals, then itโ€˜s even worse, because in this example there is similarity from more than one sense!

                        Note that the scholars of Islam stressed that the only similarity that there is regarding the divine attributes is that of naming and some that follows from it and NOT in its reality!
                        Ibn 'Uthaymin however is ascribing similarity in the reality (!) (i.e. Haqiqa or Kunh) and his examples are further proof for this.

                        As for his claim that in the Qur`an al-karim only Tamthil (ascribing likeness) is rejected absolutely and not Tashbih (ascribing similarity), then this is wrong and a rejection of a Qat'i issue established by Ayat, which fall under the Muhkamat! This is a huge mistake and not befitting of a Muslim to claim, let alone a scholar!
                        Note that the Aya that is mentioned does not just say "laysa mithlihu shay`" rather it says "laysa KAmithlihi shay`"!
                        The kaf in front of "mithl" makes it even stronger, such that the Aya is understood not just as a rejection of Tamthil, but rather also Tashbih. You can refer to classical Tafasir for this. They have clarified this.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          Note that the scholars of Islam stressed that the only similarity that there is regarding the divine attributes is that of naming and some that follows from it and NOT in its reality!
                          Ibn 'Uthaymin however is ascribing similarity in the reality (!) (i.e. Haqiqa or Kunh) and his examples are further proof for this.
                          I would like to give an example such that the issue becomes even clearer:

                          Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is al-Basir (i.e. the All-Seeing), so He is decribed with Basar as a divine attribute. The creation is also described with Basar (seeing).
                          That which follows from this attribute is the detection or perception of that which can be seen.

                          Does this now mean that the Creator is like or similar to the creation in His reality? No!

                          When it comes to the Creator, then the reality of Basar is an eternal attribute subsisting in the divine Self and beyond our imagination and not something corporeal nor an organ or a tool.

                          When it comes to the creation however, then the reality of their seeing is based on a corporeal organ or tool and their perception of what can be seen is emergent and they need light and it is limited and so on.

                          So the only common thing between the Creator and the creation is in naming [and that which follows from the attribute], but NOT in its reality.

                          This is how the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah - be they Hanbali or Ash'ari - have understood this issue.



                          Ibn 'Uthaymin however believes in a certain degree of similarity in the very reality!!!
                          That is why he claims (as in Majmu' Fatawa) that the Madhhab of the Ahl al-Sunna is that God has two real (!) eyes with which he sees (!) ("ู…ุฐู‡ุจ ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุฌู…ุงุนุฉ ุฃู† ู„ู„ู‡ ุนูŠู†ูŠู†ุŒ ุงุซู†ุชูŠู†ุŒ ูŠู†ุธุฑ ุจู‡ู…ุง ุญู‚ูŠู‚ุฉ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ู„ุงุฆู‚ ุจู‡ , ูˆู‡ู…ุง ู…ู† ุงู„ุตูุงุช ุงู„ุฐุงุชูŠุฉ ุงู„ุซุงุจุชุฉ ุจุงู„ูƒุชุงุจุŒ ูˆุงู„ุณู†ุฉ.. . ูู‡ู…ุง ุนูŠู†ุงู† ุญู‚ูŠู‚ูŠุชุงู† ู„ุง ุชุดุจู‡ุงู† ุฃุนูŠู† ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ูŠู†").

                          Note that his statement two real eyes implies corporeality. If he had simply stated that Allah ta'ala is described with 'Ayn or A'yun, then this would not be a problem. The scholars of Islam said that 'Ayn either goes back to the attribute of Basar or is an additional attribute and in every case the reality is beyond our comprehension.
                          Then he adds to this that God sees with these two real eyes. So he turns the reality of Basar similar to the seeing of the creation, such that 'Ayn becomes the tool of seeing!!
                          This is clear and obvious Tashbih in the very reality of the attributes!!!
                          And the one who knows the thinking of this man, knows that he even thinks that God's seeing is only eternal in its kind and that His seeing is subject to temporality (this is why he says "sees with them in reality")!
                          This is yet another Tashbih upon his Tashbih regarding Basar and this upon his Tashbih regarding 'Ayn!
                          We as Allah ta'ala for well-being.

                          A known Hanbali statement regarding these type of issues (as found in Tabaqat al-Hanabila, Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in and other works!): They explicitly state that they reject ascribing similarity (Tashbih) and [ascribing] tools (Adawat).

                          So this is yet another great difference between Hanbalis and these so called "Salafis".
                          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 23-04-20, 02:00 PM.

                          Comment


                          • mashallah I found a alhe hadith/ salaf us saliah thread!

                            Comment


                            • hanabli is the umbrella of alhe Hadith and salaf us saliah? Is that right?
                              So is ummah forum a hanafi forum founder and radio? In a nasheed it said wipe the back of the neck.

                              We don't do that in wudu.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bina K View Post
                                mashallah I found a alhe hadith/ salaf us saliah thread!
                                This thread goes somewhat against them I suppose.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X