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

[AmantuBillahi]

All this because I’m saying that Ash’aris and Hanbalis are both Sunnis and that one should not trust "Salafis". Defending classical scholars is not a crime, such that one starts a character asassination attempt based on this.

You're the one who started it by saying:

Since you are unable to read the actual sources, you should not take part in this thread in the first place!

This is not an Arabic forum and you knew that when you created the thread. Don't get upset when challenges your claims and provides sources.

It wasn't my intention to engage in a discussion with you during Ramadan. If you noticed I quoted Farah. A in post #287 and you quoted me.

Khayr inshaAllah.

[AmantuBillahi]

Scroll down to the bottom of this page for a 13 part refutation of an Ash'aris spin on Imam al-Saffarani's creed:

https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/202/

[AmantuBillahi]

Shaykh Ali at-Tamimi's Lumatul Itiqad lecture series

[The] Luminous Creed (Lu'mat-ul-I'tiqaad) Part 1: Introduction:

http://islamiclectures.us/audio/AT/A...20Part%201.mp3

[The] Luminous Creed (Lu'mat-ul-I'tiqaad) Part 2: Allah's Attributes:

http://islamiclectures.us/audio/AT/A...20Part%202.mp3

[The] Luminous Creed (Lu'mat-ul-I'tiqaad) Part 3: Allah's Speech in the Qur'an:

http://islamiclectures.us/audio/AT/A...20Part%203.mp3

[The] Luminous Creed (Lu'mat-ul-I'tiqaad) Part 5: Allah's Decree

http://islamiclectures.us/audio/AT/A...20Part%205.mp3


The rest could be found here:

http://islamiclectures.us/search.php?category_id=1

Ibn Qudama on Tafiwd:

https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...ama-on-tafwid/

[Abu Sulayman]

I didn’t get upset about that. I only didn’t expect you to insult me especially when I had no ill intention towards you.
Usually when one says something wrong against someone, then one should at least say sorry.

Salam.

[AmantuBillahi]

I didn’t get upset about that. I only didn’t expect you to insult me especially when I had no ill intention towards you.
Usually when one says something wrong against someone, then one should at least say sorry.

Salam.

I'm not convinced that you didn't know I wasn't fluent in Arabic when you created this thread. You're also from Ahlul Bid'ah and a vehement opponent to the correct Aqeedah. If it makes you feel any better I apologize if you genuinely had the wrong impression when you created this thread. May Allah guide you and us.

Ramadan Mubarak.

[Abu Sulayman]

The Sunni scholars throughout our history were either Ash’aris or Hanbalis in creed.

How someone respecting both schools and regarding their differences as Ijtihadi ones can be called an innovator is beyond me.

"Salafism" has really done you no good bro.
Let’s leave it at that.

[Abu Sulayman]

There is one problem that one sees throughout this thread and that is whom the opponents turn into judges upon the Hanabila:

- When Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in of Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 696 AH) was quoted, the opponent instead of asking his position among the Hanabila (which is general acceptance and reliability!), asked about how modern day "Salafi" authorities view him in order to turn them into judges upon him!

- When al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) was quoted, the opponent turned a random Madkhali "Salafi" website as a judge upon him. This with the knowledge that al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la is the single most important scholar and authority for the Hanabila and anyone can recheck this!

- When the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid was mentioned, the fact that he has not just Ash’ari teachers, but also "Salafi" ones including the major Salafi Hanbali Shaykh 'Abdullah bin 'Abd al-'Aziz al-'Aqil was simply ignored, rather him being connected to al-Azhar - with the knowledge that a major Hanbali scholar like the 'Allama Mar'i bin Yusuf al-Karmi (d. 1033 AH) was an Azhari! - was enough to dimiss him.
As if that was not enough, then a person - who is most likely an Egyptian Raslani Madkhali "Salafi" and who did not even know the Shaykh some days ago - was turned into a judge upon him and then she started a character asassination attempt against the Shaykh - whom she does not even know! - based on wrong (!) infos.
It should be enough for you to know that on famous "Salafi" websites like "islamweb", "islamway" and others one can still (!) find some of his Audio lessons regarding the Hanbali Madhhab to know that even these "Salafis" are not able to deny his knowledge regarding the Madhhab.
If he would have not disassociated himself from them some years ago, they would celebrate him today! (Except for Madkhalis, but who cares about them anyways?!)
Just some months ago the known Hanbali book al-Rawdh al-Murabba' (by the 'Allama al-Buhuti (d. 1051 AH)) was brought out with his Tahqiq (!) and that of another Shaykh, yet a random person on the internet is turned a judge upon him!

[Abu Sulayman]

The different directions among the Hanbalis regarding creed:


- The majority of the Hanabila are in agreement with the creed that is found in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH), which is to accept the Ayat and Ahadith regarding the Sifat as they have come while adhering to transcendence and not exaggerating in affirmation.

- There is also another direction, which exaggerates in affirmation and that is the direction of the Shaykh Ibn Hamid (d. 403 AH), who was among the teachers of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) who did not agree with him in this direction.
What is interesting to note here is that Imam Ibn Hamdan mentioned the statements of Hanbali scholars regarding 'Uluw, Istiwa and Nuzul and when he mentioned the statement of Ibn Hamid he directly and clearly rejected his position, while he did do the same with any of the other statements! (See HERE)

- There is another direction which is that of Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) and Imam Ibn 'Aqil (d. 513 AH), who were inclined towards Ta`wil of the Ayat and Ahadith of the Sifat and this is rejected by the rest of the Hanabila as it is known.
It should be however noted that Imam Ibn al-Jawzi has also statements in line with the majority direction.



Now the question is: Upon which direction was the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH)?

The answer: The Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya was inclined towards the way of Ibn Hamid and exaggerated in affirmation and was therefore criticized by major Hanbali scholars like Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH).
His statement that emergent (or created) things have no first (Hawadith la Awwala laha) was stated by no Hanbali before and those after him also did not support this. In al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la this position is even regarded as an atheist one!
It should be noted however that Hanabila understood his exaggeration as a refutation of Ta`wil and that his intention was not to establish God to be a body, while they at the same time acknowledged that he had abnormal and wrongs views, which should not be followed.


What do the modern day "Salafis" do?: They reject the direction of the majority of Hanabila and rely solely on the direction of the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya.
They add to this there own lack of understanding and that of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and mix to this their lack of clear principles such that they reach a creed and a jurisprudence that the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya himself would have rejected and even regarded as deviant!

So they are not Hanbalis in any way or form or direction!

[Abu Sulayman]

What do the modern day "Salafis" do?: They reject the direction of the majority of Hanabila and rely solely on the direction of the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya.
They add to this there own lack of understanding and that of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and mix to this their lack of clear principles such that they reach a creed and a jurisprudence that the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya himself would have rejected and even regarded as deviant!

So they are not Hanbalis in any way or form or direction!

It should be noted here that the 'Allama Ibn Humayd al-Najdi (d. 1295 AH) - the Mufti of the Hanabila in Makka - did not regard the Najdis as Hanabila and he only included Aba Butayn (d. 1282 AH) from among them as a scholar in his famous al-Suhub al-Wabila.
This should be more than enough for one to understand that classical Hanabila did not even regard these people as Hanbalis!

It should be also mentioned here that Najdis were actively involved in persecuting the major Hanbali scholars of the region and during the third state they closed down whatever school they could find belonging to any of the 4 schools!
So it‘s very rich to claim that these same people who persecuted those classical Hanbali scholars are now themselves classical Hanabila!

[AmantuBillahi]

Sharh Lum’atul-I’tiqaad (Saalih ibn al-Uthaymeen) - Shaykh Abdur Ra'oof Shakir:

https://islamhouse.com/en/audios/5062/

[AmantuBillahi]

Explanation of Usool al-Sunnah by Shaykh Abdur Ra'oof Shakir:

https://islamhouse.com/en/audios/48130

Imam Ahmad's Usool al-Sunnah - Download link:

https://abdurrahmanorg.files.wordpre...imam-ahmad.pdf

[AmantuBillahi]

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?

List of Hanbali scholars compiled by a Salafi:

http://muslimscholars.info/manage.ph...Search=Hanbali

1. Ibn Hamdan and Ibn Balban were not included on the list.

2. Under al-Saffarini's "Brief Biography" it says the following:

"A traditionist and jurist and a profound writer on various issues. He is most commonly famous for his poetic treatise on Hanbali theology called: al-Durrah al-Mudhiyah fi ‘Aqd al-Firqat al-Mardhiyah, which generally falls in line with the mainstream Hanbali dogma, bar few instances. However, in his commentary, known as Lawami’ al-Anwar al-Bahiyah, he often tends to contradict his poem, in agreement with the mainstream Hanbali doctrine. His poem, nevertheless, still remains popular amongst Hanbali students."

http://muslimscholars.info/manage.ph...olar&ID=120016

[AmantuBillahi]

Eight Early Hanbali Creeds Translated:

https://www.academia.edu/36259260/Ei...eds_translated

The Ascription of the Book ar-Rad alal-Jahmiyyah to Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal:

http://www.aqidah.com/creed/articles...bin-hanbal.cfm

[aMuslimForLife]

Yasir Qadhi said, “I think it is historically clear in Asma as Sifat, the early Muslims who ascribed themselves to the Sunnah affirm the attributes without thinking about their modality (howness) Bilakayf. I talking about the genesis of the Ashari-Athari divide the early manifestations of that (In his disertation). For a period of time, the division was not even clear, because it is within the same strand. You had people gravitating this way or that way. It wasn’t a clear division. Ibn Taymiyyah mentions this. And again, later scholars have their projections and coloring. Ibn Taymiyyah said Asharis and Ahlus Sunnah (Atharis) were essentially one until the Fitna of Al Qushayri took place in Baghdad. They were one against the Mutazilah. They were strands within Sunni Islam. These strands became more and more pronounced as time developed. Al Bayhaqi didn’t view himself as a different strand than Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal for example. Even within strand there were multiply understandings. Al Bayhaqi is one, Fulak is another, Juwayni is another. Al Juwayni strand because of his student Al Ghazali became the more prominent one. When Al Juwayni was alive, these were all variant strands, within Asharism, which kind of sort of attached itself to Atharism. There wasn’t thus clear cut division, that we later have. I’m just trying to point at in my humble opinion, given the current world we live in, we need to minimize this sectarian divide your average sufi, your average salafi. Stop fighting and hating one another. These differences you find the genesis of them in the third and fourth century of Islam.” (mamluk podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEUkgXVcspM )


Yasir Qadhi said, “Both Asharis and Atharis simplistically read their bias into the past, both sides want to claim these people (the Salafus Saleh) for themselves. But if you actually do the research and go deep in you find that history is more complex than reality. History is not as black and white. And yes treads developed. My position is that even the later Athari Aqida is a development. The Sahaba did not have the aqida as the later Athari Aqida. Ibn Taymiyyah had volumes, if Imam al Babahari read Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam al Barbahari would have rejected Ibn Taymiyyah. This is my opinion. Because al Barbahari’s mind of the third century would not have admitted Ibn Taymiyyah as a Hanbali. Ibn Taymiyyah was a development even for Hanbalis.

With my utmost respect to my Athari brothers in the room. Please remember Ibn Taymiyyah’s greatest opponents in the beginning were his fellow Hanbalisand then Subki and other came along after. When Ibn Taymiyyah begin, his fellow Hanbali criticized him, because they couldn’t understand his methodology. So let us not romantically back projecting our own bias. This is my area of specialty.” ( Forward to about 1:01 Towards Bridging the Salafi-Ashari Divide). http://. https://www.youtube.com/wat...-6U&t=1188s. .

We not most forget what Yasir Qadhi said.

1. Asharis and Hanbalis at one time had similar creeds.

2. There are many different strands (or madhabs) within Hanbali creed.

So much so:

3. The Imam Barbahari would have rejected Ibn Taymiyyah, and not consider him a Hanbali.
4. And that the Hanbalis of Ibn Taymiyyah's time were the first rejected him, before the Asharis rejected him.

https://youtu.be/_WSwj_aS-6U

Forward to about 1:01 Towards Bridging the Salafi-Ashari Divide).

We should discuss, what is so different between al Barbahari's creed and Ibn Taymiyyah's creed that al Barbahari would have not accepted Ibn Taymiyyah as a Hanbali?

Isn't that interesting???

[aMuslimForLife]

Correction:

We must NOT forget what Yasir Qadhi has said.

Yasir Qadhi said, “Both Asharis and Atharis simplistically read their bias into the past, both sides want to claim these people (the Salafus Saleh) for themselves. But if you actually do the research and go deep in you find that history is more complex than reality. History is not as black and white. And yes treads developed. My position is that even the later Athari Aqida is a development. The Sahaba did not have the aqida as the later Athari Aqida. Ibn Taymiyyah had volumes,if Imam al Babahari read Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam al Barbahari would have rejected Ibn Taymiyyah. This is my opinion. Because al Barbahari’s mind of the third century would not have admitted Ibn Taymiyyah as a Hanbali.

Ibn Taymiyyah was a development even for Hanbalis.

With my utmost respect to my Athari brothers in the room. Please remember Ibn Taymiyyah’s greatest opponents in the beginning were his fellow Hanbalis and then Subki and other came along after. When Ibn Taymiyyah begin, his fellow Hanbali criticized him, because they couldn’t understand his methodology. So let us not romantically back projecting our own bias. This is my area of specialty.” ( Forward to about 1:01 Towards Bridging the Salafi-Ashari Divide).

We should discuss, what is so different between al Barbahari's creed and Ibn Taymiyyah's creed that al Barbahari would have not accepted Ibn Taymiyyah as a Hanbali?