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

[AmantuBillahi]

Abu Sulayman

Brother it's upsetting to read parts of your posts after discussing this issue with you for so long. There's only so many times we can go back and forth repeating ourselves using different words.

If you have any more unbiased information to share with me on Shaykh Hatim al-Awni I'm all ears.

[AmantuBillahi]

What do you make of this?

https://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=380909

[Abu Sulayman]

Let us get more specific and discuss the term Jism (body) and Tajsim (belief in corporeality), because I think this is the most important term in the context of this thread.

Major Hanbali A`imma - like Abu Ya'la, Ibn Abu Ya'la, Ibn Qudama, Ibn Hamdan, 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi, Ibn Balban, 'Uthman [Ibn Qa`id] al-Najdi and al-Saffarini - have been quoted in this thread here, who explicitly rejected the belief in corporeality (Tajsim).

- The Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) mentioned in his al-Mu'tamad that Jism (body) is that which is composed from substance and whatever is composed is a body and every body is composed.
- The 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) mentioned in his Lawami' al-Anwar that Jism (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.

So both of them are saying that the term Jism indicates composition [from parts] - and this in line with its meaning in the Arabic language as already shown - and this composition leads to the establishment of the dimensions (which is typical of every body].
And both of them explicitly stated that Allah ta'ala is not a body.

Al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jurjani (d. 816 AH) - who was an expert of Arabic language and the author of a commentary upon al-Mawaqif by the major Ash'ari scholar 'Adhud al-Din al-Iji (d. 756 AH) - said in his al-Ta'rifat that Jism is a substance regarding which the three dimensions are possible and that it was also said that Jism is that which is composed and formed by substance.

So the Ash'aris and Hanbalis mentioned above understood the term Jism in the same way based upon what has been mentioned.

Abu Sulayman

Brother it's upsetting to read parts of your posts after discussing this issue with you for so long. There's only so many times we can go back and forth repeating ourselves using different words.

If you have any more unbiased information to share with me on Shaykh Hatim al-Awni I'm all ears.

There is one thing that I haven’t understood regarding your position until now to be honest:

Are you saying that the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) believed that the meaning of Jism - mentioned above by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) and al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) - applies to Allah ta’ala (or is at least possible regarding Him)?

Because in the understanding of the Hanabila he was NOT believing this. If that is the case, then why should they accuse him of Tajsim?

[AmantuBillahi]

There is one thing that I haven’t understood regarding your position until now to be honest:

Are you saying that the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) believed that the meaning of Jism - mentioned above by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) and al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) - applies to Allah ta’ala (or is at least possible regarding Him)?

Because in the understanding of the Hanabila he was NOT believing this. If that is the case, then why should they accuse him of Tajsim?

Ibn Taymiyyah believed that Allah performed Istawa bi-Dhatihi after creating the heavens and earth in 6 days (Sifat Fi'liyya) and He is literally located Above the Arsh with a Hadd that is known to Him. He expands upon his beliefs in detail while refuting Fakhr al-Din ar-Razi in Bayan Tablis and Dar at-Taarad. The implications of what Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers believe in entails Tajsim by Ash'ari standards.

[AmantuBillahi]

The Concept of “Jism” Between Ahlu-Sunnah and Ahlul-Kalam:

"Jism is a word that is ambigious as it has several meanings to it. “Jismiyya’ in the language of the theologians is understood in three distinctual meanings/aspects

1. jismul-jawarih (form of limbs)
2. jismul-aqsamu (form of parts)
3. al-qa’im bi nafsih (established by itself, on its own, alluding to existentialism)

So lets review the three connotative meanings of the term jism:

The first is jismul-jawarih – the body of limbs
The second is jismul-aqsam – the body of parts
The third is jismu bi qa’im an-nafsih – established by itself, on its own, real, existential
Both Ahlu-Sunnah and Ash’aris agree that attributing the meaning of jism with regards to the first two, body of limbs and body of parts, are equally heterodox blasphemies (kufr) that is prohibited."

https://theboriqeenotes.com/2019/08/...d-ahlul-kalam/

[AmantuBillahi]

Relevant repost:

Ibn Taymiyyah's objections to Ash'ari Kalam:

Notes from Yasir Qadhi's Ilm al-Kalam lecture:

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

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

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

[AmantuBillahi]

Another relevant repost:

The link I posted quotes al-Razi's Tasis inwhich he claims that his opponents are the Karimis and the Hanbalis. The reality is the Ash'ari position most conforms with Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanbali who said:

"Whoever says: "He is established on His throne in His Essence (bi al-dhat)," has made Allah an object of sensory perception. It behooves one not to neglect the means by which the principle of Religion is established and that is reason"

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

Ash'ari view:

"Yet the belief that He exists in a place is what yesterday's and today's anthropomorphists pass as the opinion of the Salaf. However, just because someone lived in the first three centuries, it does not mean that he represented the doctrine of the Salaf. It will be clear from the forthcoming opinions of the Salaf and Khalaf that the correct position of Ahl al-Sunna never adds "in person" or "literally" -- which is to specify a modality -- to the mention of Allah's establishment on the Throne, and that to suggest space in the slightest manner is to leave Islam."

http://www.sunnah.org/anthro/anthro7.htm

An Atheist philosopher would never allow you to prove God's existence using bodies/accidents and then claim that Allah's Essence is Above us. Hence the reason why the Ash'ari positon changed ever since Ibn Fawruk.

[AmantuBillahi]

aMuslimForLife

"Now comes along a scholar who I will not hide that I have great admiration for and his name is none other than Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. What Ibn Taymiyyah did is he took what I like to call "neo-Sunnism or Hanbalite or Ahlul Hadeeth orthodoxy", and he communicated it in a vernacular for the people and place of his time. No theologian who ascribed to simple Sunni Islam was able to communicate with the Mutakalimoon in a language that they deemed was acceptable.

Before Ibn Taymiyyah, the people who followed this simplistic Islam, all they could do was quote Quran and Hadith, and so they were called those who flinged text--al Hashawiya. "All you can do is fling texts at us. You're not rational; you're not logical; you're a bunch of shallow minded people who can't look beyond the text. You're Hasawiyya.. and of course Mujassima and all that".

Ibn Taymiyyah comes along and really that is why Ibn Taymiyyah is such a profound thinker. Ibn Taymiyyah comes along and he raises the level of discourse to a whole new level. And he allows what I like to call orthodoxy or neo-Sunnism.. he allows them to finally have a foot into the door of this political discourse. Because before this time they had shunned it. "We don't want anything to do with Kalam"

When you look at ash-Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Hanifa, etc., all they could say to their students was "don't study Kalam". Shafi'i has a famous quote where he says "whoever studies Kalam becomes a Zindeeq". Abu Hanifa says "whoever studies Kalam will never be successful". Imam Malik says "I hate Kalam and everything to do with Kalam". So all of these guys (their approach) were fine for their era; of course I'm not discrediting them as a Muslim, but that type of discourse can only get you so far in such a time and place as they themselves lived.

Fast forward 500 years to Ibn Taymiyyah's time and people are talking on a different level. That type of discourse will not be successful in the hall rooms of academia. You need to raise the bar -- and that's what Ibn Taymiyyah did. For the first time really, an intelligent, intellectual, theologian, studied Kalam and Falsafa, and then disagreed based upon not only traditional sources, but also upon Kalam as well. So Ibn Taymiyyah comes along, and it's not like he's the first, although there are some ideas that clearly did not exist before Ibn Taymiyyah.. but what he did was prove the belief of neo-Sunnism or orthodox Sunnism using textual and intellectual evidences" [30:17]

[Abu Sulayman]

Ibn Taymiyyah believed that Allah performed Istawa bi-Dhatihi after creating the heavens and earth in 6 days (Sifat Fi'liyya) and He is literally located Above the Arsh with a Hadd that is known to Him. He expands upon his beliefs in detail while refuting Fakhr al-Din ar-Razi in Bayan Tablis and Dar at-Taarad. The implications of what Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers believe in entails Tajsim by Ash'ari standards.

Brother, you did not really answer my question.
Yes, the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya had some positions where one MAY argue that they necessitate Tajsim (like God's Self being subject to temporality) , but this is not my question because even the Hanabila after him acknowledged that the Shaykh had some problematic views and did not defend some of his views at all.

My question is whether you believe that he regarded the meaning of Jism mentioned by Hanabila like al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la and al-Saffarini to be possible regarding Allah ta'ala?

According to the Hanabila the answer is "no he didn’t believe in this". Based upon this they don’t regard him as Mujassim.
Why should they regard him as such, if he - in their understanding - did not adhere to this [false] meaning regarding Allah ta'ala?

[AmantuBillahi]

Brother, you did not really answer my question.
Yes, the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya had some positions where one MAY argue that they necessitate Tajsim (like God's Self being subject to temporality) , but this is not my question because even the Hanabila after him acknowledged that the Shaykh had some problematic views and did not defend some of his views at all.

My question is whether you believe that he regarded the meaning of Jism mentioned by Hanabila like al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la and al-Saffarini to be possible regarding Allah ta'ala?

According to the Hanabila the answer is "no he didn’t believe in this". Based upon this they don’t regard him as Mujassim.
Why should they regard him as such, if he - in their understanding - did not adhere to this [false] meaning regarding Allah ta'ala?

Your question is irrelevant to the discussion we've been having in the past few threads. We're not discussing whether Ibn Taymiyyah believed Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala is composed of parts. Both Ahl al-Sunnah and Ahl al-Kalam are in agreement on this point. Refer to the article I shared in post #350 and this video:

With regards to "dimensions", then that is an ambiguous term and it is related to the ramifications of what I stated in post #349. The reason why I keep saying our discussions are becoming circular is because you keep avoiding my point on Istawa bi-Dhatihi with a Hadd and going on your own tangents. There's not need to overcomplicate the situation, unless of course you don't want to admit that the Hanbalis and Ash'aris differ on what constitutes Tajsim.

Honestly I'm just going to leave the discussion here for now. I'm satisfied with I've presented and I don't have the patience to go endlessly back-and-forth. Feel free to have the last words on this matter if that's what you desire.

May Allah guide you and us.

[AmantuBillahi]

Just to ensure there's absolutely no confusion:

Ibn Taymiyyah believed that Allah performed Istawa bi-Dhatihi after creating the heavens and earth in 6 days (Sifat Fi'liyya) and He is literally located Above the Arsh with a Hadd that is known to Him. He expands upon his beliefs in detail while refuting Fakhr al-Din ar-Razi in Bayan Tablis and Dar at-Taarad. The implications of what Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers believe in entails Tajsim by Ash'ari standards.

1. The Ash'aris consider it Tajsim to believe in what's described above.
2. The Hanbalis do not consider it Tajsim to believe in what's described above.
3. The Ash'aris and Hanbalis do not share identical views on what constitutes a Tajsim.

[AmantuBillahi]

Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Uthaymeen's view on Allaah having a 'body', 'limit' and 'direction':

https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/27...-and-direction

[AmantuBillahi]

Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Uthaymeen's view on Allaah having a 'body', 'limit' and 'direction':

https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/27...-and-direction

From the article above:

"He (Ibn Uthaymeen) said in response to those who negate the divine attribute of Istiwaa’ (mounting the Throne) under the pretext that this would entail holding that Allaah is bound by Hudood (limits)"

Notice how the questioner is negating Allah's literal Istiwa with His Essence on the pretext that it would cause a Hadd and entail Tajsim by Ash'ari metaphysical standards.

In this 4 part lecture series the Ustadh condemns Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers of anthropomorphism for affirming Allah's Istawa/Uluw by his Being/Essence solely on the basis of it causing a limit:

[AmantuBillahi]

False Accusations Against the Hanaabila:

http://wayofthesalaf.com/pdf/en/Fals...Hanaabilah.pdf

[AmantuBillahi]

The Addition of bi-Dhatihi When Speaking About Allah's Uluw and Istiwa:

https://as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=119&lang=en