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 AmantuBillahi View Post
    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/
    Ibn Uthaymeen on "body" in Sharh Aqeedah al-Wasitiyya:

    " Let us investigate the term "jism" first; what exactly is this jism in your view that causes you to negate the divine attributes because of it? Do you intend by "jism" a physical body that is composed of parts in need of each other, and the jism does not function except with these parts put together? If this is your intended meaning, then we reject it and we say: Allaah is not a jism in this sense, and whoever says: affirming the attribute of ‘Uluww to Allaah entails attributing a jism to Him, then his words are a mere claim and it is sufficient for us to say: not acceptable. However, if you mean by "jism" a being that exists on its own, one that is qualified with what befits it, we also affirm that. And we say that Allaah, exalted is He, has a being, and He is existing on His own, qualified with the attributes of perfection. And this is what every person knows."

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


    Ibn Uthaymeen on "body" in Sharh Aqeedah al-Hamawiyya:

    "As for saying that it is impossible for Allaah to have a body, then it must be known that speaking about a body and associating it with Allaah, either by negating it or affirming it, is an innovation that has not been reported in the Qurʹaan, the Sunnah, or from the statements of the Salaf. It is a broad statement, which requires more details.

    If what is meant by a body is something that is composed, each part needing and supporting the other, then this is rejected from Allaah, the Ever‐ Living, the Self‐Sustainer and Sustainer of all that exists.

    If what is meant by a body is that which He has to be Self‐sufficient and is described with what befits Him, then this is not denied from Allaah, for Allaah is Self‐sufficient and is described with attributes of perfection which befit Him. However, since the word ʺbodyʺ can include a true meaning as well as a false one as it relates to Allaah, associating it to Allaah, either by absolutely negating it or affirming it, is not permissible. "

    https://ahlalhadeeth.files.wordpress...hamawiyyah.pdf

    Comment


    • Originally posted by isa_muhammad View Post

      Hmm .. I have never seen a hadith mentioning the word 'salafi'

      ..nor is it mentioned in the Qur'an.
      Having said that, I respect the Ahle-hadith school of thought
      I have not read the entire thread so I don't know whether it has been mentioned already, but the word Salaf has in fact been mentioned in a hadeeth by the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. A Salafi simply refers to someone that follows the Salaf. And as you'll see in the following hadeeth, then this is not a new word as the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used it to describe himself. This is the one from Muslim, but is has also been narrated by al Bukhaari.

      ----

      ‘Aisha reported: We, the wives of Allaah’s Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, were with him (during his last illness) and none was absent therefrom that Fatima, who walked after the style of Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم, came there, and when he saw her he welcomed her saying: You are welcome, my daughter. He their made her sit on his right side or on his left side. Then he said something secretly to her and she wept bitterly and when he found her (plunged) in grief he said to her something secretly for the second time and she laughed.

      I (‘A’isha) said to her: Allaah’s Messenger has singled you amongst the women (of the family) for talking (to you something secretly) and you wept. When Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم recovered from illness, I said to her. What did Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم say to you?

      Thereupon she said: I am not going to disclose the secret of Allaah’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم).

      When Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم died, I said to her: I adjure you by the right that I have upon you that you should narrate to me what Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said to you.

      She said: Yes, now I can do that (so listen to it). When he talked to me secretly for the first time he informed me that Gabriel was in the habit of reciting the Qur’an along with him once or twice every year, but this year it had been twice and so he perceived his death quite near, so fear Allaah and be patient (and he told me) that he would be a befitting SALAF for me and so I wept as you saw me. And when he saw me in grief he talked to me secretly for the second time and said: Fatima, are you not pleased that you should be at the head of the believing women or the head of this Umma? I laughed and it was that laughter which you saw.

      [Sahih Muslim, The Virtues of the Companions (Book 31), CHAPTER: THE MERITS OF FATIMA, DAUGHTER OF ALLAAH’S APOSTLE (SALLALLAAHU ALAYHI WA SALLAM), No. 6004]

      Comment


      • AmantuBillahi This discussion is futile. It's one thing trying to inform the layman among Muslims that are not yet hard headed set in their ways, and it's another thing trying to continue a discussion with someone that clearly is. It would be better to stop engaging at this point and to just simply focus on seeking knowledge for yourself without falling in to blameworthy debate. Discussing with AhlulBid3ah is not only a waste of time, it is as well not permissible with exceptions.

        Shaikh Uthaymeen [rahimahullaah] said: O student of knowledge! Likewise, it is obligated on you to abandon [blameworthy] debate and argumentation, because indeed [blameworthy] debate and argumentation is a means to cutting off the path [that will lead to] what is correct. [That is] because [blameworthy] debate and argumentation make a person speak [solely] to give the upper hand to himself. Even if the truth is made clear to him, you will find him either rejecting it or misconstruing the truth -out of disliking it- to give himself the upper hand and to compel his opponent to accept his statement. Therefore, if you notice [blameworthy] debate and argumentation from your brother when the truth is very clear, but he does not follow it, then flee from him like you would flee from a lion, and say, “I do not have anything other than the truth I have mentioned to you. [Source: Sharh Hilyati Taalibil Ilm’ page 26. paraphrased]

        Imaam as-Saaboonee (d.449H) said about Ahlus-Sunnah,

        “They follow the Salafus-Saalih – the Imaams and Scholars of the Muslims – and they cling to the firm Religion that they clung to and the firm truth. And they hate Ahlul-Bid’ah (people of innovation) who innovate into the Religion that which is not from it. They do not love them and they do not keep company with them. They do not listen to their sayings, nor sit with them, nor argue with them about the Religion, nor debate with them. Rather, they protect their ears from their futility – things which if they pass through the ears and settle in the hearts – will cause harm and will cause doubts and wicked ideas to appear. And concerning this, Allaah the Mighty and Majestic sent down:

        “And when you see people engaged in vain discourse, then turn away from them unless they turn to different theme.” [Sooratul-An’aam 6:68].”

        Imaam al-Hasan al-Basree (d.110H) – rahimahullaah – said,

        “Do not sit with the people of innovations and desires, nor argue with them, nor listen to them.”

        Sufyaan ath-Thawree (d.164H) – rahimahullaah – said,

        “Whosoever listens to an innovator has left the protection of Allaah and is entrusted to the innovation.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post
          AmantuBillahi This discussion is futile. It's one thing trying to inform the layman among Muslims that are not yet hard headed set in their ways, and it's another thing trying to continue a discussion with someone that clearly is. It would be better to stop engaging at this point and to just simply focus on seeking knowledge for yourself without falling in to blameworthy debate. Discussing with AhlulBid3ah is not only a waste of time, it is as well not permissible with exceptions.

          Shaikh Uthaymeen [rahimahullaah] said: O student of knowledge! Likewise, it is obligated on you to abandon [blameworthy] debate and argumentation, because indeed [blameworthy] debate and argumentation is a means to cutting off the path [that will lead to] what is correct. [That is] because [blameworthy] debate and argumentation make a person speak [solely] to give the upper hand to himself. Even if the truth is made clear to him, you will find him either rejecting it or misconstruing the truth -out of disliking it- to give himself the upper hand and to compel his opponent to accept his statement. Therefore, if you notice [blameworthy] debate and argumentation from your brother when the truth is very clear, but he does not follow it, then flee from him like you would flee from a lion, and say, “I do not have anything other than the truth I have mentioned to you. [Source: Sharh Hilyati Taalibil Ilm’ page 26. paraphrased]

          Imaam as-Saaboonee (d.449H) said about Ahlus-Sunnah,

          “They follow the Salafus-Saalih – the Imaams and Scholars of the Muslims – and they cling to the firm Religion that they clung to and the firm truth. And they hate Ahlul-Bid’ah (people of innovation) who innovate into the Religion that which is not from it. They do not love them and they do not keep company with them. They do not listen to their sayings, nor sit with them, nor argue with them about the Religion, nor debate with them. Rather, they protect their ears from their futility – things which if they pass through the ears and settle in the hearts – will cause harm and will cause doubts and wicked ideas to appear. And concerning this, Allaah the Mighty and Majestic sent down:

          “And when you see people engaged in vain discourse, then turn away from them unless they turn to different theme.” [Sooratul-An’aam 6:68].”

          Imaam al-Hasan al-Basree (d.110H) – rahimahullaah – said,

          “Do not sit with the people of innovations and desires, nor argue with them, nor listen to them.”

          Sufyaan ath-Thawree (d.164H) – rahimahullaah – said,

          “Whosoever listens to an innovator has left the protection of Allaah and is entrusted to the innovation.”
          Saheeh.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

            Saheeh.

            Ameen, wa iyyaakum.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              Shaykh al-'Awni: I wish I would be an Ash'ari like al-Baqillani!

              The following is an interesting quote taken from the facebook account of the Shaykh Hatim al-'Awni. (I translated it a longer time ago, but didn’t post it until now.)

              It very much represents the mindset upon which mainstream Hanbalis settled upon not just regarding Ash’aris, but also regarding the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya:

              يؤذيهم أشد الأذى أن أكون سلفيا وأنتقد السلفية المعاصرة ، فأشاعوا عني أني صوفي وأشعري وشيعي .
              ومع ذلك يقول عني غلاة هذه الطوائف والجماعات : إنني وهابي وناصبي .
              وقد علم الجميع أني قد انتقدت الخطأ في التكفير في دعوة الشيخ محمد بن عبد الوهاب ، وانتقدت أداء هيئة كبار العلماء عندنا في المملكة ، ومن يفعل ذلك لا يرده خشية أحد أن يصرح بمعتقده ! فليس بعد صراحتي هذه صراحة ، ولا يتهمني بالتقية في هذا الباب إلا مفتر عليّ .
              وهم يدركون ذلك تمام الإدراك ، لكنهم يودون أن يُسقطوا نقدي بادعاء أني أشعري أو غير ذلك .
              وقد قال لي أحد طلبة العلم قبل يومين : سمعت بعض طلبة للعلم بمصر يقولون : إنك أشعري !!
              فقلت له : تمنيت أن أكون كالباقلاني أو الجويني أو الغزالي أو العز ابن عبد السلام أو النووي في علمهم وتعبدهم وزكاء نفوسهم .. وفي أشعريتهم أيضا ، فليس في ذلك إلا غاية الشرف ورفعة القدر . ومن يبلغ أن يصل إلى قرب علم هؤلاء الأئمة ، بما فيهم من صواب وخطأ .
              وأن أكون أشعريا في علم أولئك وفضلهم أشرف وأكرم من أن أكون كأحد من المعاصرين : سلفيا كان أو أشعريا . فما من المعاصرين أحد بلغ علم واحد من أولئكم ولا نصيفه !!
              وأما عقيدتي فأنا سلفي :
              في الصفات أرفض التفسير والكلام عن المعنى بأكثر مما جاء في النص ( أمروها كما جاءت ) ( تفسيرها قراءتها) ، وأرفض التأويل بالدلائل العقلية المخالفة لظواهر النصوص ، وهذا هو مذهب أهل الحديث . وخلاف شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية في هذا الباب خلاف لفظي ، رغم تشديده فيه وتشنيعه على مخالفيه ( عند التحرير) في تفريقه بين تفويض المعنى وتفويض الكيف .
              وفي القدر : أرى السكوت عن الخوض في كيفية علاقة مشيئة الرب بمشيئة العبد ، مع الإيمان بأن لا خالق إلا الله تعالى ، وأن أفعال العباد مخلوقة لله تعالى . ومع الإيمان بأن للعبد مشيئة وإرادة واختيارا ، نفيا للجبر الرافع لحقيقة التكليف .
              وفي الإيمان : أن الإيمان اعتقاد وقول وعمل ، يزيد بالطاعة ، وينقص بالمعصية . وأن هناك تلازما بين الظاهر والباطن ، فلا يؤمن القلب إلا وظهرت آثار الإيمان على أعماله ، ولا يكفر شخص بعمل إلا وقد كفر قلبه .
              وأرى أن أول واجب على العبد هو اليقين بأنه لا إله إلا الله وأن محمد رسول الله .
              وأن العقل والنقل لا يتعارض فيهما اليقيني ، إنما يقع توهم التعارض بين ظن ويقين أو ظن وظن . فيقدم الأقوى منهما : يقينا ، أو ظنا أقوى ، وأنفي احتمال تعارض صريح المعقول بصحيح المنقول .
              ومع ذلك فأنا أصرح وما زلت أن الأشعرية من أهل السنة ، وأن خلافهم مع أهل الحديث خلاف حادث بعد اتفاق ، وأن الاختلاف الحقيقي بينهم محصور في فروع العقائد الظنية ، وأما بقية خلافهم فهو لفظي غير حقيقي .
              هذه قناعتي العلمية ، والتي أناظر عليها ، وأقتنع بها علميا ، لا تقليدا لأحد ، ولا دعوة للتجمع والتعايش فقط !!

              It hurts them in the greastest manner that I'm a Salafi who criticizes the modern Salafi movement, so they spread a rumor about me that I'm a Sufi and Ash'ari and Shi'i; and this even though the extremists of these groups and movements claim me to be a Wahhabi and a Nasibi.

              All have come to know that I've [indeed] criticized the mistake in [exaggerating in] Takfir in the call of Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab and that I've criticized the work of the Haya`a Kibar al-Ulama` (Council of Senior Scholars) in our country (i.e. Saudi Arabia); and the one doing so does not - out of fear from anyone - withhold from clearly [and openly] stating his beliefs!

              So there is no clarity after this clarity [and straightforwardness] of mine, so no on accuses me of Taqiyya in this issue except the one slandering me. They are very much aware of this, but they are trying to bring down my criticism by claiming that I'm Ash'ari or other than it.

              One of the students of knowledge told me before two days: I've heard some of the students of knowledge in Egypt saying that you're an Ash'ari!!

              So I told him: I would hope to be [someone] like al-Baqillani or al-Juwayni or al-Ghazali or al-'Izz ibn 'Abd al-Salam or al-Nawawi in their knowledge and their worship and their righteousness... and in their Ash'arism also (!), for their is nothing in this except the utmost of honor and the highness of rank. Who [is there that] reaches these leading scholars (A`imma) in knowledge; and this includes their correct stances and their mistakes. For me to be an Ash'ari with the knowledge of these likes [of leading scholars] and their nobility is more honorably and more respectable than to be one of the modern-day people: No matter whether Salafis or Ash'aris, for none of them have reached even half of the knowledge of these [leading scholars]!!

              As for my beliefs, then I'm a Salafi (i.e. I have the same creed as the Salaf al-salih):

              - Regarding the [divine] attributes: I reject explanation (Tafsir) or speaking with more regarding the meaning than the [authentic] texts have come with [following thereby the principles of] "Pass them on as they have come" [and] "Their explanation is their reading". I [also] reject interpretation (Ta`wil) from the apparent of the texts based upon rational proofs, and this is the way of the Ahl al-Hadith. The difference of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya in this issue is only in wording, even though he's strict in this and attacks the opponents - during the discussion [regarding the correct stance] - in the distinction between Tafwidh al-Ma'na (consignment of meaning) and Tafwidh al-Kayf (consignment of modality).

              - Regarding the [divine] predestination (Qadar): I believe in staying silent regarding the [exact] modality of the connection between the will of the Lord and the will of the slave, while at the same time having the belief that there is no creator except Allah ta'ala and that the actions of the slaves [of Allah] are created by Allah ta'ala; while at the same time [also] believing that the slave has a will and [is able to] choose [his actions] thereby rejecting the [position of] al-Jabr (which says that the slaves of Allah are forced to do their actions and have no will) which nullifies the reality of Taklif (obligation to believe and act upon it)

              - Regarding belief (Iman): That belief means having faith (I'tiqad) and stating [this] (Qawl) [with the tongue] and acting [according to this] ('Amal); it increases with obediance [to Allah] and decreases with disobediance and that there is a necessarily connection between the outward and the inward [of a person], so that a heart does not believe until the signs of faith are also visible from his actions and that a person does not disbelieve with an action except that his heart has also disbelieved.

              - In my position the first obligation upon the slave is to have conviction that there is no God except Allah (i.e. the one and only real God) and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ,[sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam].

              - That reason ('Aql) and revelation (Naql) does not contradict each other in that which is certainly established (Yaqini) from them, rather there only happens an illusion of contradiction between that which is speculative (Dhann) and that which is certain (Yaqin) or that which is speculative with that which is speculative, so that which is stronger is given precedence: Either certainty [over speculation] or something speculative that is stronger [than something else also speculative]. I reject the possibility of [real] contradiction between that which is clear from reason and that which is authentically transmitted.

              With all of this I state and keep on doing so, that the Ash'aris are from Ahl al-Sunna and that their disagreement with the Ahl al-Hadith is one after their agreement with them and that their real difference is exclusively in the detailed issues of beliefs which are [only] speculative (i.e. Ijtihad is possible in these issues!), but as for the rest of their differences then it's only in wording and not real (i.e. not in meaning).

              This is my academic conviction and my argumentation is based upon this, not by blindly following anyone nor for the sake of unity or living together [peacefully] alone!!

              - end of quote -


              (Note: The Shaykh regards Tafwidh [al-Ma'na] as the correct position without that of Ta`wil. He has clarified this in other posts too.
              This is in line with mainstream Hanbalis.)


              Shaykh al-'Awni: Tafwidh is the Madhhab of the Salaf and the difference between Ash'aris and Hanbalis in the foundations of creed are only in wording!

              The Shaykh Hatim al-'Awni said the following on his facebook account:

              عندما ترفض الجمود لن يكون خصومك فقط أدعياء السلفية العصرية ، بل الجامدون من المتمذهبة والمتصوفة والأشعرية كلهم سيستشنعون خروجك عن جمودهم .
              سيفرح بك المتمذهبة عندما تنتقد فوضى السلفية العصرية ، وادعاءاتها العريضة بالاجتهاد ، الذي لا تملك عامة أدواته ، وأولها صحة الفكر والبناء العقلي . لكن بعض هؤلاء المتمذهبين لن يتحملوا أن تخالف ظاهر المذهب ومشهوره وما عليه الفتوى في عصور الظلام !
              وسيفرح بك الصوفية عندما ترد على السلفية العصرية في توسعها في التبديع والتكفير ، وعندما تبين غلوهم في موضوع التبرك والمولد ودعاوى سد ذرائع الشرك . لكن إذا وصفت الاستغاثة بالأولياء والمقبورين بأنه خرافة ، وإذا ما سخرت من رقص بعضهم باسم الذكر = عادوا عليك بالذم واتهامك أنك وهابي متستر .
              وسيفرح بك الأشعرية إذا أكدت أنه لا يجوز التفوه بدعوى أنهم ليسوا من أهل السنة والجماعة ، بل هم من رؤوس أهل السنة وساداتهم ، وأن خلافهم مع الحنابلة بين لفظي في أصول العقيدة وحقيقي في فروعها ، وعندما تصحح قولهم في التفويض وترى أنه هو تفويض السلف . لكن عندما ترفض توسع بعضهم في التكفير بالتجسيم وفي المحادّة على فروع العقائد كما يفعل خصومهم من غلاة السلفية = عادوا باتهامك بالجهل ونقص المعرفة .
              هل تعرفون أجمد الجمود : إنه جمود من يحارب الجمود بالجمود !ا

              When one rejects stagnation, then the contemporary claimants of Salafiyya will not be your only opponents, but rather those from among the stagnant adherents of the Madhahib, Tasawwuf and Ash'ariyya will all attack you because of your departure from their stagnation.
              The adherents of the Madhahib will be pleased with you when you criticize the chaos [created] by the contemporary Salafis and their broad claims of Ijtihad, while they do not possess the general tools for it and the first one being having a correct [way of] thinking and foundation of reason. But some of those [same] adherents of the Madhahib do not tolerate that you go against the apparent of [their] Madhhab and that which is famous regarding it [as a ruling] and that which was given as Fatwa in the dark ages!
              The Sufis will be pleased with you when you respond to the contemporary Salafis in their expansion in Tabdi' and Takfir and when you explain their exaggeration regarding issues like Tabarruk, Mawlid and [their] claims of blocking the means to polytheism. But if you describe seeking aid with the Awliya and those in the graves as superstition and make fun of the dancing - in the name of remembering [Allah] - of some of them, they will return back to you with criticism and accuse you of being a secret Wahhabi.
              The Ash'aris will be pleased with you when you confirm that it's not allowed to utter claims that they are not from Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a, rather [say that] they are the heads and leaders of Ahl al-Sunna and that their difference with the Hanbalis is in wording in the foundations of beliefs and real in its [detailed] branches and when you regard their statement regard Tafwidh as correct (!) and view it as the Tafwidh of the Salaf. But when you reject the expansion of some of them in making Takfir because of Tajsim and their harshness in the branches of beliefs - just as their opponents from among the extreme Salafis do -, they will return back to you with accusing you of ignorance and lack of understanding.
              Do you know the most stagnant form of stagnation: It is the stagnation of the one fighting against stagnation with stagnation!

              - end of quote -


              There are several points in the above statement which is connected to this thread:
              - The Ash'aris are not just from the Ahl al-Sunnah, bur rather among the leaders of Ahl al-Sunnah.
              - The difference between Ash'aris and Hanbalis in the foundations (Usul) of creed ('Aqida or 'Aqa`id) is in wording (Lafdhi) only, while there are real (Haqiqi) differences in the branches (Furu') of creed.
              - Tafwidh (consignment of the meaning of the divine attributes) is the correct way and the Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih.


              This is exactly what was has been argued throughout this thread here.

              Comment


              • Table of contents of this thread here (until 2-5-2020):

                - Opening post: Some books and treatises that represent mainstream Hanbali creed and the mentioning of those who don't represent them

                - Comparison between the beliefs of Hanbalis with Ash'aris and Maturidis from one side and the "Salafis" from another side

                - From Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way! (Part 1)
                - From Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way! (Part 2)
                - From Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way! (Part 3)

                - Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid regarding the difference between Hanbalis and the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya on Tafwidh; Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq regarding Ibn Taymiyya's position in the Hanbali Madhhab

                - Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 1)
                - Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 2)
                - Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 3)
                - Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 4)
                - Belief of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 5)

                - Ibn 'Uthaymin ("Salafi"): There is some degree of similarity between the Creator and the creation; and the Hanbali response

                - Hanbali position regarding 'Uluw and Istiwa` as mentioned by Imam Ibn Hamdan (short quote)
                - Hanbali position regarding the divine 'Uluw, Istiwa and Nuzul as mentioned by Imam Ibn Hamdan (long quote)

                - 'Allama al-Saffarini: Tafwidh al-Ma'na is the correct way and the Ahl al-Sunna are three groups and Yad is a divine attribute and not a limb

                - "Salafi" Mashayikh admitting that Imam Ibn Qudama was from the people of Tafwidh

                - "Salafi" belief regarding Istiwa` and 'Uluw, Ibn 'Uthaymin's interpretaton of Istiwa` as Istiqrar (settlement)

                - Mainstream Hanbalis: Allah is beyond space and time His existance is non-bodily one

                - The difference of Hanbalis and Ash'aris on Istiwa` and 'Uluw as mentioned by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la

                - How to understand the texts regarding the divine attributes and the different Sunni positions as mentioned by Imam al-Nawawi

                - Rejecting or affirming the expression of direction and the verification of this issue as explained by Shaykh al-Gharsi

                - Hanbali position (as in al-Mu'tamad): All bodies are emergent and therefore created and the corporealists are disbelievers

                - Note on al-Azhar and the Closing down of the schools of the 4 Madhahib on the Arabian peninsula by Najdis and "Salafis"

                - 'Allama al-Saffarini: Allah is not composed of parts and the three dimensions do not apply to Him

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

                - Imam Ibn Qudama's rejection of Tajsim

                - Ibn 'Uthaymin: Al-Saffarini is upon polytheism in lordship and divinity; Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: Al-Saffarini, his teachers and his students did not know Islam!
                - Ibn 'Uthaymin and his broken chain of knowledge

                - The exact difference of Ash'aris and Hanbalis in Tafwidh

                - Meaning of Jism in the language and in terminology

                - Ash'ari and Hanbali agreement on Tafwidh and disagreement on Ta`wil

                - The reliability and general acceptance of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in of Imam Ibn Hamdan by the Hanabila

                - Ibn 'Uthyamin turning the 'Ayn of Allah into the tool of seeing

                - Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid on the historical dispute between Ash'aris and Hanbalis
                - Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid: The arrogance and foolishness of the Nabita ("Salafis")!

                - Shaykh al-'Awni: I wish I would be an Ash'ari like al-Baqillani!

                - Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid regarding the chaos and confusion that "Salafis" have caused

                - The different directions of the Hanabila regarding creed

                - Hanbali Madhhab Q & A session by Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq al-Hanbali

                - Three reliable books of creed that the 'Allama al-Saffarini teached himself

                - Shaykh al-'Awni: Tafwidh is the Madhhab of the Salaf and the difference between Ash'aris and Hanbalis in the foundations of creed are only in wording!


                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 02-05-20, 04:15 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                  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]
                  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, "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."



                  My Thoughts:


                  The difference between the early Asharis and Ibn Taymiyyah, is that the Asharis rationalized early Hanbali Aqida, while Ibn Taymiyyah rationalized a strand of later Hanbali Aqida.

                  My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                  Comment


                  • Ibn 'Uthaymin: God has ONLY two eyes and IF He would have MORE eyes, then this would be MORE perfect!

                    We have already seen that Ibn 'Uthaymin believes that "God has two real eyes with whom He sees in reality" (as in Majmu' Fatawa: "مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة أن لله عينين، اثنتين، ينظر بهما حقيقة على الوجه اللائق به , وهما من الصفات الذاتية الثابتة بالكتاب، والسنة.. . فهما عينان حقيقيتان لا تشبهان أعين المخلوقين"). So he has turned the 'Ayn of Allah ta'ala into the tool of seeing and the addition "real" implies corporeality, while the scholars of Islam have stated that God is not described with tools, organs, limbs or any thing corporeal and that the 'Ayn of Allah ta'ala is either going back to the attribute of Basar (from which being All-seeing follows) or it's an additional attribute subsisting in the divine Self and its reality is beyond imagination or comprehension.

                    Now there is a narration in Sahih al-Bukhari where the Dajjal is mentioned and it is said "He is blind in one eye, and your Lord is not so" and any sane person will understand from this that God is free from any flaws and defects, while the Dajjal is not.
                    But let's see what one of the leading scholars of the "Salafis" understood from this narration.


                    Ibn 'Uthaymin said in Sharh al-'Aqida al-Wasitiyya (scanned page HERE):

                    وهذا الحديث يدل على أن لله تعالى عينين اثنتين فقط. ووجه الدلالة أنه لو كان لله أكثر من اثنتين، لكان البيان به أوضح من البيان بالعور، لأنه لو كان لله أكثر من عينين، لقال: إن ربكم له أعين، لأنه إذا كان له أعين أكثر من ثنتين، صار وضوح أن الدجال ليس برب أبين. وأيضاً: لو كان لله عز وجل أكثر من عينين، لكان ذلك من كماله، وكان ترك ذكره تفويتاً للثناء على الله، لأن الكثرة تدل على القوة والكمال والتمام، فلو كان لله أكثر من عينين، لبينها الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام، لئلا يفوتنا اعتقاد هذا الكمال، وهو الزائد على العينين الثنتين

                    This narration indicates that Allah ta'ala has only two eyes.
                    The way of indication [here] is that if Allah would have more than two eyes, then its proclamation would be clearer than the proclamation of one-eyedness (or blindness of one eye) [found in the narration], because if Allah would have more than two eyes, then he would have said "your Lord has eyes". [This is so] because if He would have more than two eyes, than the clarity of the Dajjal not being the Lord [of the worlds] would be more obvious.
                    And also: If Allah 'azza wa jall would have more than two eyes, then this would be from His perfection; and then abstaining from mentioning [this] would be missing out on mentioning the praise of Allah, because multiplicity indicates power, perfection and completion. So if Allah would have more than two eyes, then the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - would have made it clear, so that we do not miss out on believing in this perfection, and that is the addition [of more eyes] to the two eyes.

                    - end of quote -

                    He has mentioned the same [lack of] understanding in many of his lessons such that one can find it in several of his recorded lessons like Sharh Nuniyyat Ibn Qayyim, Sharh 'Aqidat Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a and Sharh al-'Aqida al-Wasitiyya.


                    Comments and thoughts:
                    - The above [lack of] reasoning is a completely pagan one! This is diametrically opposed to the mindset of Muslims and to true reason and logic!
                    - If a person stands in front of someone and this someone first needs to see how many eyes this person has in order for him to know that he's not his Lord, then this someone does not even know the Lord of the worlds in the first place!
                    - The above statement that "God has only two eyes... if he would have more than this, then this would be from his perfection" clearly indicates disbelief! Allah ta'ala has always been and will always be absolutely perfect and free from any flaws and defects. If someone claims that He could have been more perfect, then this means that he's describing Him with being not fully perfect and this is opposed to Him being essential in existence.
                    - Whosoever wants to worship a "god" with many arms, eyes, legs and so on, then let him not claim to be a Muslim! This is from the religion of Hindus and other pagans. As Muslims we know that the Lord of the worlds is transcendent from any corporeal descriptions, flaws, defects, likeness or similarity and that He is described with absolute perfection and essential existence!
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 03-05-20, 04:11 PM.

                    Comment


                    • I had advised the other brother to stay away from this discussion, which I fully stand by. However, it really pains me to see how the honour of a respected scholar is being tarnished. Words are being wrongly interpreted, put in to the Shaykhs mouth and then the shaykh is being accused that his wordings clearly indicate disbelief. I really wish this thread could go down already.

                      Abu Darda reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

                      مَنْ رَدَّ عَنْ عِرْضِ أَخِيهِ رَدَّ اللَّهُ عَنْ وَجْهِهِ النَّارَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ
                      Whoever defends the reputation of his brother, Allah will defend his face from the Hellfire on the Day of Resurrection.
                      Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1931

                      Anas reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

                      مَنْ نَصَرَ أَخَاهُ بِظَهْرِ الْغَيْبِ نَصَرَهُ اللَّهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالْآخِرَةِ
                      Whoever supports his brother behind his back in his absence, Allah will support him in the world and in the Hereafter.
                      Source: al-Sunan al-Kubrá 16175

                      Having said that, I'll not directly reply to the brother because I don't care to discuss this topic with him. For others that have been reading along, I just hope you realise that people are not being fair here. It's obvious Shaykh Uthaymeen meant with what he said that IF Allaah would've had more eyes, then that would've been from His perfection and that it would've been made clear to us to demonstrate this perfection. That doesn't indicate whatsoever that Allaah is not already fully perfect. Since the opinion of AhlusSunnah is that Allaah has two eyes, then that IS from His full perfection. The title of the brother where he fakely quotes the Shaykh is very misleading because he's putting words in the Shaykh's mouth based upon what he himself understood from it. The Shaykh never says Allaah would be MORE perfect with more eyes. And the following must be a sore in the eyes of Asharis and the likes:

                      Abul-Hasan Al-Ash’ari said: The saying of Ahlus-Sunnah and the As-hāb Al-Hadeeth is that Allah has two eyes, without saying ‘how’ just as Allah has said, “[It was] sailing under Our Eyes.” (54:14).” Al Ibaanah p. 43/44

                      Abul-Hasan Al-Ash’ari, died 324H (رحمه الله) stated about the Mu’tazilah: “They – meaning the Mu’tazilah – deny that Allah has two eyes even though He, the Most High, said about Himself, “[It was] sailing under Our Eyes.” (54:14) and the hadeeth of the Dajjāl is clear for the one who ponders over it with the least amount of reflection that Allah (the Mighty and Majestic) has two eyes. And if that were not the case then the purpose for the clarification of the perfection of Allah with respect to His eyes would be lost.”

                      Abu Bakr Ibn Khuzaymah, died 311H (رحمه الله) stated:
                      “We say: Our Lord, the Creator, has two eyes and He sees with them what is beneath the soil, and what is beneath the seventh and lowest earth, and what is in the highest heavens, and whatever is between them, whether small or great…” (Kitāb At-Tawheed p. 52, Dār Al-Kitāb Al-Ilmiyyah)

                      I'm not sharing this to continue a discussion because from my side there's non, I'll not engage with the brother. I just simply hope to be able to point out (even if it's just a little) for the silent readers out there, that the arguments portrayed here are very one sided and may I say, false. And to please do your own research from trustworthy sources. This is NOT the place to attain knowledge. Our religion is knowledge, so please take care where you take that knowledge from. Don't read from posters like the brother above who will only spoil what you already know or plant deviant beliefs about what you don't yet know.

                      And Allaah knows best!

                      Comment


                      • It pains you that the words of Ibn 'Uthaymin are quoted and one speaks against him, but it did not pain you that this man was speaking carelessly regarding the Lord of the worlds? It did not pain you that he accused the 'Allama al-Saffarini of polytheism in lordship and divinity. It does not pain you that according to his understanding the Jumhur of the scholars were upon Shirk akbar (!) for supporting Tashaffu' (seeking intercession) with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - during the visitation of his blessed grave?
                        All of this did not cause you any pain?

                        Then: I have no problem with someone saying that Allah ta'ala is described with 'Ayn or A'yun, so that you quote me scholars who have said so.
                        I've already mentioned that one can find such statements from Ash’ari and Hanbali scholars, but what they said is that it’s a divine attribute (either additionally to other attributes or going back to another attribute) and not something corporeal and they did not come up with the pagan reasoning that Ibn 'Uthaymin came up with. And the addition "real" is something that you people have added from your own pocket and this is not allowed, because it implies corporeality.

                        This man is explicitly saying that if God would have more eyes, then this would be from His perfection and that multiplicity indicates perfection. This is clearly and explicitly stated.
                        How a Muslim would defend such pagan statements is beyond me.
                        We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being.
                        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 03-05-20, 10:33 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          This man is explicitly saying that if God would have more eyes, then this would be from His perfection and that multiplicity indicates perfection. This is clearly and explicitly stated.
                          How a Muslim would defend such pagan statements is beyond me.
                          We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being.
                          Add to the above: He says at the end of the quote: "So if Allah would have more than two eyes, then the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - would have made it clear, so that we do not miss out on believing in this perfection, and that is the addition [of more eyes] to the two eyes."

                          According to his own words having more than two eyes is perfection, but according to him God has only two [real] eyes.
                          How is it allowed to speak so carelessly regarding the Lord of the worlds? What kind of pagan reasoning is this?!
                          What is directly understood here is that God is "lacking this perfection of having many eyes" (let‘s forget about the fact here that having REAL eyes is not even perfection in the first place!), even if he does not state this explicitly in wording. This is what directly follows from his statement.

                          He did not just state this once, so that we say that it was a slip of tongue or something similar, but mentioned this pagan reasoning again and again in different lessons!
                          Where is your Ghira regarding the Lord of the worlds?!? Someone speaks in this careless manner regarding Allah ta’ala (!) and even brings up animals (!) while speaking about the divine attributes and all you care about is defending this careless man? Allahul musta'an!

                          As a reminder: Taqlid is done in Fiqh by non-Mujtahids (i.e. all people in our time!), but it is NOT allowed in creed and following someone in creed blindly is NO excuse in the hereafter!
                          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 03-05-20, 11:26 PM.

                          Comment


                          • How Ibn Taymiyya left the way of his mainstream Hanbali forefathers

                            The Shaykh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) was from a scholarly family from Harran and was born there in 661 AH. They were upon the Hanbali Madhhab.
                            His father Shihab al-Din - who was from among his teachers - was a Hanbali scholar and passed away in 682 AH. His grandfather was Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 652 AH), who was among the top scholars of the Hanabila and one of their major A`imma!

                            The Shaykh [Taqi al-Din] Ibn Taymiyya started studying knowledge early and learned the Hanbali Madhhab in a classical way and was a mainstream Hanbali just like the scholars from among his family. When his father passed away he was in his twenties.
                            When he was around thirty years old he started to develop ideas in Fiqh and 'Aqida, which were not in line with the mainstream Hanbali way and with the way of his forefathers. He regarded these new ideas as correct and regarded that which he had learned before as deviant ideas. It were these new ideas, which caused him problems with the Ash'ari AND Hanbali (!) scholars of his time.


                            He (Ibn Taymiyya) said while speaking about the issue of God's Self being subject to changes or not (i.e. Hulul al-Hawadith fil Dhat al-Ilahiyya, which he himself usually calls as Sifat Ikhtiyariyya) the following (see Majmu' al-Fatawa):

                            ولكن هذه المسألة ومسألة الزيارة، وغيرهما حدث من المتأخرين فيها شبه. وأنا وغيري كنا على مذهب الآباء في ذلك! نقول في الأصلين بقول أهل البدع، فلما تبين لنا ما جاء به الرسول دار الأمر بين أن نتبع ما أنزل الله، أو نتبع ما وجدنا عليه آباءنا، فكان الواجب هو اتباع الرسول

                            But regarding this issue (Hulul al-Hawadith / al-Sifat al-Ikhtiyariyya, i.e. God being subject to changes) and the issue of visitation (Ziyara, of the Prophetic grave) and other [issues] there happened doubts [and confusion] between the later scholars.
                            Me and others used to be on the way of the forefathers regarding these [issues]; we would say in the two foundations (Aslayn, i.e. Usul al-Din (foundations of beliefs) and Usul al-Fiqh (foundations of jurisprudence)) [the same as] the statement of the people of innovation (Ahl al-Bida').
                            So when that which the Messenger had came with became clear to us, the issue became one between following that which was sent down by Allah or to follow that which we found our forefathers upon. So that which was obligatory [upon us] was to follow the Messenger.

                            - end of quote-

                            Note that he does not just mention the issue of Hulul al-Hawadith (an issue of creed!) and the issue of visitation [of the Prophetic grave] (an issue of Fiqh), but even mentions the Aslayn (i.e. Usul al-Din and Usul al-Fiqh) in general (!) and that he used to be an innovator - in his later view - in this!
                            What should also be noted here is that not a single Hanbali prior to him spoke against the issue of visitation of the blessed grave of our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and those after him in generally disagreed with him on this. As for the issue of God being subject to changes, then the absolute majority of the Hanbalis before and after him believed that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from this and openly stated so!



                            Salih bin 'Abd al-'Aziz Al al-Shaykh - one of the scholars of contemporary "Salafis" - said in his Sharh al-'Aqida al-Wasitiyya:

                            شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية نشأ على غير مذهب السلف ، نشأ مبتدعاً ،لم يكن على طريقة السلف الصالح بل نشأ على غير طريقة السلف الصالح ، ومشايخه لم يكونوا على طريقة السلف الصالح ، يعني أكثر مشايخه إلا نُدَّر منهم . هذه ذكرها عن نفسه قال في موضع في الفتاوى (وأما أنا فقد كنت في الأصلين على غير طريقة السلف الصالح) هذه موجودة النص في الفتاوى ، شيخ الإسلام إنما هداه الله جل وعلا لذلك متأخراً يعني بعد سنة تسعين ، ستمائة وتسعين ، يعني وعمره جاوز الثلاثين أو هو حول الثلاثين ، لم ينشأ على العقيدة الصحيحة ، ولذلك رأى الغربة ، وأكثر مشايخه من الحنابلة على طريقة السلف لكنهم في الصفات يفوضون ، في الصفات عندهم يفهمون مذهب أحمد أنه التفويض .وهذا باطل . فشيخ الإسلام كان يواجه أشياء عظيمة في زمنه

                            Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya grew up on a way other than that of the Salaf. He grew up as an innovator and he was not upon the way of the Salaf al-salih, but rather grew up on a way other than the Salaf al-salih.
                            His teachers were [also] not upon the way of the Salaf al-salih, meaning most of them except very few of them. This is something that he had mentioned regarding himself; he said in a passage in [Majmu'] al-Fatawa (it's a paraphrase) "As for me, then I used to be in the Aslayn (i.e. Usul al-Din and Usul al-Fiqh) on a way other than that of the Salaf al-salih"; this is explicitly stated in al-Fatawa.
                            Rather Allah - jalla wa 'ala - guided Shaykh al-Islam later on to this [correct way], meaning after the year 690 AH; meaning when his age was more than 30 years or around 30 years. He did not grew up on the correct creed and that is why he encountered loneliness [later on].
                            Most of his teachers from among the Hanbalis were upon the way of the Salaf al-salih, but regarding the [divine] attributes they would consign [the meaning]. Regarding the [divine] attributes they understood consignment (Tafwidh) as the Madhhab of [Imam] Ahmad and this is falsehood.
                            So Shaykh al-Islam was encountering major issues in his time...

                            - end of quote -


                            Bakr Abu Zayd - anoter one of the scholars of contemporary "Salafis" - said in his book al-Nadha`ir (p. 128) after mentioning Ibn Taymiyya:

                            وقد رجع عما كان عليه من مذهب الأباء إلى طريقة السلف

                            He returned from that which he was upon from the way of the forefathers to the way of the Salaf.
                            - end of quote -

                            Thereafter he quoted the mentioned statement above from Majmu' al-Fatawa as a proof.



                            Comments and thoughts:
                            - Ibn Taymiyya regarded that which his own Hanbali forefathers - among whom there were major scholars of the Madhhab! - were upon as deviant later on.
                            - His own Hanbali teachers regarded Tafwidh as the correct way!
                            - According to "Salafi" Mashayikh most of the scholars of his time - including Hanabila! - did not know the correct creed! This means that according to their understanding the creed of the people of today is better than the people of the past, while the religious texts indicate the exact opposite!!
                            - Their statements clearly includes a cultist behavior towards Ibn Taymiyya.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                              [SIZE=16px]

                              Comments and thoughts:
                              - Ibn Taymiyya regarded that which his own Hanbali forefathers - among whom there were major scholars of the Madhhab! - were upon as deviant later on.
                              - His own Hanbali teachers regarded Tafwidh as the correct way!
                              - According to "Salafi" Mashayikh most of the scholars of his time - including Hanabila! - did not know the correct creed! This means that according to their understanding the creed of the people of today is better than the people of the past, while the religious texts indicate the exact opposite!!
                              - Their statements clearly includes a cultist behavior towards Ibn Taymiyya.
                              Ibn Taymiyyah and his book, Fatawa Hamawiyya Attributing direction to Allah

                              Ibn Taymiyyah’s first clash with the scholars is when he wrote, Fatwa Hamawiyya in which he unambiguously attributes literal upward direction to Allah.

                              A contemporary scholar of Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam Ibn Jahbal al Kilabi, wrote a lengthy refutation of this fatwa entitled, The Refutation of Him (Ibn Taymiyyah) who Attributes Direction to Allah (al Raddu alla Man Qala bil Jiha), in which Ibn Jahbal al Kilabi wrote, “How can you say that Allah is literally (haqiqatan) in (fi) the heaven, and literally above (fawq) the heaven, and literally in (fi) the Throne and literally on (ala) the Throne??” He also said, “The doctrine of the Hashwiyya that consists in asserting a direction for Allah is a corrupt and unacceptable doctrine.”

                              Shaykh al Islam Taqi a Din Ibn al Subki read this book (al Raddu alla Man Qala bil Jiha) and said, “I saw a work he (Ibn Jahbal al Kilbai) authored against the attribution of direction to Allah in refutation of Ibn Taymiyyah, and it is not bad, here it is.” (Then quoted the whole book in his biography on the Shafi scholars entitled Tabaqat al Shafiyya Al Kubra)

                              Imam Qadi Yusuf al Nabhanai also wrote a refutation to this book Fatawa Hamawiyya.
                              Imam Muhammad Said Ibn Abdul Qadir al Baghdadi also wrote a refutation to this book Fatawa Hamawiyya.


                              Ibn Taymiyyah was very learned but lacked intelligence

                              Imam Salah al Din al Safadi said, “The Shaykh, Imam and erudute scholar Taqi al Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah, ALlah have mercy on him, was immensely learned but he had a defective intelligence (aqluhu naqis) that embroiled him in perils and made him fall into hardships.” (Al Safadi – Sharh Lamiyyat al Ajam lil Tughrai, in Al Habhani, Shawahd (p 189)

                              Ibn Rajab on Ibn Taymiyyah, and the Hanbalis Prohibition of his time against him Giving Fatwa

                              Imam Ibn Rajab wrote, “Large groups of the Imams of Ahlul Hadith and their hadith masters and Jurists loved the Shaykh and venerated him but they disliked that he was involved with the theologians and philosophers, for uninvolvement was the way of the early Imams of Ahlul Hadith such as Ash Shafi, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd and the like. Similarly, many of the Ulama among the Jurists, the hadith scholars, and the righteous hated his idiosyncratic promotion of certain aberrant matters which the Salaf had condemned together with those who promoted them to the point that one of the judges among our companions forbade him to give fatwa in some of those instances.” (Ibn Rajab, Dhayl Tabaqat al Hanabila -2:394)

                              Imam Dhahabi on Ibn Taymiyyah, on how the scholars rejected him, and the ignorant embraced him

                              Imam Dhahabi said, “If you were to excel in the Principle (al usul) and their affiliates – logic, ethics, philosophy, the sayings of the ancients and the conundrums – all the while protecting yourself with the Book and the Sunnah as well as the doctrines of the Salaf, then joined between reason and transmission, still, I do not think you would reach the level of Ibn Tamiyyah. No by Allah. You would not even come hear it. Yet, I saw what happened to him, how much opposition he faced, desertion, rightful and wrongful declarations of heresy, apostasy, and mendacity! Before he entered into this science (ie Islamic Doctrine), he was shining with light and enlightening others, bearing the marks of the Salaf on his face. Then he became lightless, dark and somber to countless droves of people, a wicked anti-christ and disbeliever according to his enemies, while great numbers of the wise and the elite (ie scholars of Islam), considered him an eminent, brilliant and scholarly innovator (Mubtadi fadil muhaqqiq bari), while the commonality of his uneducated friends, one and all, deemed him the standard-bearer of Islam, the defender of the Religion, and the reviver of the Sunnah.” (Al Dhahabi, Bayan Zaghl al-Ilm)

                              There are those who considered Imam Dhahabi’s statement fabricated.

                              And I responded with the following.
                              1. Imam Sakhawi quotes Bayan Zaghl al Ilm, in this book, al-I`lan, he quotes from al Dhahabi, “Ibn Taymiyya was considered by his enemies to be a wicked Anti-Christ and disbeliever, while great numbers of the wise and the elite considered him an eminent, brilliant, and scholarly innovator (mubtadi` fadil muhaqqiq bari`).”

                                Why does this matter?, Imam Sakhawi was the student of Al Dhahabi’s son Imam Abu Hurayra. Imam Abu Hurayra ibn al Dhahabi was also the teacher of Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, and Imam Ibn Nasir al Din al Dimashqi.

                                That is a very short sanad, al Dhahabi – Abu Hurayra – Sakhawi

                                Which of these two Imams are you accusing of fabricating this quote from Al Dhahabi?
                                Al Dhahabi’s Son Imam Abu Hurayra or Imam Sakhawi?

                                The fact that Imam al-Sakhawi quoted al-Dhahabi verbatim in his al-I’lan is proof that he accepted the authenticity of al-Dhahabi’s attack on Ibn Taymiyya.

                                This authenticity is amplified by the fact that Imam al Sakhawi was the student of al Dhahabi’s son.

                                Imam Sakhawi was also the student of Imam Ibn Hajar al Asqalani.

                                2. There are two works that I am aware of in which al Dhahabi censures Ibn Taymiyyah.

                                a. Bayan Zaghl al-`Ilm wa al-Talab in which al-Dhahabi states: “Ibn Taymiyya was considered by his enemies to be a wicked Anti-Christ and disbeliever, while great numbers of the wise and the elite considered him an eminent, brilliant, and scholarly innovator (mubtadi` fadil muhaqqiq bari`).”

                                b. al-Nasiha al-Dhahabiyya, which is a letter to Ibn Tamiyyah, in which he says,

                                “Oh the disappointment of him who follows you! For he is exposed to corruption in basic beliefs and to dissolution. Particularly if he is short of learning and religion, a self-indulgent idler who does well for you by fighting on your behalf with his hand and tongue, while he is actually your enemy in his being and heart. What are your followers but hidebound do-nothings of little intelligence, common liars with dull minds, silent outlanders strong in guile, or dryly righteous without understanding? If you do not believe it, just look at them and honestly assess them.”

                                We mention this to illustrate, that tone of what is in Bayan Zaghl al-`Ilm also exist in al-Nasiha al-Dhahabiyya (a letter to Ibn Taymiyyah by al Dhahabi)


                                3. Concerning the work al-Nasiha al-Dhahabiyya, since it will be brought up.

                                a. Ibn Hajar Asqalani considered the work to be authentic refer to Ibn Hajar, al-Mu`jam (p. 194-195 #795-797) He too, was a student of al Dhahabi’s son Imam Abu Hurayra Ibn al Dhahabi.
                                b. al-Sakhawi calls it “a glorious statement of doctrine.” (al-Sakhawi, al-I`lan)

                                4. Those who claim fabrication of Ibn Rajab statement of the Hanbalis jurist who opposed Ibn Taymiyyah during his time.

                                Ibn Hajar Asqalani said, “Ibn Rajab was criticized for giving Fatwa according to the positions of Ibn Taymiyyah but when he dissociated himself from them, the Taymiyyans ostracized him.” (Ibn Hajar, Inba al Ghumar bi Amar al Umr.)

                                And Allah knows best.
                              Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 06-05-20, 02:33 AM.
                              My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
                                ...

                                Ibn Rajab on Ibn Taymiyyah, and the Hanbalis Prohibition of his time against him Giving Fatwa

                                Imam Ibn Rajab wrote, “Large groups of the Imams of Ahlul Hadith and their hadith masters and Jurists loved the Shaykh and venerated him but they disliked that he was involved with the theologians and philosophers, for uninvolvement was the way of the early Imams of Ahlul Hadith such as Ash Shafi, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd and the like. Similarly, many of the Ulama among the Jurists, the hadith scholars, and the righteous hated his idiosyncratic promotion of certain aberrant matters which the Salaf had condemned together with those who promoted them to the point that one of the judges among our companions forbade him to give fatwa in some of those instances.” (Ibn Rajab, Dhayl Tabaqat al Hanabila -2:394)

                                ...
                                Barakallahu fik for the quotes.

                                This is the original quote by Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) from his Dhayl Tabaqat al-Hanabila:

                                وطوائف من أئمة أهل الحديث وحفاظهم وفقهائهم: كانوا يحبون الشيخ ويعظمونه، ولم يكونوا يحبون له التوغل مع أهل الكلام ولا الفلاسفة، كما هو طريق أئمة أهل الحديث المتقدمين، كالشافعي وأحمد وإسحاق وأبي عبيد ونحوهم، وكذلك كثير هن العلماء من الفقهاء والمحدثين والصالحين كرهوا له التفرد ببعض شذوذ المسائل التي أنكرها السلف على من شذ بها، حتى إن بعض قضاة العدل من أصحابنا منعه من الإفتاء ببعض ذلك
                                - end of quote -

                                Note that he does not simply state "...one of the judges among our companions...", but rather says "...to the point that SOME of the UPRIGHT judges among our companions forbade him to give fatwa in some of those instances".
                                Those instances are the abnormal (or aberrant) positions of the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), which Imam Ibn Rajab explicitly (!) ascribes to him in the above quote.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X