Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Barakallahu fik for the quotes.

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

    ูˆุทูˆุงุฆู ู…ู† ุฃุฆู…ุฉ ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุญุฏูŠุซ ูˆุญูุงุธู‡ู… ูˆูู‚ู‡ุงุฆู‡ู…: ูƒุงู†ูˆุง ูŠุญุจูˆู† ุงู„ุดูŠุฎ ูˆูŠุนุธู…ูˆู†ู‡ุŒ ูˆู„ู… ูŠูƒูˆู†ูˆุง ูŠุญุจูˆู† ู„ู‡ ุงู„ุชูˆุบู„ ู…ุน ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ูƒู„ุงู… ูˆู„ุง ุงู„ูู„ุงุณูุฉุŒ ูƒู…ุง ู‡ูˆ ุทุฑูŠู‚ ุฃุฆู…ุฉ ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุญุฏูŠุซ ุงู„ู…ุชู‚ุฏู…ูŠู†ุŒ ูƒุงู„ุดุงูุนูŠ ูˆุฃุญู…ุฏ ูˆุฅุณุญุงู‚ ูˆุฃุจูŠ ุนุจูŠุฏ ูˆู†ุญูˆู‡ู…ุŒ ูˆูƒุฐู„ูƒ ูƒุซูŠุฑ ู‡ู† ุงู„ุนู„ู…ุงุก ู…ู† ุงู„ูู‚ู‡ุงุก ูˆุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซูŠู† ูˆุงู„ุตุงู„ุญูŠู† ูƒุฑู‡ูˆุง ู„ู‡ ุงู„ุชูุฑุฏ ุจุจุนุถ ุดุฐูˆุฐ ุงู„ู…ุณุงุฆู„ ุงู„ุชูŠ ุฃู†ูƒุฑู‡ุง ุงู„ุณู„ู ุนู„ู‰ ู…ู† ุดุฐ ุจู‡ุงุŒ ุญุชู‰ ุฅู† ุจุนุถ ู‚ุถุงุฉ ุงู„ุนุฏู„ ู…ู† ุฃุตุญุงุจู†ุง ู…ู†ุนู‡ ู…ู† ุงู„ุฅูุชุงุก ุจุจุนุถ ุฐู„ูƒ
    - 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.

    Imam Ibn Rajab's praise for Imam Ibn Hamdan

    Note that while Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) praises the Shaykh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), he also criticizes him for his abnormal views and regards the Hanbali judges who stopped him from giving Fatawa - containing some of these abnormal views - to be upright (or just)!

    In the case of Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) he only praised him and did not criticize him in any way or form!

    He (Imam Ibn Rajab) said in his Dhayl Tabaqat al-Hanabila (only highlighted parts are translated):

    ุฃุญู…ุฏ ุจู† ุญู…ุฏุงู† ุจู† ุดุจูŠุจ ุจู† ุญู…ุฏุงู† ุจู† ุดุจูŠุจ ุจู† ุญู…ุฏุงู† ุจู† ู…ุญู…ูˆุฏ ุจู† ุดุจูŠุจ ุจู† ุบูŠุงุซ ุจู† ุณุงุจู‚ ุจู† ูˆุซุงุจ ุงู„ู†ู…ูŠุฑูŠ ุงู„ุญุฑุงู†ูŠุŒ ุงู„ูู‚ูŠู‡ ุงู„ุฃุตูˆู„ูŠุŒ ุงู„ู‚ุงุถูŠ ู†ุฌู… ุงู„ุฏูŠู†ุŒ ุฃุจูˆ ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุจู† ุฃุจูŠ ุงู„ุซู†ุงุกุŒ ู†ุฒูŠู„ ุงู„ู‚ุงู‡ุฑุฉุŒ ูˆุตุงุญุจ ุงู„ุชุตุงู†ูŠู: ูˆู„ุฏ ุณู†ุฉ ุซู„ุงุซ ูˆุณุชู…ุงุฆุฉ ุจุญุฑุงู†. ูˆุณู…ุน ุงู„ูƒุซูŠุฑ ุจุญุฑุงู† ู…ู† ุงู„ุญุงูุธ ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ู‚ุงุฏุฑ ุงู„ุฑู‡ุงูˆูŠ. ูˆู‡ูˆ ุขุฎุฑ ู…ู† ุฑูˆู‰ ุนู†ู‡ุŒ ูˆู…ู† ุงู„ุฎุทูŠุจ ุฃุจูŠ ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุงุจู† ุชูŠู…ูŠุฉุŒ ูˆุงุจู† ุฑูˆุฒุจุฉุŒ ูˆุบูŠุฑู‡ู…. ูˆุณู…ุน ุจุญู„ุจ ู…ู† ุงู„ุญุงูุธ ุงุจู† ุฎู„ูŠู„ุŒ ูˆุบูŠุฑู‡ุŒ ูˆุจุฏู…ุดู‚: ู…ู† ุงุจู† ุบุณุงู†ุŒ ูˆุงุจู† ุตุจุงุญุŒ ูˆุจุงู„ู‚ุฏุณ: ู…ู† ุงู„ุฃูˆุชูŠุŒ ูˆุบูŠุฑู‡ู…. ูˆุทู„ุจ ุจู†ูุณู‡ุŒ ูˆู‚ุฑุฃ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุดูŠูˆุฎ. ูˆุชูู‚ู‡ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ู†ุงุตุญูŠู† ุงู„ุญุฑุงู†ูŠูŠู†: ุงุจู† ุฃุจู‰ู ุงู„ูู‡ู…ุŒ ูˆุงุจู† ุฌู…ูŠุน. ูˆุฃุฎุฐ ุนู† ุงู„ุฎุทูŠุจ ูุฎุฑ ุงู„ุฏูŠู†ุŒ ูˆุฌุงู„ุณ ุงุจู† ุนู…ู‡ ุงู„ุดูŠุฎ ู…ุฌุฏ ุงู„ุฏูŠู†ุŒ ูˆุจุญุซ ู…ุนู‡ ูƒุซูŠุฑุงู‹ุŒ ูˆุจุฑุน ููŠ ุงู„ูู‚ู‡ุŒ ูˆุงู†ุชู‡ุช ุฅู„ูŠู‡ ู…ุนุฑูุฉ ุงู„ู…ุฐู‡ุจุŒ ูˆุฏู‚ุงุฆู‚ู‡ ูˆุบูˆุงู…ุถู‡. ูˆูƒุงู† ุนุงุฑูุงู‹ ุจุงู„ุฃุตู„ูŠู† ูˆุงู„ุฎู„ุงู ูˆุงู„ุฃุฏุจ. ูˆุตู†ู ุชุตุงู†ูŠู ูƒุซูŠุฑุฉ. ู…ู†ู‡ุง " ุงู„ุฑุนุงูŠุฉ ุงู„ุตุบุฑู‰ " ููŠ ุงู„ูู‚ู‡ุŒ ูˆ " ุงู„ุฑุนุงูŠุฉ ุงู„ูƒุจุฑู‰ " ูˆููŠู‡ุง ู†ูู‚ููˆู„ ูƒุซูŠุฑุฉ ุฌุฏุงู‹ุŒ ู„ูƒู†ู‡ุง ุบูŠุฑ ู…ุญุฑุฑุฉุŒ ูˆูƒุชุงุจูŠ " ุงู„ูˆุงููŠ " ููŠ ุฃุตูˆู„ ุงู„ูู‚ู‡ุŒ ูˆู…ู‚ุฏู…ุฉ ุฃุตูˆู„ ุงู„ุฏูŠู†ุŒ ูˆู‚ุตูŠุฏุฉ ุทูˆูŠู„ุฉ ููŠ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉุŒ ูˆูƒุชุงุจ " ุตูุฉ ุงู„ู…ูุชูŠ ูˆุงู„ู…ุณุชูุชูŠ " . ูˆูˆู„ูŠ ู†ูŠุงุจุฉ ุงู„ู‚ุถุงุก ุจุงู„ู‚ุงู‡ุฑุฉ. ูˆุฃุธู†ู‡ ูˆู„ูŠ ูุถุงุก ุงู„ู…ุญู„ุฉ ุฃูŠุถุงู‹. ูˆุชูู‚ู‡ ุจู‡ ูˆุชุฎุฑุฌ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ุฌู…ุงุนุฉุŒ ูˆุญุฏุซ ุจุงู„ูƒุซูŠุฑ. ูˆุนู…ุฑ ูˆุฃุณู† ูˆุฃุถุฑ. ูˆุฑูˆู‰ ุนู†ู‡ ุงู„ุฏู…ูŠุงุทูŠุŒ ูˆุงู„ุญุงุฑุซูŠุŒ ูˆุงุจู†ู‡ุŒ ูˆุงู„ู…ุฒูŠุŒ ูˆุฃุจูˆ ุงู„ูุชุญ ุงู„ูŠุนู…ุฑูŠุŒ ูˆุงู„ุจุฑุฒุงู„ูŠุŒ ูˆุบูŠุฑู‡ู…. ูˆุญุฏุซู†ุง ุนู†ู‡ ู…ุญู…ุฏ ุจู† ุฃุจูŠ ุงู„ู‚ุงุณู… ุงู„ูุงุฑู‚ูŠ ุงู„ุดุงู‡ุฏ ุจุงู„ู‚ุงู‡ุฑุฉ. ูˆุชูˆููŠ ูŠูˆู… ุงู„ุฎู…ูŠุณ ุณุงุฏุณ ุตูุฑ ุณู†ุฉ ุฎู…ุณ ูˆุชุณุนูŠู† ูˆุณุชู…ุงุฆุฉ ุจุงู„ู‚ุงู‡ุฑุฉ

    Ahmad bin Hamdan... al-Numayri al-Harrani, the jurist (Faqih) [and] legal theorist (Usuli), the judge (Qadhi) Najm al-Din, Abu 'Abdillah bin Abil Thana`, [he stayed as] a resident in Cairo [later on] and was the author of [many] works.
    He was born in 603 AH in Harran. ...
    He was proficient in jurisprudence (Fiqh) and the knowledge of the [Hanbali] Madhhab, its details and [solving] its difficult issues ended to him. He was well-versed in the two foundations [of the religion] (Aslayn, i.e. Usul al-Din and Usul al-Fiqh), the differences (Khilaf) and literature (Adab). He authored a lot of works. ...
    He was appointed as a judicial prosecutor in Cairo. ...
    He passed away on Thursday, the 6th of Safar, in the year 695 AH in Cairo.

    - end of quote -


    What is interesting to know here is that several members of the respected Taymiyyan family were among his teachers and from among them (because he was from Harran just like them!):
    - Imam Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 652 AH), the absolute top scholars of the Hanabila
    - Imam Fakhr al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 622 AH), the uncle of Majd al-Din and the Shaykh of Harran and their Khatib

    These scholars of the Taymiyyan family were upon the same creed as in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan.


    The Shaykh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) - who was born in 661 AH in Harran - however left the way of his forefathers - who were major Hanbali scholars! - in the two foundations (Aslayn) of the religion (see Majmu' al-Fatawa):

    ูˆู„ูƒู† ู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ู…ุณุฃู„ุฉ ูˆู…ุณุฃู„ุฉ ุงู„ุฒูŠุงุฑุฉุŒ ูˆุบูŠุฑู‡ู…ุง ุญุฏุซ ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ุชุฃุฎุฑูŠู† ููŠู‡ุง ุดุจู‡. ูˆุฃู†ุง ูˆุบูŠุฑูŠ ูƒู†ุง ุนู„ู‰ ู…ุฐู‡ุจ ุงู„ุขุจุงุก ููŠ ุฐู„ูƒ! ู†ู‚ูˆู„ ููŠ ุงู„ุฃุตู„ูŠู† ุจู‚ูˆู„ ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุจุฏุนุŒ ูู„ู…ุง ุชุจูŠู† ู„ู†ุง ู…ุง ุฌุงุก ุจู‡ ุงู„ุฑุณูˆู„ ุฏุงุฑ ุงู„ุฃู…ุฑ ุจูŠู† ุฃู† ู†ุชุจุน ู…ุง ุฃู†ุฒู„ ุงู„ู„ู‡ุŒ ุฃูˆ ู†ุชุจุน ู…ุง ูˆุฌุฏู†ุง ุนู„ูŠู‡ ุขุจุงุกู†ุงุŒ ููƒุงู† ุงู„ูˆุงุฌุจ ู‡ูˆ ุงุชุจุงุน ุงู„ุฑุณูˆู„

    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 the issues he mentioned above where he left "the way of forefathers", are among those which Imam Ibn Rajab explicitly called as abnormal (Shadh).)


    The Taymiyyan family however remained on the mainstream Hanbali creed even after the Shaykh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya such that the 'Allama 'Abd al-Baqi al-Ba'li [al-Mawahibi al-Azhari al-Hanbali] (d. 1071 AH) - whose lineage goes back to the Taymiyyan family and both his father and his son were also scholars! - authored the Hanbali creedal work al-'Ayn wal Athar and based it on the very wording of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in of Imam Ibn Hamdan! (It should be stated here that there are "Salafis" who openly attack al-'Ayn wal Athar!)


    Imagine: There is not a single commentary on the creedal works of Ibn Taymiyya by classical Hanabila, while there are at least three important Hanbali creedal works (al-'Ayn wal Athar, Qala`id al-'Iqyan, Najat al-Khalaf) - two of which the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) himself teached alongside Lum'at al-I'tiqad and regarded as reliable - which are based on Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in.

    Add to that: Most Hanabila only quote Ibn Taymiyya in creed when he agrees with the mainstream direction or says something which is not abnormal, but they refer to Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in as representative of the creed of Imam Ahmad himself! Major Fuqaha` of the Hanabila - like Imam Ibn Muflih (d. 763 AH), Imam al-Mardawi (d. 885 AH), Imam Ibn al-Najjar al-Futuhi (d. 972 AH), Imam al-Buhuti (d. 1051 AH), etc. - do so!

    Yet some "Salafis" dare to attack al-'Ayn wal Athar - which is based on Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in - and claim that it does not represent the Hanbali creed!
    If this is not ignorance, then what is it? And if this is not cultist behavior towards IT, then what is it?
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 06-05-20, 04:58 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

      That is your biased understanding of the statement of Imam Ahmad.
      What is your criteria and methodology that you use when you consider something acceptable or unacceptable. I think you and I have different criteria and methodology as to what we consider acceptable and unacceptable.

      I was once a Salafi, so my initial criteria, is Quran and Sunnah and the statements of the Salafus Saleh (the companions, tabieen, and tabi Tabieen). That's the first three generations. I have other considerations and perspectives. However, this initial criteria is a main principle for me.

      So for example, the bi dhatihi quotes aren't a strong proof for me, because no one from the companions, tabieen or tabi tabieen said, Bi dhatihi.

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

      So what is your methodology or criteria? It is important to discuss our personal principles, because it allows us to have fruitful discussions.
      Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 08-05-20, 09:13 AM.
      My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SeekingtheCreator View Post

        Sorry I was Salafi back in the days, Allah made me see the truth. Al hamdu lillah I am a student of the knowledge and I don't need to follow you, nor any scholar in your school. There are many centuries of knowledge one can follow.

        May Allah cure your self righteousness, it's very apparent. Ameen. I will discontinue this discussion here, as a student I have more important things to do.
        He left Salafism.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
          1. The majority of Ash'aris consider Ibn Taymiyyah a Mujasimm and his books filled with Tajsim.
          2. The majority of Hanbalis do not consider Ibn Taymiyyah a Mujassim and neither are his books filled with Tajsim.
          3. The Ash'aris and the latter Hanbalis do not have an identical approach to concepts like Tajsim, Hawadith, Hadd, Makkan, etc.
          Ibn Taymiyyah's position in the Hanbali Madhhab:

          https://www.facebook.com/rewaqalhana...ll_videos_card

          The discussion takes place from 4:50 - 35:00.

          "Shaykh Saeed Fodah does not only call Ibn Taymiyyah a deviant he also calls Ibn Qudama a deviant. Not only a deviant but a Mujassim. This is much worse. He insults all of the Hanabila. He talks about Abu Ya'la, he talks about Ibn Qudama -- Shaykh al-Hanabila! And he talks about Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah was not a Mujassim. I can defend Ibn Taymiyyah according to the rules of Ilm. Al-Mujassim according to the Hanbalis is the one who claims that Allah(swt) is a body or has the attributes of a body is a Kaafir. What he is doing is Kufr and such a person is a Kaafir. [37:20]

          Comment



          • Comment


            • Kayfiyyah according to a 'traditionalist Hanbali':

              https://www.facebook.com/rewaqalhana...ll_videos_card

              "Kayfiyyah is a term in Ilm al-Kalam and Kayfiyyah has a meaning in the Arabic language. Let's start with the meaning in the Arabic language: the howness or the reality. So the Kayfiyyah is the reality; al-Haqeeqa. This is how the Salaf made use of the word. So when we say we are doing Tafwid of the Kayfiyyah what we mean is we doing Tafwid to the reality. Let me know if you find any difference between the meaning and the reality. Another meaning of Kayfiyyah - and this is related to Ilm al-Kalam - it's the Aradh. For example, colours and temporary qualities that cannot exists without relying on something (i.e. a body). So Allah cannot be described as this and His Attributes should not be described like this. So this meaning in Ilm al-Kalam is not even accepted; you cannot say we do Tafweed of this Kayf. Allah does not even have a Kayf with the meaning in Ilm al-Kalam. Rather Allah has a reality. When we say Bi la Kayf with respect to Allah does it mean the Kayfiyyah itself is negated or the Kayfiyyah is known to Allah and unknown to us? This is what the Salaf meant. But when Ilm al-Kalam developed the term Kayfiyyah took on a unique meaning which cannot apply to Allah in any way. I only brought up this point because some Salafis say there is a Kayf but we just don't know it - and yes, they are correct when it comes to this part. And this is the Athari response" [32:00]
              Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 26-07-20, 06:56 AM.

              Comment


              • Shaykh al-Albani - Allah Rose Over the Throne without being described as in a place or connected (to the Throne):

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                  Kayfiyyah according to a 'traditionalist Hanbali':

                  https://www.facebook.com/rewaqalhana...ll_videos_card

                  So when we say we are doing Tafwid of the Kayfiyyah what we mean is we doing Tafwid to the reality. Let me know if you find any difference between the meaning and the reality.

                  This statement right here is proof that the "traditionalist Hanbalis" interchange between Kayf and Ma'na on the subject of Tafwid. So when Ibn Qudama or al-Saffarini use terms like Tafwid al-Ma'na it does not necessitate that they are negating the portion of the Ma'na which are often being contested in these discussions. Salafis would also agree with making Tafwid of the Ma'na if what is intended by Ma'na are the hidden and ultimate realities of the Attribute (Kayf). What is generally intended by Ma'na is the contextualized Dhahir which is naturally inferred from the text. The meanings of the Attributes on a primary/basic level must necessarily be known or else it would be impossible to distinguish and categorize any of them.

                  The problem with Hanbali's approach is that it is inconsistent in how they apply Tafwid due to certain Ash'ari influences on the Madhhab. If the meanings of the Attributes were completely unknown, then we wouldn't be capable of distinguishing between Hayat, Basr or Uluw. When Allah said that He is the Hearing the Seeing, we have enough understanding of the meaning to know that He did not say the Ever-living, the Self-sufficient. The meanings would only be unknown (from a literal perspective) if Allah introduced foreign terminologies or described Himself in a manner that is completely inconsistent with our human experience.

                  In any case it seems like most people wouldn't have a problem admitting that they recognize a basic conceptual meaning of the Attributes. The difference between us would largely reduce to slightly different methodologies in expressing our creedal views. However, the problem with those who subscribe to Tafwid al-Ma'na (esspecially the Atharis) are their inconsistencies between the Attributes due to Ash'ari/Kalam influences. Tafwid becomes extreme and blameworthy when the Attributes are affirmed without resulting in any implications on the pretext that their Kayf/Ma'na are unknown. The textbook example of this being someone who affirms the Sifat of Istawa and Uluw, but is unable to deduce from this that Allah actually Rose Over the Throne and is currently Above us. This type of Tafwid could only be 'justified' if the individual was an Ash'ari who was taught the later position of the Madhhab which openly condemns the classical view. At least in this case their inconsistencies are ultimately based on certain philosophical principles the Madhhab adheres to.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                    Ibn Taymiyyah's position in the Hanbali Madhhab:

                    https://www.facebook.com/rewaqalhana...ll_videos_card

                    The discussion takes place from 4:50 - 35:00.

                    "Shaykh Saeed Fodah does not only call Ibn Taymiyyah a deviant he also calls Ibn Qudama a deviant. Not only a deviant but a Mujassim. This is much worse. He insults all of the Hanabila. He talks about Abu Ya'la, he talks about Ibn Qudama -- Shaykh al-Hanabila! And he talks about Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah was not a Mujassim. I can defend Ibn Taymiyyah according to the rules of Ilm. Al-Mujassim according to the Hanbalis is the one who claims that Allah(swt) is a body or has the attributes of a body is a Kaafir. What he is doing is Kufr and such a person is a Kaafir. [37:20]
                    The Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali has defended the above mentioned Hanbali scholars - including Imam Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), even if he disagreed with his Hanbali colleagues in some issues of creed (including major ones!) and that of jurisprudence - also from the accusation of Tajsim and repeated this very recently in an interview when he was asked regarding the position of the Shaykh Sa'id Fouda regarding some of the A`imma of the Hanabila:



                    (Note: The Shaykh Sa'id Fouda is a staunch Ash'ari and therefore harsh on anyone who differs from what he regards as the correct creed. This is basically similar to some of the staunch Hanabila who do the same with the Ash'aris. We should however adhere to the general mindset of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna and regard both as Sunnis, because their differences are on detailed issues of creed only.
                    What should however be stated is that the Shaykh Sa'id Fouda is consequent in his criticism and is therefore also critical of the likes of Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn 'Arabi (d. 638 AH).)


                    There is a new interview with Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid, which is specifically in defense of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) and it's really good (but long and unfortunately only in Arabic):



                    In the above video he defends the Qadhi Abu Ya'la from the accusation of Tajsim - that some staunch Ash'aris have leveled against him - and also refutes the claim of the so called "Salafis" that he used to be "influenced by Ash'aris" (a joke considering his works!).
                    His defense is quite good and convincing, because he quotes al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la himself from his works like al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din (only the Mukhtasar has reached us) and from his Ibtal al-Ta`wilat.

                    Regarding the accusation of Tajsim he proves from both works that he used to regard Allah ta'ala exalted from corporeality and from being subject to changes and that he even used to perform Takfir upon the real Mujassim.
                    Regarding the accusation of "being influenced by Ash'aris", he quotes passages from al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din and shows how he in all issues where there were difference of opinion between the Hanabila and the Ash'aris would say "in opposition to the Ash'aris in their statement that..." and he does this again and again! So where is this so called influence?
                    Add to this: His Ibtal al-Ta`wilat is a response to the Ash'ari (!) Imam Ibn Furak (d. 406 AH) and his work Mushkil al-Hadith.

                    He clarifies that the reason why he mentions so many weak narrations in his Ibtal al-Ta`wilat - which is why he was criticized by some scholars - is that the Imam Ibn Furak had mentioned many of them in his Mushkil al-Hadith in the first place and al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la wanted to clarify that even if these Ahadith are accepted as they came, it would not necessitate Tajsim or Tashbih.

                    He also clarifies that his statement that the Ahadith of the Sifat should be left on their Dhahir - while he at the same time clearly regards Tafwidh as the correct way in the very same book - is not contradictory as some "Salafis" believe, but he has himself actually clarified what he intended.
                    What is intended here is that Ta`wil of the Sifat is not to be done and that these Sifat should not be understood metaphorically, but one should rather affirm these descriptions as additional attributes and relegate their reality to Allah ta'ala. He also clarifies that he regarded any Ta`wil - which Ash'aris for example regard as a possible option - or Tafsir - which for example "Salafis" are involved in, but in the direction of Tashbih! - of these descriptions is not allowed and that he was actually rejecting the Dhahir al-Lughawi (the literal meaning in the language).
                    He proves all of this by explicit quotes!
                    He also clarifies that the above is basically the way of the mainstream Hanabila in general! They do not affirm the Dhahir al-Lughawi (!), but rather reject it!
                    The meaning that they affirm for Allah ta'ala is one that can not be conceived by the mind (i.e. ghayr ma'qul), so there is no Ishtirak in the Ma'na, but rather only in the Lafdh! So when some of them say "leave it on the dhahir" or "and not making a Ta`wil that goes against the dhahir", they intend to accept these descriptions without taking anything from them away or adding something to them. This something that anyone having read classical Hanbali texts will understand.
                    This is why they said for example "we accept Yad as an additional attribute, but it's not a limb or something corporeal or a part or a tool...", while "Salafis" do not do not even declare God to be exalted from being a 3-dimensional being in the very first place!

                    He also mentions how al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la was accepted by the Hanabila in general as one of their greatest scholars - to the degree that Imam al-Mardawi (d. 885 AH) regards him as the pillar (Rukn) of the Madhhab! -and that they regarded him as reliable in Fiqh and 'Aqida and that almost all of the major names of the Hanabila in the 5th century were his direct (!) students!
                    Almost all of the major Hanbali A`imma that you hear of - with the exception of very few of them (like Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) and Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) - are on his Manhaj in creed!
                    Note that Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) refers the reader of his Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in (d. 695 AH) - a creedal work which has attained general acceptance by the classical Hanabila! - in the end of it to al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la's works on creed, which means that he regards them as highly reliable!

                    He also says that al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la refers to Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) and his direct students and their direct students in creed and that he even quotes from Shuruh (explanations) upon early Hanbali / Athari creedal works and that many of these Shuruh have not even reached us (which means that he had access to a lot of texts, which we do not even know of) and that it is quite rich for a person today to think he knows more than al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la and the rest of the Hanbali A`imma regarding the creed of Imam Ahmad!
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 26-07-20, 09:40 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post


                      This statement right here is proof that the "traditionalist Hanbalis" interchange between Kayf and Ma'na on the subject of Tafwid. So when Ibn Qudama or al-Saffarini use terms like Tafwid al-Ma'na it does not necessitate that they are negating the portion of the Ma'na which are often being contested in these discussions. Salafis would also agree with making Tafwid of the Ma'na if what is intended by Ma'na are the hidden and ultimate realities of the Attribute (Kayf). What is generally intended by Ma'na is the contextualized Dhahir which is naturally inferred from the text. The meanings of the Attributes on a primary/basic level must necessarily be known or else it would be impossible to distinguish and categorize any of them.

                      The problem with Hanbali's approach is that it is inconsistent in how they apply Tafwid due to certain Ash'ari influences on the Madhhab. If the meanings of the Attributes were completely unknown, then we wouldn't be capable of distinguishing between Hayat, Basr or Uluw. When Allah said that He is the Hearing the Seeing, we have enough understanding of the meaning to know that He did not say the Ever-living, the Self-sufficient. The meanings would only be unknown (from a literal perspective) if Allah introduced foreign terminologies or described Himself in a manner that is completely inconsistent with our human experience.

                      In any case it seems like most people wouldn't have a problem admitting that they recognize a basic conceptual meaning of the Attributes. The difference between us would largely reduce to slightly different methodologies in expressing our creedal views. However, the problem with those who subscribe to Tafwid al-Ma'na (esspecially the Atharis) are their inconsistencies between the Attributes due to Ash'ari/Kalam influences. Tafwid becomes extreme and blameworthy when the Attributes are affirmed without resulting in any implications on the pretext that their Kayf/Ma'na are unknown. The textbook example of this being someone who affirms the Sifat of Istawa and Uluw, but is unable to deduce from this that Allah actually Rose Over the Throne and is currently Above us. This type of Tafwid could only be 'justified' if the individual was an Ash'ari who was taught the later position of the Madhhab which openly condemns the classical view. At least in this case their inconsistencies are ultimately based on certain philosophical principles the Madhhab adheres to.
                      Respected brother, the Hanbali / Athari scholars of the past were more knowledgeable regarding their own creed than me and you are. You have not read the absolute majority of their works - let alone their original works - and neither do you have access to what they had access to.
                      What you say above is like accusing them of treason in what they ascribed in creed to Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH), and there are some "Salafis" who do not shy away in accusing the Hanabila explicitly of this (i.e. treason!).
                      If you say "they misunderstood it" or similar things, then this will not be accepted from you. You know why? Because we're speaking about major A`imma here, who had read and studied many many works and had access to works that has not even reached us! They had studied under scholars, who were linked to the founder of the Madhhab himself!
                      There are only two options: Either they committed treason or they were right in what they regarded as the creed of Imam Ahmad!

                      Take someone like al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH): He had access to the statements of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) in creed and to that of his students and their students and he quotes them in his works and mentions their explanations and supports their creed.
                      The Hanabila after him regard him as highly reliable in creed.
                      Do you really think that someone like him, did not know what Imam Ahmad believed?

                      All the major Hanabila that you hear of - with the exception of very few of them - are on his Manhaj in creed! Whether it's Imam al-Kalwadhani (d. 510 AH), Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH), Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH), Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH), Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) or other than them!

                      Imam Ibn Hamdan states in the end of his Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in - a book that is generally accepted by Hanabila! - that all of that which he mentioned [as the correct creed] is from the books of his [Hanbali] colleagues [before him] and that Imam Ahmad had stated most of it explicitly and hinted towards many of it. A little bit after this he refers the reader to al-Qadhi [Abu Ya'la] and his works and that of his students and that of other [Hanbali] colleagues.
                      Do you really think that someone like him did not know what he was talking about?

                      Al-'Ayn wal Athar and Qala`id al-'Iqyan are both based upon the very wording of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in and the Fuqaha` of the Hanabila quote from it as if it's the creed of Imam Ahmad himself!
                      Imam al-Saffarini used to teach these two books alongside Lum'at al-I'tiqad to his students.
                      Do you really think they didn't know what they are doing?




                      Regarding the issue of Kayfiyya and Haqiqa / Kunh: The explanation given by Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq al-Hanbali - which you posted - is good and it proves that the difference on this is semantic only between Sunnis (Hanbalis and Ash'aris). That is why mainstream Hanabila criticized Ash'aris for Ta`wil only and never for Tafwidh! Go and search and you'll not find anyone other than Ibn Taymiyya and his followers doing otherwise!
                      The mainstream Hanabila believed in affirming a meaning that can not be conceived by the mind! That is why they reject any Ta`wil or Tafsir of these texts and affirm them to be attributes and not just metaphoric descriptions!

                      As for "Salafis" then they do not agree with them on this. For them Kayfiyya is much broader than just the reality, such that they will not declare God to be transcendent from being a 3-dimensional being in the first place.
                      They ("Salafis") believe in affirming a meaning that one may imagine! The meaning that comes to the mind of the Mushabbiha are a possible option regarding God in their mindset as long as "it's not completely the same"!
                      This is why for them God touching the throne or the creation is not something impossible - unlike mainstream Hanabila who regard this impossible - and likewise God having a distance to the creation is also not something impossible - again unlike the mainstream Hanbali creed - and the Yad of Allah having a form or a size is also not impossible according to them and so on!

                      What you're doing right now is mixing classical Hanbali creed with "Salafi" one. You're agreeing a little bit with the mainstream Hanbalis and a little bit with the "Salafis", while their creed is not the same.


                      An example, so that you realize that your claims regarding "knowing the meaning" are not really correct:
                      When Allah ta'ala has informed us in His book that He created Adam - peace be upon him - with His Yadayn, then did He oblige us with anything more than believing in this and submitting to the texts?!
                      If a Muslim tells you that he believes in this and that Allah ta'ala is described and attributed with Yadayn and that he relegates its reality to Allah ta'ala, because it's beyond our comprehension and because there is nothing whatsoever like Allah ta'ala, then what is the meaning that you want him to affirm after he already believed in what Allah ta'ala has stated?!
                      Is that which this Muslim believes not enough?

                      If you say "yes, it's enough", then you have rejected the "Salafi" creed.
                      If you say "no, it's not enough", then I would like to know the meaning that you want this Muslim to establish!
                      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 26-07-20, 11:16 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Do Ash'aris Deny al-Istiwa? | Sh. Saeed Fodeh



                        Comment: The Shaykh Sa'id Fouda - may Allah ta'ala protect him - beautifully explains what the exact difference with the "Salafis" is on this issue and shows from the Arabic language and the context of the Qur`anic Ayat that the meaning that these people are trying to establish (i.e. sitting or being settled or the like) is not intended!

                        Note that anyone claiming or trying to establish meanings like sitting or being seated or being settled - no matter whether with a distance or with touching - or whatever is similar to this from the claims of affirming a physical highness regarding Allah has lied against Allah 'azza wa jall!
                        Allah is High Exalted above what the oppressors claim!
                        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 27-07-20, 12:29 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                          If you want "limb" (Jariha) as a term or word, then the way of the "Salafi" Mashayikh is quite obvious regarding this: They don't affirm or reject it.
                          But if you intend the affirmation of a limb or part in meaning (!), then I've already quoted Ibn 'Uthaymin in Arabic (without translation) were he does argue that God has inseparable [and eternal] parts.


                          Ibn 'Uthaymin himself does not see anything wrong in believing that God is a 3-dimensional being - i.e. with length, width and breadth - and that is why he said while arguing that Istiwa` means [sensory] (!) highness and settlement (!!!) ("ูˆุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุฌู…ุงุนุฉ ูŠุคู…ู†ูˆู† ุจุฃู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู…ุณุชูˆู‰ ุนู„ู‰ ุนุฑุดู‡ ุงุณุชูˆุงุก ูŠู„ูŠู‚ ุจุฌู„ุงู„ู‡ ูˆู„ุง ูŠู…ุงุซู„ ุงุณุชูˆุงุก ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ูŠู†.ูุฅู† ุณุฃู„ุช: ู…ุง ู…ุนู†ู‰ ุงู„ุงุณุชูˆุงุก ุนู†ุฏู‡ู…ุŸ ูู…ุนู†ุงู‡ ุงู„ุนู„ูˆ ูˆุงู„ุงุณุชู‚ุฑุงุฑ") the following:

                          ูˆุฃู…ุง ู‚ูˆู„ูƒู…: ุฅู†ู‡ ูŠู„ุฒู… ู…ู† ุชูุณูŠุฑ ุงู„ุงุณุชูˆุงุก ุจุงู„ุนู„ูˆ ุฃู† ูŠูƒูˆู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุฌุณู…ุงู‹. ูุฌูˆุงุจู‡: ูƒู„ ุดูŠุก ูŠู„ุฒู… ู…ู† ูƒุชุงุจ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูˆุณู†ุฉ ุฑุณูˆู„ู‡ - ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… -ุŒ ูู‡ูˆุญู‚ุŒ ูˆูŠุฌุจ ุนู„ูŠู†ุง ุฃู† ู†ู„ุชุฒู… ุจู‡ุŒ ูˆู„ูƒู† ุงู„ุดุฃู† ูƒู„ ุงู„ุดุฃู† ุฃู† ูŠูƒูˆู† ู‡ุฐุง ู…ู† ู„ุงุฒู… ูƒู„ุงู… ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูˆุฑุณูˆู„ู‡ุŒ ู„ุฃู†ู‡ ู‚ุฏ ูŠู…ู†ุน ุฃู† ูŠูƒูˆู† ู„ุงุฒู…ุงู‹ุŒ ูุฅุฐุง ุซุจุช ุฃู†ู‡ ู„ุงุฒู…ุŒ ูู„ูŠูƒู†ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ุญุฑุฌ ุนู„ูŠู†ุง ุฅุฐุง ู‚ู„ู†ุง ุจู‡

                          As for your statement: It becomes necessary from your explanation of the [divine] Istiwa` to mean [sensory] highness that Allah is a body (and this is wrong).
                          Then the response is: Everything that is necessitated from the book of Allah and the Sunna of His Messenger - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, then it is the truth that we have to accept. But the issue - all the issue - is that this has to be from what is necessitated from the speech of Allah and His Messenger, because it is possible that it is not necessitated. So if it is established that it's necessitated, so be it (!) and there is no embarrassment if we say it.

                          - end of quote -

                          After the above statement he starts the typical "what do you intend by denying body? Do you intend that He has a Self and is described with attributes (which he accepts) or do you intend that He's composed from bones, flesh and blood (which he rejects)?"-argumentation, while completely ignoring the fact that his Sunni opponents do not deny that Allah ta'ala is described with the attributes of absolute perfection and that their denial of corporeality is not just the denial of God being composed from bones, flesh and blood, but also from being described with a Miqdar (size or volume) - or say length, width and breadth (i.e. the three dimensions) - in general. Why does he always ignore that?
                          His way of argumentation is to hide his Tajsim (!) and he does not see any embarrassment or discomfiture in regarding corporeal existence of God as possible!!

                          Add to this:
                          It's not like the "Salafi" Mashayikh accept Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn as Ma'ani (meanings) subsisting in the divine Self, but rather as A'yan (tangible things) that make up the divine Self (i.e. the inseparable eternal parts that Ibn 'Uthaymin believes in!), Exalted is Allah ta'ala above what these pagan minded people believe!


                          That is why al-Fawzan said the following in his distorsion upon Lum'at al-I'tiqad:

                          ูุฏู„ู‘ ุนู„ู‰ ุฃู† ู‚ูˆู„ู‡ (ุจูŠุฏูŠู‘) ุชุซู†ูŠุฉ ูŠุฏ ุญู‚ูŠู‚ูŠุฉ ุŒ ูƒู…ุง ูŠูู‡ู… ู‡ุฐุง ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ุนู†ู‰ ุงู„ู„ุบูˆูŠ ูˆุงู„ู…ุนุฑูˆู ููŠ ุงู„ุญุณ

                          So this indicates that His statement { with my Yadayn } [38:75] [with using] the dual form of Yad (hand) is [intended] real (i.e. real hands are intended) JUST LIKE it can be understood from the meaning in the language and that which is known from the senses (!).
                          - end of quote -

                          That which is known from our senses?!? Exalted is Allah above this disbelief!


                          Muhammad Khalil Harras wanted to make it even clearer and said the following (see in the footnotes):

                          ูˆู…ู† ุฃุซุจุช ุงู„ุฃุตุงุจุน ู„ู„ู‡ ูƒูŠู ูŠู†ููŠ ุนู†ู‡ ุงู„ูŠุฏุŒ ูˆุงู„ุฃุตุงุจุน ุฌุฒุก ู…ู† ุงู„ูŠุฏุŸ

                          The one who has affirmed fingers for Allah, then how would he deny hand[s] regarding Him, while the fingers are a part of the hand?
                          - end of quote -

                          This is how these people speak regarding the Lords of the worlds and this should be enough as an indication that they don't know Allah ta'ala.
                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                          Harras also said:

                          ูุฅู† ุงู„ู‚ุจุถ ุฅู†ู…ุง ูŠูƒูˆู† ุจุงู„ูŠุฏ ุงู„ุญู‚ูŠู‚ูŠุฉ ู„ุง ุจุงู„ู†ุนู…ุฉ ุŒ ูุฅู† ู‚ุงู„ูˆุง ุฅู† ุงู„ุจุงุก ู‡ู†ุง ู„ู„ุณุจุจูŠุฉ ุฃูŠ ุจุณุจุจ ุฅุฑุงุฏุชู‡ ุงู„ุฅู†ุนุงู… ุŒ ู‚ู„ู†ุง ู„ู‡ู…: ุจู…ุงุฐุง ู‚ุจุถุŸ ูุฅู† ุงู„ู‚ุจุถ ู…ุญุชุงุฌ ุฅู„ู‰ ุขู„ุฉุŒ ูู„ุง ู…ู†ุงุต ู„ู‡ู…

                          Grasping happens through a real hand and not through favor (Ni'ma). So if they say that the [letter] "Ba`" here indicates causation meaning through His will of [granting] favors, we tell them: Through what did He grasp?
                          Because grasping is in need of a tool (Ala), so there is no way out for them.

                          - end of quote -

                          A tool? So Yad has become a tool now regarding the Creator? Really?
                          Like I already said: These "Salafi" Mashayikh believe that God is made of inseparable eternal parts, Exalted is Allah above what they believe!

                          ...

                          Sh. Saeed Fodeh on the Anthropomorphic Creed of Ibn Uthaymeen



                          Comment: So according to this Ibn 'Uthaymin God consists of inseparable eternal parts and has Sifat Tari`a (emergent or contingent attributes)!
                          Wasn't Ibn 'Uthaymin ashamed of himself when he used the word Tari`a ("ุทุงุฑุฆุฉ") for the attributes of Allah taโ€™ala?!
                          Tari`a, o slaves of Allah! This is how this man speaks regarding the Lord of the worlds!
                          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 27-07-20, 03:01 PM.

                          Comment


                          • I'm unable to link the specific video using my phone. Scroll down to the clip titled "How to become a Hanbali?" posted on January 24.

                            https://m.facebook.com/rewaqalhanabi...ll_videos_card

                            "Can the word Yad be an Idaafa when used in Yadullah bi.. Yes. We have explained this. This is a possibility, but a very weak possibility. And this is why we don't consider Ibn al-Jawzi a representative of the Hanbali Madhhab when it comes to Aqeedah, although all of the Ashaa'ira in the West will just.. You have this sect of the Ashaa'ira in the West and the students of Shaykh Sa'eed Foudah who I like to call the Wahhabis of the Ashaa'ira. They are the representation of the Wahhabi ideology in the Ash'ari Madhhab. Same way of thinking; same mentality; same attitude. They are not following Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab of course, but they have the same attitude and characteristics." [49:45]

                            "Do you consider the Ashaa'ira from Ahl al-Sunnah or Ahl al-Bid'ah? The Ashaa'ira are from Ahl al-Sunnah according to some of the Hanaabilah. Not being from Ahl al-Sunnah doesn't mean you are from Ahl al-Bid'ah. I think this.. because Ibn Qudama didn't mention their names as the Mubtadi'ah at the end of Lumatul Itiqad, yet he harshly talked about them in other books. Ya'ni, you might be something in between, so you're not really Ahl al-Bid'ah and you're not from Ahl al-Sunnah. In my opinion they are from Ahl al-Sunnah. Why? Because they are doing Tanzih in the end; they are not claiming anything bad of Allah, but they have mistakes. Having mistakes is fine. Maybe these mistakes are excused according to Allah. And one or two mistakes in such issues does not make them from Ahl al-Bid'ah in my opinion. And also my Shuyukh are Ashaa'ira, so what do you expect me to say? That they are Mubtadi'ah? I would never say so. So I will always take the opinion in the Hanbali Madhhab that they are from Ahl al-Sunnah." [59:50]

                            Comment


                            • ^

                              With all due respect to the Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq [al-Hanbali], but it's really not like the Shaykh Sa'id Fouda [al-Ash'ari] criticized some of the mentioned scholars without having proofs to back up his claims.

                              Let's put his criticism of Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) here aside, because this has more to do with Imam Ibn Qudama's harsh attack on the Ash'aris regarding the issue of the Lafdh of the Qur`an (i.e. the issue of Harf wa Sawt) and it's known that both Hanbalis and Ash'aris are sensitive in this issue and criticize each other for it and take the issue to meanings that their opponents do not even intend. (As for his book regarding 'Uluw, than it does not necessitate him believing in Tajsim - as it is obvious - and I'm sure that the Shaykh Sa'id would agree that it can be also understood in a non-problematic way.)

                              His main criticism is actually against Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and he only criticizes al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) in this context.

                              As for al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la:

                              He can be defended from the accusation of Tajsim based upon what he explicitly states in his Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din and its Mukhtasar (only the Mukhtasar has reached us) and even what he explicitly states in his Ibtal al-Ta`wilat. And him declaring Allah ta'ala transcendent from being subject to changes is famous from both works.

                              There is however a quite problematic passage in his Ibtal al-Ta`wilat:

                              From p. 595 on (where he says the following "ู‚ุฏ ู…ู†ุนู†ุง ููŠ ูƒุชุงุจู†ุง ู‡ุฐุง ููŠ ุบูŠุฑ ู…ูˆุถุน ุฅุทู„ุงู‚ ุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุงู„ุตูˆุงุจ ุฌูˆุงุฒ ุงู„ู‚ูˆู„ ุจุฐู„ูƒ") he affirms [the expression of] direction (Jiha) regarding Allah ta'ala, while also mentioning that prior to this passage he disallowed doing so in the same book.
                              This in itself is nothing new, because we have already quoted Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) regarding 'Uluw, Istiwa` and Nuzul from his Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in, where he said the following on p. 33:

                              Al-Qadhi said: "Descent (Nuzul) is an attribute of the [divine] essence and that's why we do not say that His descent is by displacement" and the last of the two statements of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la is that of affirming [the expression] of direction.
                              - end of quote -

                              It has also already been explained in the verification given by the Shaykh al-Gharsi [al-Ash'ari] (regarding the affirmation and rejection of the expression of direction) - who referred to al-'Allama Zayn al-Din [Mar'i bin Yusuf] al-Karmi [al-Hanbali] (d. 1033 AH) from his Aqawil al-Thiqat regarding this - that affirming the expression itself, does not necessitate affirming physical highness nor corporeality.

                              The real problematic passage in his Ibtal al-Ta`wilat then starts on p. 599:

                              ู‚ุฏ ู…ู†ุนู†ุง ู…ู† ุฅุทู„ุงู‚ ุงู„ู‚ูˆู„ ุจุงู„ุญุฏ ููŠ ุบูŠุฑ ู…ูˆุถุน ู…ู† ูƒุชุงุจู†ุงุŒ ูˆูŠุฌุจ ุฃู† ูŠุฌูˆุฒ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ุฐูŠ ุฐูƒุฑู†ุง. ูˆูŠุฌุจ ุฃู† ูŠุญู…ู„ ุงุฎุชู„ุงู ูƒู„ุงู… ุฃุญู…ุฏ ููŠ ุฅุซุจุงุช ุงู„ุญุฏ ุนู„ู‰ ุงุฎุชู„ุงู ุญุงู„ูŠู†ุŒ ูุงู„ู…ูˆุถุน ุงู„ุฐูŠ ู‚ุงู„ ุฅู†ู‡ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุนุฑุด ุจุญุฏูู‘ ู…ุนู†ุงู‡: ุฃู† ู…ุง ุญุงุฐู‰ ุงู„ุนุฑุด ู…ู† ุฐุงุชู‡ ู‡ูˆ ุญุฏ ู„ู‡ ูˆุฌู‡ุฉ ู„ู‡ ูˆุงู„ู…ูˆุถุน ุงู„ุฐูŠ ู‚ุงู„ ู‡ูˆ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุนุฑุด ุจุบูŠุฑ ุญุฏ ู…ุนู†ุงู‡: ู…ุง ุนุฏุง ุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ู…ุญุงุฐูŠุฉ ู„ู„ุนุฑุดุŒ ูˆู‡ูŠ ุงู„ููˆู‚ ูˆุงู„ุฎู„ู ูˆุงู„ุฃู…ุงู… ูˆุงู„ูŠู…ู†ุฉ ูˆุงู„ูŠุณุฑุฉุŒ ูˆูƒุงู† ุงู„ูุฑู‚ ุจูŠู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุชุญุช ุงู„ู…ุญุงุฐูŠุฉ ู„ู„ุนุฑุด ูˆุจูŠู† ุบูŠุฑู‡ุง ู…ู…ุง ุฐูƒุฑู†ุง: ุฃู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุชุญุช ุชุญุงุฐูŠ ุงู„ุนุฑุด ุจู…ุง ู‚ุฏ ุซุจุช ู…ู† ุงู„ุฏู„ูŠู„ุŒ ูˆุงู„ุนุฑุด ู…ุญุฏูˆุฏุŒ ูุฌุงุฒ ุฃู† ูŠูˆุตู ู…ุง ุญุงุฐุงู‡ ู…ู† ุงู„ุฐุงุช ุฃู†ู‡ ุญุฏ ูˆุฌู‡ุฉ. ูˆู„ูŠุณ ูƒุฐู„ูƒ ููŠู…ุง ุนุฏุงู‡ุŒ ู„ุฃู†ู‡ ู„ุง ูŠุญุงุฐูŠ ู…ุง ู‡ูˆ ู…ุญุฏูˆุฏุŒ ุจู„ ู‡ูˆ ู…ุง ุฏู„ ููŠ ุงู„ูŠู…ู†ุฉ ูˆุงู„ูŠุณุฑุฉ ูˆุงู„ููˆู‚ ูˆุงู„ุฃู…ุงู… ูˆุงู„ุฎู„ู ุฅู„ู‰ ุบูŠุฑ ุบุงูŠุฉุŒ ูู„ู‡ุฐุง ู„ู… ูŠูˆุตู ูˆุงุญุฏ ู…ู† ุฐู„ูƒ ุจุงู„ุญุฏ ูˆุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉ. ูˆุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุนุฑุด ุชุญุงุฐูŠ ู…ุง ู‚ุงุจู„ู‡ ู…ู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุฐุงุชุŒ ูˆู„ู… ูŠุญุงุฐ ุฌู…ูŠุน ุงู„ุฐุงุช ู„ุฃู†ู‡ ู„ุง ู†ู‡ุงูŠุฉ ู„ู‡ุง
                              - end of quote -

                              Here it really seems that he's arguing that God is limited from below through the throne (which is the affirmation of a physical highness!) and not from the other directions, such that He has no limits in the other directions. So it's basically said that God is a 3-dimensional being with a limit from one side and no limits from the other sides, which would make Him a body with an infinite size.
                              The above would basically destroy the whole of the rest of his creed and directly oppose it.
                              I've sent a part of this passage to the Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq to see whether he has any Tawjih on this, because until now I've not found a single explanation which would ward off the OPEN Tajsim that is found in this passage.

                              As for Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH):

                              He quotes the above in his Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya and then makes the issue even WORSE!

                              He says in his Bayan Talbis 3/26:

                              ูู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ู‚ูˆู„ ุงู„ูˆุณุท ู…ู† ุฃู‚ูˆุงู„ ุงู„ู‚ุงุถูŠ ุงู„ุซู„ุงุซุฉ ู‡ูˆ ุงู„ู…ุทุงุจู‚ ู„ูƒู„ุงู… ุฃุญู…ุฏ ูˆุบูŠุฑู‡ ู…ู† ุงู„ุฃุฆู…ุฉ ูˆู‚ุฏ ู‚ุงู„ ุฅู†ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ููŠ ุฌู‡ุฉ ู…ุฎุตูˆุตุฉ ูˆู„ูŠุณ ู‡ูˆ ุฐุงู‡ุจู‹ุง ููŠ ุงู„ุฌู‡ุงุช ุจู„ ู‡ูˆ ุฎุงุฑุฌ ุงู„ุนุงู„ู… ู…ุชู…ูŠุฒ ุนู† ุฎู„ู‚ู‡ ู…ู†ูุตู„ ุนู†ู‡ู… ุบูŠุฑ ุฏุงุฎู„ ููŠ ูƒู„ ุงู„ุฌู‡ุงุช ูˆู‡ุฐุง ู…ุนู†ู‰ ู‚ูˆู„ ุฃุญู…ุฏ ุญุฏ ู„ุงูŠุนู„ู…ู‡ ุฅู„ุง ู‡ูˆ ูˆู„ูˆ ูƒุงู† ู…ุฑุงุฏ ุฃุญู…ุฏ ุฑุญู…ู‡ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุงู„ุญุฏ ู…ู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุนุฑุด ูู‚ุท ู„ูƒุงู† ุฐู„ูƒ ู…ุนู„ูˆู…ู‹ุง ู„ุนุจุงุฏู‡ ูุฅู†ู‡ู… ู‚ุฏ ุนุฑููˆุง ุฃู† ุญุฏู‡ ู…ู† ู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉ ู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุนุฑุด ูุนู„ู… ุฃู† ุงู„ุญุฏ ุงู„ุฐูŠ ู„ุง ูŠุนู„ู…ูˆู†ู‡ ู…ุทู„ู‚ ู„ุง ูŠุฎุชุต ุจุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุนุฑุด
                              - end of quote -

                              And he reaffirms this in 3/737:

                              ูˆุฃู…ุง ู…ุง ุฐูƒุฑู‡ ุงู„ู‚ุงุถูŠ ู…ู† ุฅุซุจุงุช ุงู„ุญุฏ ู…ู† ู†ู‡ุงูŠุฉ ุงู„ุนุฑุด ูู‚ุท ูู‡ุฐุง ู‚ุฏ ุงุฎุชู„ู ููŠู‡ ูƒู„ุงู…ู‡ ูˆู‡ูˆ ู‚ูˆู„ ุทุงุฆูุฉ ู…ู† ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุฌู…ู‡ูˆุฑ ุนู„ู‰ ุฎู„ุงูู‡ ูˆู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุตูˆุงุจ
                              - end of quote -

                              So what he's basically saying is that this statement that God is only limited through the side of the throne only is not correct and that God has additional limits that we do not know of, which basically is adding to the OPEN Tajsim even more Tajsim!

                              Note: The book Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya is filled with such statements!

                              Both the Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq and the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid do say that Ibn Taymiyya affirmed the concept of God being subject to changes - which according to them and almost all Hanabila is a huge mistake -, but they - just like other Hanbalis before them - deny that Ibn Taymiyya fell into Tajsim.

                              It is therefore said to them: If you want to convince us, then you need to explain these problematic statements.


                              The Shaykh Sa'id Fouda has a very clear Manhaj on these issues: He judges based upon what is found in the works of these scholars and he does this with Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn 'Arabi (d. 638 AH) too! He does not accept claims or far-fetched "interpretations", which are directly refuted by the works of these scholars.

                              So denying them to have fallen into mistakes (huge ones!) should be done in the manner the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid did with al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la, who brought his quotes of clear Tanzih and other than them and explained them. Unfortunately the problematic passage posted above was not mentioned, such that this problem still remains, because the Shaykh Sa'id acknowledges that al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la made statements of Tanzih, but he says that he opposed it by statements such as the above one!

                              As for Ibn Taymiyya: His whole book mentioned above is problematic - to say at least! - and he doesnโ€™t have any clear statements in support of Tanzih, so his case is much greater!

                              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-07-20, 12:23 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                                I'm unable to link the specific video using my phone. Scroll down to the clip titled "How to become a Hanbali?" posted on January 24.

                                https://m.facebook.com/rewaqalhanabi...ll_videos_card

                                "Can the word Yad be an Idaafa when used in Yadullah bi.. Yes. We have explained this. This is a possibility, but a very weak possibility. And this is why we don't consider Ibn al-Jawzi a representative of the Hanbali Madhhab when it comes to Aqeedah, although all of the Ashaa'ira in the West will just.. You have this sect of the Ashaa'ira in the West and the students of Shaykh Sa'eed Foudah who I like to call the Wahhabis of the Ashaa'ira. They are the representation of the Wahhabi ideology in the Ash'ari Madhhab. Same way of thinking; same mentality; same attitude. They are not following Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab of course, but they have the same attitude and characteristics." [49:45]

                                "Do you consider the Ashaa'ira from Ahl al-Sunnah or Ahl al-Bid'ah? The Ashaa'ira are from Ahl al-Sunnah according to some of the Hanaabilah. Not being from Ahl al-Sunnah doesn't mean you are from Ahl al-Bid'ah. I think this.. because Ibn Qudama didn't mention their names as the Mubtadi'ah at the end of Lumatul Itiqad, yet he harshly talked about them in other books. Ya'ni, you might be something in between, so you're not really Ahl al-Bid'ah and you're not from Ahl al-Sunnah. In my opinion they are from Ahl al-Sunnah. Why? Because they are doing Tanzih in the end; they are not claiming anything bad of Allah, but they have mistakes. Having mistakes is fine. Maybe these mistakes are excused according to Allah. And one or two mistakes in such issues does not make them from Ahl al-Bid'ah in my opinion. And also my Shuyukh are Ashaa'ira, so what do you expect me to say? That they are Mubtadi'ah? I would never say so. So I will always take the opinion in the Hanbali Madhhab that they are from Ahl al-Sunnah." [59:50]
                                Ibn Qudama quotes Ahmad bin Ishaq al-Maliki in his refutation of Ibn Aqil al-Hanbali:

                                "In the opinion of our [Maliki] colleagues, the partisans of erroneous opinions and heretical innovations are the partisans of speculative-theology (Kalam). Therefore, every speculative theologian (Mutakalim) belongs to the partisans of erroneous opinions and heretical innovations, be he Ash'ari or not. No testimony of his should be accepted; he should be ostracized, and punished for his heretical innovation, and if he sticks to it, he should be made to retract it."

                                https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...My3JZ__TFVQz1j

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X