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

[TheHaqq]

This question is irrelevant to the post you have quoted me. I have answered this in detail on the last page and in response to brother Muhammad Hassan in the 'Ibn Abdul Wahhab's lack of qualifications' thread. We do not ascribe a Tahdid to Allah but believe that the descriptions/attributes share conceptual similarities. In other words, they are similiar in concept but not in reality.

What you say is not clear, a person could actually understand what you are saying in three different ways, because contrary to your claim, you have not stopped where the salaf stopped (and neither do ashari's, which is why we have this problem) and if we are going to add words to the statements of the salaf, then we better clarify exactly what they mean as well.

1) We know what yad is/means for the creation but not at all for the creator, for there is nothing like him, but Allah has a hand, and this is alone is the "conceptual similarity".

2) We know what yad is/means for the creation but not exactly for the creator, and we would be able to recognise the hand of Allah if we were to see it and this is is the "conceptual similarity".

3) We know what yad is/means for the creation and for the creator, so Allah's hand has a similar concept to the following (even partially) but in a way that we cannot currently imagine/comprehend:
"The part of the body at the end of the arm that is used for holding, moving, touching, and feeling things" (I add, obviously it's 3D and made up of parts itself)

Could you please clarify?

[TheHaqq]

TheHaqq

You might enjoy reading these 2 articles:

https://theboriqeenotes.com/2020/02/...hs-attributes/
https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...hs-attributes/

double post.

[TheHaqq]

TheHaqq
You might enjoy reading these 2 articles:
https://theboriqeenotes.com/2020/02/...hs-attributes/
https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...hs-attributes/

I already have, it's a surface level refutation that solves practically nothing at all. That's why I'm asking further.

But that's where salafis stop and say that the salaf stopped at this point, the problem is that the salaf stopped way before what salafis say.
These games need to stop, if you are going to add an explanation and words to what the salaf said, then you better clarify what you mean.

Refer to my post above.

[TheHaqq]

What makes you think they will? I can't speak for all Salafis but the ones in my community are not really exposed to outsources. The explanations of scholars like Ibn Uthaymeen are spoon fed to us and everyone that opposes Salafi scholars are deviant and shouldn't be listened to. My first two comments reflect their mindset pretty well. Only difference is that I'm a bad Salafi that actually came on here and started reading. The good Salafis would never. I hope they will move away as you say though.. may Allah guide us all.

Basically it's a phase, once a person realises that salafis can completely misunderstand and twist (unintentionally) the najdi dawah (which I still cannot actually believe, it's so clear cut), this makes the person lose trust in the salafis altogether, so it makes you question the other areas of difference that they have with other groups.

[Abu Sulayman]

(I will use the term Taymiyyan instead of 'Salafi' as I think it is a neutral term).

Tafwid al-Kayf admitting Tafwid al-Ma'na

There are indeed Atharis, including the academics amongst them, who interpret Tafweed al-Kayf as essentially the same thing as Tafweed al-Ma'na. These Taymiyyans are happy to negate place, dimension etc. I say if you cannot ascribe a clear meaning then that is Tafwid al-Ma'na.

I think the problem Ash'aris have with the Taymiyyans is that they fear when they say, "Tafwid al-Kayf" that the Taymiyyans are admitting possibility of form i.e. width, length, height or other dimension, and are saying that we know Allah has a Yad but not if it has delimitation i.e. a form (admitting that it may or may not) and if it does then what exact form that Yad is. I.e. that they imply Allah may have Miqdar (size) but do not say the exact Kayf of his size i.e. how big or small he is - if he has it.

E.g.

"I say I have a face and that a dog also has a face. Now suppose I say there is an alien with a face. Do we know how his face is? No but we know he has a face."

My first question to you is, would you say the alien in the above example is subject to Tafwid al-Kayf?

What would the Ash'ari, Maturidi and Mufawwid Athari such as Shaykh Yusuf bin Sadiq al-Hanbali (who calls Ibn Taymiyyah Shaykh ul-Islam and does not call him a Mujassim), require of a follower of Taymiyyan doctrine to say they are a Sunni Muslim?

In my opinion I agree with the opinion of those Athari who say Tafwid al-Kayf is a linguistical difference with Tafwid al-Ma'na, and that they are in essence the same thing. But I require someone who does Tafwid al-Kayf to negate limitation.

Otherwise, when someone says, "Allah has a Yad and it is not a limb" - well what does their negation of limb mean? It is essentially meaningless unless it is taken to be a negation of a protruding physicallity (with all such physicallity negated).

So there are four groups of Taymiyyans:

1. Those who affirm Tafwid al-Kayf as not actually different to Tafwid al-Ma'na, who negate dimensionality for Allah. (e.g. Allah having Miqdar is Muhal/Mustahil).
2. Those who affirm Tafwid al-Kayf as not actually different to Tafwid al-Ma'na, but believe dimensionality is neither affirmed nor negated - that it is a possibility. (Allah having Miqdar is Mumkin).
3. Those who say Tafwid al-Kayf is different to Tafwid al-Ma'na, but believe dimensionality is neither affirmed nor negated - that it is a possibility. (Allah having Miqdar is Mumkin).
4. Those who say Tafwid al-Kayf is different to Tafwid al-Ma'na, and believe dimensionality is actually necessary for Allah (Allah having Miqdar is Wajib).

We would regard those followers of Ibn Taymiyyah of group 1 to be Sunni Muslims, e.g. this guy. They are sometimes the academic types who have studied Ibn Taymiyyah's works and have also studied al-Ghazali etc. works. They are supporters of Ibn Taymiyyah and defend Tafwid al-Kayfiyyah, and quote Ibn Taymiyyah frequently and mention creed from works like Sharh Aqeedah Tahawiyyah of Ibn al-Izz al-Hanafi. They maintain what started as Hanbali terminology (e.g. differentiating Tawhid al-Rubbobiyyah etc.) And yet they deny place, direction etc. They consider the Ash'ari wrong with regards to many things, but principally not Ilm al-Kalam (as Ibn Taymiyyah engages in it), or negating corporeality. They tend also to be very interested in Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibnul Qayyim's philosophical views.

Those of group 2 and 3 think the Ash'ari etc. are being Irrational because they think there is nothing wrong with Allah possibly having dimension and they do not conceive anything contradicting reason. The statement, "It is not necessary for something to have dimension" to them comes back on the Ash'ari etc. as they say "well why do you make it necessary for Allah to not have dimension then?" i.e. they assume that the ruling for anything existant is that dimension is possible.

I feel that the Taymiyyans of group 4 who believe Allah is a physical dimensioned being, think that the Ash'ari etc. who are saying he can't, are negating him because in their mind the only things that can exist are physical dimensioned beings.



The followers of group 1 are Sunnis then who we can accept as non-Mainstream Athari. Their thought is similar to the thought of some (but not all) early Hanabilah. This is how some of the Athari and a few of the Ash'ari justify the doctrines of Ibn Taymiyyah as not being Tajsim.

The followers of group 2 and 3 are Muslims but by entertaining the possibility of corporeality they enter into innovation. It is difficult to say whether they are clear cut Mujassimah - but they are opening the door to that so should be regarded with them.

The followers of group 4 are disbelievers.

By the way, not all the Taymiyyans of group 1 consider the Ash'ari themselves as being Sunni - what I am talking about is a one-way conception by the Ash'ari/Maturidi/Mufawwid Athari as to the Taymiyyans of group 1. Otherwise there are Taymiyyans of group 1 who hate the Ash'ari and say they are Jahmiyyah, thinking they hold the same beliefs or definitions as Aristotle and ironicaly quote from the likes of Bin Baz etc.

So my second question to you is, which of the four groups mentioned above would you put yourself in (if you were to put yourself in one of them)?

The above 4 options basically summarize the issue.
From my experience there are almost no "Salafi" authorities, who would agree with the first option. They either agree with option 2 or 3 and some even 4 (which is disbelief as you stated)! This means that they're either Mubtadi'a or Zanadiqa.

But there are "Salafi" laymen and even students of knowledge who would agree with option 1. The brother AmantuBillahi did not answer, but out of Husn al-Dhann I would say he also agrees with the first option, which would be only a semantic difference to the rest of Sunnis (which is also how the Shaykh Hatim al-'Awni - and the classical Hanabila before him - understood the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH)).

The problem however is that many "proper" "Salafis" will run away from answering such questions, so you don't know what they actually believe. It's as if they're hiding something really shocking in their hearts and do not want you to know what it is.
If it's so shocking and ugly to the degree that they are ashamed of stating it openly, then why do they believe in it? Reminds me of Zanadiqa.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

Basically it's a phase, once a person realises that salafis can completely misunderstand and twist (unintentionally) the najdi dawah (which I still cannot actually believe, it's so clear cut), this makes the person lose trust in the salafis altogether, so it makes you question the other areas of difference that they have with other groups.

I agree this may be a way for some Salafis to distance themselves slowly from it. However, there are many that don't see anything wrong with the Najdi Da3wah at all. They're handling ad-Durar as-Saniyyah here and they obviously don't see anything wrong with it. Allahul musta3aan.

[Abu Sulayman]

The problem however is that many "proper" "Salafis" will run away from answering such questions, so you don't know what they actually believe. It's as if they're hiding something really shocking in their hearts and do not want you to know what it is.
If it's so shocking and ugly to the degree that they are ashamed of stating it openly, then why do they believe in it? Reminds me of Zanadiqa.

The above reminded me of something that happened to the Shaykh Sa'id Fouda [al-Ash'ari] with one of these "Salafis". He discussed with him on the issue of limit (Hadd) and at the end of the discussion they agreed both that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from limits.
Then the "Salafi" told the Shaykh to re-discuss this issue and this after 3 months had passed, because he had "changed his mind about the issue of limits" after some "Salafi" authorities in "Saudi" Arabia told him that he was wrong in rejecting limits and that he should affirm it.
During the second discussion the Shaykh Sa'id got more and more shocked from what he was hearing from the mouth of this person that it reached the degree that he asked him whether he intends that God has a Hajm (=size) like the audio recorder in front of them? The "Salafi" then answered "yes, but we don't use the word Hajm".
The Shaykh then told him that he then could call it as "SIZE" (meaning: of you don't like the Arabic word!)!

Imagine that these people then speak about Tawhid. What kind of Tawhid is this?

Here is the Shaykh narrating this incident that happened to him:

[TheHaqq]

I agree this may be a way for some Salafis to distance themselves slowly from it. However, there are many that don't see anything wrong with the Najdi Da3wah at all. They're handling ad-Durar as-Saniyyah here and they obviously don't see anything wrong with it. Allahul musta3aan.

Where do you live? Over here in the UK many are realising the ghulu in the najdi dawah, or at least doubting it. Even in Saudi Arabia there are a few scholars that are pointing it out with hikmah.

So these people that hand out the durar, are they making takfeer on people that go to graves and chain takfeer from it, are they making mass takfeer for supporting the rulers?

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

Where do you live? Over here in the UK many are realising the ghulu in the najdi dawah, or at least doubting it. Even in Saudi Arabia there are a few scholars that are pointing it out with hikmah.

So these people that hand out the durar, are they making takfeer on people that go to graves and chain takfeer from it, are they making mass takfeer for supporting the rulers?

Middle East.

No they don't actually, they're similar to the 'Madaakhila' when it comes to matters like Takfir. I don't know how they read ad-Durar and don't think anything of it. I guess they justify it with Udhr bil Jahl to some extent. Wa Allaahu a3lam.

[AmantuBillahi]

What you say is not clear..

I already have, it's a surface level refutation that solves practically nothing at all..

There are instances of the Salaf claiming that the meanings of the Attributes are known and their modalities are unknown. We also know that the Salaf refuted the Jahmiyyah by utilizing the Ayat/Hadith pertaining to Allah's Uluw, which could only make sense if they understood what the meanings of those evidences implied.

Admittingly, the science of Aqeedah is something that developed over the centuries as more questions started to be asked. Shaykh Yasir Qadhi was recently given a lot of slack over this issue and he explained himself well in his first podcast with Mohammad Hijab. The reason why you don't find the Salaf debating over the meaning of Yad is because those who came after them claimed that the meanings of the Attributes were completely unknown and therefore were either negated or had zero implications.

Basically it's a phase, once a person realises that salafis can completely misunderstand and twist (unintentionally) the najdi dawah (which I still cannot actually believe, it's so clear cut), this makes the person lose trust in the salafis altogether, so it makes you question the other areas of difference that they have with other groups.

It appears that you just recently had your epiphany and full of anti-Salafi energy. I already preceded you in this matter and could sympathize with where you're coming from. My only advice to you as a brother is not to be gullible or hasty in your judgment.

[TheHaqq]

The above 4 options basically summarize the issue.
From my experience there are almost no "Salafi" authorities, who would agree with the first option. They either agree with option 2 or 3 and some even 4 (which is disbelief as you stated)! This means that they're either Mubtadi'a or Zanadiqa.

But there are "Salafi" laymen and even students of knowledge who would agree with option 1. The brother AmantuBillahi did not answer, but out of Husn al-Dhann I would say he also agrees with the first option, which would be only a semantic difference to the rest of Sunnis (which is also how the Shaykh Hatim al-'Awni - and the classical Hanabila before him - understood the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH)).

The problem however is that many "proper" "Salafis" will run away from answering such questions, so you don't know what they actually believe. It's as if they're hiding something really shocking in their hearts and do not want you to know what it is.
If it's so shocking and ugly to the degree that they are ashamed of stating it openly, then why do they believe in it? Reminds me of Zanadiqa.

Very interesting, I agree, there should be nothing to hide, you cannot run away when you are asked to explain yourself if you are going to delve into these issues.

I always thought that salafi scholars agree with 1, but that's clearly not the case, it's why I always sympathised with the ashari view, thinking to myself: What are we even fighting over, other than semantics?

[TheHaqq]

Middle East.

No they don't actually, they're similar to the 'Madaakhila' when it comes to matters like Takfir. I don't know how they read ad-Durar and don't think anything of it. I guess they justify it with Udhr bil Jahl to some extent. Wa Allaahu a3lam.

Watered down najdi dawah

[TheHaqq]

There are instances of the Salaf claiming that the meanings of the Attributes are known and their modalities are unknown. We also know that the Salaf refuted the Jahmiyyah by utilizing the Ayat/Hadith pertaining to Allah's Uluw, which could only make sense if they understood what the meanings of those evidences implied.

Admittingly, the science of Aqeedah is something that developed over the centuries as more questions started to be asked. Shaykh Yasir Qadhi was recently given a lot of slack over this issue and he explained himself well in his first podcast with Mohammad Hijab. The reason why you don't find the Salaf debating over the meaning of Yad is because those who came after them claimed that the meanings of the Attributes were completely unknown and therefore were either negated or had zero implications.



It appears that you just recently had your epiphany and full of anti-Salafi energy. I already preceded you in this matter and could sympathize with where you're coming from. My only advice to you as a brother is not to be gullible or hasty in your judgment.

You are wrong about the salaf refuting jahmiyyah and intending what you understand, they could easily have meant what ashari's are saying, with a different wording.

Yasir Qadhi himself admits that it's not clear that the salaf followed what salafis today claim, he admits it's a lot more complicated and that there were different strands.

I'm not anti salafi, anti najdi yes, I am not accusing the modern salafis of misguidance or tajseem, rather currently think that they are mistaken. No doubt I should not jump to passing judgements though.

[Abu Sulayman]

Middle East.

No they don't actually, they're similar to the 'Madaakhila' when it comes to matters like Takfir. I don't know how they read ad-Durar and don't think anything of it. I guess they justify it with Udhr bil Jahl to some extent. Wa Allaahu a3lam.

Very weird people. How do they read books without understanding them in any way or form?

According to al-Durar al-Saniyya those who apply al-'Udhr bil Jahl to these issues that they claim to be "greater polytheism" (Shirk akbar; while they're not, but that's another story) or say that it's Shirk asghar (lesser polytheism) [or Shirk 'amali] are DISBELIEVERS! Their blood is allowed to be spilled! In fact it's even stated that even if one agrees with the Najdi Da'wa, but does not perform Takfir upon one's [Muslim] non-Najdi parents, then one is again a DISBELIEVER! In fact loving to be under Ottoman rule also makes one a DISBELIEVER! A number of leading Najdis also stated in it that anyone following other than the way of MIAW and his followers will be from the PEOPLE OF HELLFIRE!

IAW (d. 1206 AH) SOLELY wrote Mufid al-Mustafid in order to argue this very point and he explicitly calls those who say that it's Shirk asghar [or that 'Udhr bil Jahl applies] - intending his own brother and other Najdi scholars - as ATHEISTS. The very township that he wrote this work against - i.e Huraymila - was then attacked by his followers and many of their people were slaughtered.

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

Very weird people. How do they read books without understanding them in any way or form?

According to al-Durar al-Saniyya those who apply al-'Udhr bil Jahl to these issues that they claim to be "greater polytheism" (Shirk akbar; while they're not, but that's another story) or say that it's Shirk asghar (lesser polytheism) [or Shirk 'amali] are DISBELIEVERS! Their blood is allowed to be spilled! In fact it's even stated that even if one agrees with the Najdi Da'wa, but does not perform Takfir upon one's [Muslim] non-Najdi parents, then one is again a DISBELIEVER! In fact loving to be under Ottoman rule also makes one a DISBELIEVER! A number of leading Najdis also stated in it that anyone following other than the way of MIAW and his followers will be from the PEOPLE OF HELLFIRE!

IAW (d. 1206 AH) SOLELY wrote Mufid al-Mustafid in order to argue this very point and he explicitly calls those who say that it's Shirk asghar [or that 'Udhr bil Jahl applies] - intending his own brother and other Najdi scholars - as ATHEISTS. The very township that he wrote this work against - i.e Huraymila - was then attacked by his followers and many of their people were slaughtered.

May Allah guide us all. I won't be attending anymore.