Tweet
I thought I would re-post this here due to its relevance:
Dr. Hatem al-Haj's Facebook post on June 28:
A brother by the name of Ahmad Sabbahi commented:
Hatem al-Haj replied:
Dr. Hatem continued:
Dr. Hatem continues:
More can be found on the Facebook post:
https://m.facebook.com/drhatemalhaj/...0764738?locale
Dr. Hatem al-Haj's Facebook post on June 28:
Alhamdulillah,
The Athari/ Ash‘ari divide is one of the oldest divides in our intellectual history. If we are unable to deal with it in a beautiful manner, we will only have ourselves to blame for the many ills that result from this failure. Hostilities from both sides have been a recurrent theme in our history. However, there were always shining examples of people on both sides who knew how to handle this disagreement, without dismissing it as superfluous or showing hostility to their opponents, but rather fairness and ample recognition of the greats on both sides.
The late scholar Muhammad al-Musayyar (rA) is one of those examples. He was not a fire-brand speaker. In fact, he was a frequent guest of mainstream media in Egypt. Despite that, he would never shy away from “shocking” his hosts with the plain truth in any matter of any size, whether it challenged the state or public opinion. Anyone can do that on Facebook or on the minbar of their masjid. Very few people would do it when they risk losing the recognition of the establishment or worse yet, earn its wrath.
Sh. Muhammad al-Musayyar was busy defending Islam. He was inclined to the Ash‘ari school. Interestingly, some of his children were Athari and some Ash‘ari. He would not force his convictions on them. When they argued about doctrine, he would only ask them to be honest and methodical.
Please visit his page to learn more about him.
https://www.facebook.com/DrAlmosayar/
One of the later posts on his page has links to more than 20 of his books. Those who can read Arabic, please avail yourselves of these great resources.
The Athari/ Ash‘ari divide is one of the oldest divides in our intellectual history. If we are unable to deal with it in a beautiful manner, we will only have ourselves to blame for the many ills that result from this failure. Hostilities from both sides have been a recurrent theme in our history. However, there were always shining examples of people on both sides who knew how to handle this disagreement, without dismissing it as superfluous or showing hostility to their opponents, but rather fairness and ample recognition of the greats on both sides.
The late scholar Muhammad al-Musayyar (rA) is one of those examples. He was not a fire-brand speaker. In fact, he was a frequent guest of mainstream media in Egypt. Despite that, he would never shy away from “shocking” his hosts with the plain truth in any matter of any size, whether it challenged the state or public opinion. Anyone can do that on Facebook or on the minbar of their masjid. Very few people would do it when they risk losing the recognition of the establishment or worse yet, earn its wrath.
Sh. Muhammad al-Musayyar was busy defending Islam. He was inclined to the Ash‘ari school. Interestingly, some of his children were Athari and some Ash‘ari. He would not force his convictions on them. When they argued about doctrine, he would only ask them to be honest and methodical.
Please visit his page to learn more about him.
https://www.facebook.com/DrAlmosayar/
One of the later posts on his page has links to more than 20 of his books. Those who can read Arabic, please avail yourselves of these great resources.
There is an Athari v Ash’ari divide no doubt but there is also an Athari+Ash’ari v Salafi divide and we should not conflate the two. Ash’aris don’t have much of a problem with the mainstream Hanbali creed but they do have a problem with most of Ibn Taymiyah’s positions that deviated away from mainstream Hanbalism and was later supported by Muhammed bin Abd elWahab.
Ahmad Sabbahi Jazaka Allah Khayran for the comment. I disagree. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah supported the Athari creed by kalam so that is what made him seem different. You will find my answer to this notion in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Between-God-P.../dp/B085KHLL6C
https://www.amazon.com/Between-God-P.../dp/B085KHLL6C
Ahmad Sabbahi Hanbali is not the same thing like Athari. Ibn Abd al-Barr was Athari not Hanbali. Ibn al-Jawzy was Hanbali not Athari. Hanbalis don’t always agree among themselves on fiqh or creed. There are more than 110 positions in one book by Ibn Qudamah that later Hanbalis didn’t consider “authorized.”
The book has a detailed discussion about tafweed almaana. It is the least philosophically coherent out of the three: ithbat, ta’weel and tafweed almaana. It presumes that the prophet didn’t know the meaning of what he was preaching and/or the companions didn’t know the meanings of what he was saying. Anyway, part of the difference between the two types of tafweed has to do with one’s concept of language, and whether one is realist, nominalist or conceptualist. There is a kindle version of the book for 1 dollar. You can also email me for a copy at [email protected]. Boorikt.
The book has a detailed discussion about tafweed almaana. It is the least philosophically coherent out of the three: ithbat, ta’weel and tafweed almaana. It presumes that the prophet didn’t know the meaning of what he was preaching and/or the companions didn’t know the meanings of what he was saying. Anyway, part of the difference between the two types of tafweed has to do with one’s concept of language, and whether one is realist, nominalist or conceptualist. There is a kindle version of the book for 1 dollar. You can also email me for a copy at [email protected]. Boorikt.
Ahmad Sabbahi Ahsana Allah ilayk. وما يعلم تأويله إلا الله if you stop there, it refers to the ontological reality or حقيقة الشيء وكنهه not the simple meaning. It is impossible that whole phrases were meaningless in the mubeen speech of God and His messenger. It is impossible that they were like disjointed letters when they were in complete harmony with the surrounding text.
Ibn ‘Arabi (rA) was not Taymiyyan. Here is what he says about tafweed al-maana:
"One group said, “We believe in this wording as it came, without comprehending its meaning, until we become in this belief like one who did not hear [it], and we hold on to the indicants of reason that precluded the primary meaning of this statement.” This group is also stubborn, but uses refined rhetoric, and they rejected what came to them from Allah with that rhetoric. They made themselves like those who had not heard this [Divine] speech. Another group said, “We believe in the wording according to what Allah knows about it and [what] His Messenger [knows about it].” Those said [in effect] that Allah spoke to us in vain because He addressed us with that which we do not comprehend, whereas [on the contrary] Allah says, “And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them.” [Ibrâheem 14:4] He (pbuh) brought this, and he made it clear as Allah said, but those denied that it was clear." End of Ibn ‘Arabi's quote.
Some Hanbalis made tafweed and even ta'weel, but that is not the position of the madhhab. Any one who reads al-Khallal's reports from the imam will know his positions.
Did al-Hafiz Ibn Asakir defend Imam al-Ash'ari against Ibn Taymiyyah. Was Ibn Khazaymah, al-Darimi, Ibn Surayj Taymiyyan? Wasn’t Ibn Khuzaymah’s book al-Tawheed called al-Shirk by some Ash’aris? Was fitnat alqushayri because of Ibn Taymiyyah? Was the prosecution of Imam al-Harawai because of Ibn Taymiyyah? Wasn’t Ibn Taymiyyah himself working to calm down the fitan between the Asharis and Hanbalis of Damascus? This narrative is just indefensible. It takes a man that reached the pinnacle of knowledge, jihad and piety according to scores of the most distinguished scholars of our history and demonizes him to wage an ad hominem attack on a position that is as old as Islam is.
Ibn ‘Arabi (rA) was not Taymiyyan. Here is what he says about tafweed al-maana:
"One group said, “We believe in this wording as it came, without comprehending its meaning, until we become in this belief like one who did not hear [it], and we hold on to the indicants of reason that precluded the primary meaning of this statement.” This group is also stubborn, but uses refined rhetoric, and they rejected what came to them from Allah with that rhetoric. They made themselves like those who had not heard this [Divine] speech. Another group said, “We believe in the wording according to what Allah knows about it and [what] His Messenger [knows about it].” Those said [in effect] that Allah spoke to us in vain because He addressed us with that which we do not comprehend, whereas [on the contrary] Allah says, “And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them.” [Ibrâheem 14:4] He (pbuh) brought this, and he made it clear as Allah said, but those denied that it was clear." End of Ibn ‘Arabi's quote.
Some Hanbalis made tafweed and even ta'weel, but that is not the position of the madhhab. Any one who reads al-Khallal's reports from the imam will know his positions.
Did al-Hafiz Ibn Asakir defend Imam al-Ash'ari against Ibn Taymiyyah. Was Ibn Khazaymah, al-Darimi, Ibn Surayj Taymiyyan? Wasn’t Ibn Khuzaymah’s book al-Tawheed called al-Shirk by some Ash’aris? Was fitnat alqushayri because of Ibn Taymiyyah? Was the prosecution of Imam al-Harawai because of Ibn Taymiyyah? Wasn’t Ibn Taymiyyah himself working to calm down the fitan between the Asharis and Hanbalis of Damascus? This narrative is just indefensible. It takes a man that reached the pinnacle of knowledge, jihad and piety according to scores of the most distinguished scholars of our history and demonizes him to wage an ad hominem attack on a position that is as old as Islam is.
More can be found on the Facebook post:
https://m.facebook.com/drhatemalhaj/...0764738?locale
Comment