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

[AmantuBillahi]

One of the shortcomings of the Salafi Dawah, is that they call it a Dawah to Muslims. Their very name is an insult to all Muslims. It is indirect takfir, or direct, depending on which strand of Salafism you follow. Dawah is to non-Muslims. Dawah means an invitation to Islam. To Muslims it is called Enjoining the Right and Forbidding the wrong.

I believe the term is general. It's a Da'wah which places emphasis on following the beliefs and practices of the first-three generations. Mainstream Salafis do not make general Takfir but you could say they consider others to be deviant.

Theoretically speaking what they are calling to is praiseworthy. We should aspire to believe in what the earliest Muslims believed and shun later innovations. The problem is that the group which took on this initiative and labeled themselves "Salafis" are not 100% orthodox in all aspects. However this doesn't negate whatever truth they might have with them.

When you compare all of the arguments objectively I believe it is patently clear that the Atharis represent the intended theology. Admittingly, the difficulty with the Salafi-Athari narrative is coming to grips with the fact that a large group of scholars deviated in aspects of creed. But then again, you would have to question what do you give more importance to? Seeking the truth or following a spoon-fed version of reality?

I kind of wish that Ash'arism was true because it would my life a lot easier. But I cannot accept something that I am genuinely convinced is flawed. It would be like someone belieiving the Trinity while at the same time being convinced that the New Testament has been tampered with and doesn't portray Jesus as God.

[AmantuBillahi]

. I believe that the fundamental views I hold in Aqeedah are for the most part sound and consistent with the reality of the religion.

Just to reiterate "for the most part sound" is out of humbleness not doubt. There are also some issues I don't feel confident discussing due to lack of resources and knowledge. However everything I have stated could be backed up with references.

Edit: It should probably read "I believe the views I hold in Aqeedah are sound and consistent with the reality of the religion. Wa Allahu A'lam."

[TazkiyyatunNafs]

Wa iyyakum.. Ameen. May Allah guide us All indeed... without Him we are helpless.. Success comes from Allah alone. May Allah grant us tawfiq... Ameen.

Ameen..

[AmantuBillahi]

Although there is not much I can do at this point in time, I would like to apologize and retract from some of my previous posts including several which were made on this thread. My understanding has become slightly more broader since last year and I should have remained patient or articulated myself more appropriately at times.

I'm re-reading some of the previous pages and feel the need to clarify this for the guests who might be reading that are not familiar with my movements on the rest of the forum:

1. I'm a layman.
2. The primary reason why I entered this thread and entertained the discussion is because my name was mentioned in the OP.
3. I'm mostly retracting from my poor sentence structure and grammar (although my understanding has broadened since last year like any other person).
4. There are scholars and students of knowledge who are in agreement with the general perspective I am coming from.

If you're an Ash'ari sympathizer reading this then I would invite you to sincerely contemplate over the first few posts within this thread:

https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/li...sh-ari-aqeedah

May Allah guide us and increase the objectivity of our Aql. Ameen.

[maturidee]

- They believe that the world has a beginning as singular, but it's eternal in its kind! This is among their biggest mistakes and from the statements of the philosophers and in direct contradiction to the clear-cut divine texts

Proof your point !

This issue has to do with eternality of Allaah being able to will always one after another, creating from nothing and himself preceding it! This is issue is called tasalsul al hawaaith, and and it is possible and jaiz.

[Abu Sulayman]

Proof your point !

This issue has to do with eternality of Allaah being able to will always one after another, creating from nothing and himself preceding it! This is issue is called tasalsul al hawaaith, and and it is possible and jaiz.

First: Why are you calling yourself "maturidee" while you’re defending the statements of the so called "Salafi" Mubtadi'a (deviants) and Zanadiqa (heretics)?! Or is this one of the evil tactics of you "Salafis"?!

Then: Allah ta’ala is beyond time and this is something agreed upon by all Sunnis (Ash'aris, Maturidis and traditional Hanabila), so your imagination that Allah ta'ala is in time and that therefore infinite regression to the past is possible is wrong.

As for believing the world ('Alam, meaning everything else others than Allah ta'ala) being eternal - even if only in kind -, then this is Kufr (disbelief) and Zandaqa (heresy). FULL-STOP.

Aren't you people ashamed of yourselves to describe the creation with eternity and the Creator with temporality?!

From now on there will be no tolerance for any of you mindless creatures!


These are comments from another thread:

Then: I don’t even think you know what this other issue is about. It’s the belief in the possibility that there existed an infinite number of worlds before this world, while every single one these worlds have a beginning. Or one could say it’s to believe that there was no first creation, but that every single creation has a beginning.
"Salafi" Mashayikh do believe in this possibility (as explicitly stated by Ibn 'Uthaymin and other than him!) and they teach it to their students!
(This belief is obviously in opposition to the Islamic texts and rationally wrong and very near to the position of the philosophers who claimed that the world is eternal).

You brought up an issue (i.e. Hawadith la Awwala laha) from another thread. I just post this so you realize that you've no idea what you're talking about (all videos are in the context of teaching!):
- Ibn 'Uthaymin's position: الشيخ ابن عثيمين : اختلاف الناس في تسلسل الحوادث ، والقول الحق في ذلك and الشيخ ابن عثيمين : تقرير نفيس لمسألة تسلسل الحوادث
- 'Abd al-Rahman al-Barrak's position: ما مراد المتكلمين بمسألة تسلسل الحوادث وماشبهتهم في ذلك؟ 17/6/1431 هـ (عبدالرحمن البراك)
- Salih Al al-Shaykh's position: العلامة صالح آل الشيخ - مسألة التسلسل
- 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Rays's position: مسألة تسلسل الحوادث | د.عبدالعزيز بن ريس الريس
- Mashhur bin Hassan Al Salman's position: تحقيق القول في حوادث لا أول لها عند شيخ الاسلام

If you dare to ask me thereafter for more quotes / videos (and believe me I'm able to bring more!), then this means that you're lacking in intelligence and should not be discussing with normal people.

Did you see what all these "Salafi" Mashayikh said in the context of teaching?! And they all did so out of blind Taqlid (!) of the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and Taqlid in 'Aqida is sinful to say at least! These are the people you want us to follow?!

As an additional information: "Salafis" believe that God is subject to Hawadith (temporality) and that with Istiwa`, Nuzul, Ityan, Maji`, etc. change happens to the divine Self (Dhat) (!!!) and this is in opposition to Ash'aris and Hanbalis (both real Sunnis), who both believe that God is not subject to changes. So they ("Salafis") believe that time applies to God and that He goes through different stages and through moments (Exalted is Allah ta'ala above that!)! Based upon this imagination they say that believing that infinite regression is impossible means that God "did nothing for a long time (i.e. infinite time!)" and they say "this means you say that before creating this world he was unable to create" and this shows to you how low their level of understanding is on this issue and that they don't even know the position of their opponents!! They also think that when one mentions this issue that one is accusing Ibn Taymiyya of believing the world being eternal, which is again only in their imagination! What one is saying is that he believed that every single created thing has a beginning in time, but that it's possible that created things as a genus or kind are eternal (and the "Salafis" themselves affirm this!). Now this belief necessitates the belief in the eternity of the world even if the "Salafis" don't realize it, but it does not mean that one is saying that they indeed believe in this necessary result of their claiml!
(Note: While Ibn Taymiyya believed in the possibility of infinite regression, he did not believe in its possibility in causation (that's why "Salafis" also say so, but again out of Taqlid, but this time they're correct).)

[maturidee]

First: Why are you calling yourself "maturidee" while you’re defending the statements of the so called "Salafi" Mubtadi'a (deviants) and Zanadiqa (heretics)?! Or is this one of the evil tactics of you "Salafis"?!

Then: Allah ta’ala is beyond time and this is something agreed upon by all Sunnis (Ash'aris, Maturidis and traditional Hanabila), so your imagination that Allah ta'ala is in time and that therefore infinite regression to the past is possible is wrong.

As for believing the world ('Alam, meaning everything else others than Allah ta'ala) being eternal - even if only in kind -, then this is Kufr (disbelief) and Zandaqa (heresy). FULL-STOP.

Aren't you people ashamed of yourselves to describe the creation with eternity and the Creator with temporality?!

12 years ago i signed up as Maturidee on this forum. I see it just as a name, in fact i wanted to change but could not register anew.

Well, i think you dont understand the issue. As opposed to the Asharis i do not believe in a dead-time creation and a in-active God.

My proofs are from the Qur'aan, here are two verses to illustrate very nicely, a key central issue around this whole debate and if you grasp it, the matter will become easy to understand and the error of the kalam theologists will be readily apparent. The first is the saying of Allaah, the Exalted about Paradise:

مَّثَلُ الْجَنَّةِ الَّتِي وُعِدَ الْمُتَّقُونَ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الأَنْهَارُ أُكُلُهَا دَآئِمٌ وِظِلُّهَا

The description of the Paradise which pious have been promised! Underneath it rivers flow, its provision is eternal and so is its shade. (13:35)

And also the saying of Allaah, the Exalated:

إِنَّ هَذَا لَرِزْقُنَا مَا لَهُ مِن نَّفَادٍ

It will be said to them)! Verily, this is Our provision which will never finish. (38:54)

In these two verses we see that Paradise and its reward, and its provision is eternal (though it had a beginning and was preceded by non-existence). The provision being referred to is referring to food, sustenance. Now, what this means is that the genus of food will be eternal and never expire. But as for individual instances of food, are they eternal? Of course not! So when you eat of a fruit, that one instance of fruit had a beginning, was preceded by non-existence and then expired and is not therefore eternal, but as a genus (collection, group, kind) that type of fruit will never expire, Allaah will always cause it to exist and renew, and likewise with all other rewards in Paradise, their specific instances expire but their genus is always present and it is renewed through Allaah's speech and action, which is also eternal, since Allah never ceases to be one who speaks and acts through His will and power as and when He wills (to bring about things), and all provisions given to the inhabitants of Paradise are from Allaah, they are His actions of providing for His believing servants whom He entered into Paradise. Thus, whilst every specific instance of that particular type of fruit came into being from non-existence, the genus (group) of that fruit will be eternal and never perish.

Now, to Ahl al-Sunnah there is absolutely no difference between an endless chain of events in the past and an endless chain of events in the future. It is a contradiction to affirm one and deny the other.

Note: This refutes also your flawed view about time. Time and space are measurements of existing things or events. In kalam theology, they treat time and space as if it was an actual dedicated self subsisting creature that Allah “Created”. So in this belief, to accept time coexisting along with the acts of God supposedly before “pre-time” would entail a blasphemy. Yet, in Sunni Islam, time and space is not viewed, spoke of, or treated as some form of self subsisting creature that Allah specifically created. Time and space are measurements of existing things or events. Time is merely the measurement of one event to another event. The same with space, which is the measurement between existential objects and the distance between them. As for time, Allah did not take the time out to dedicate the making of a creature called “time” as He does with actual existing things (humans, animals, planets, etc etc). Rather its just the measurement of one event juxtaposed to some other prior event. When time is correctly viewed like this, then the idea of being concerned over whether “time has existed along with Allah” essentially remains irrelevant regardless if there is an actual reality of infinite regress of events for the past or not.

[maturidee]

Bakheet al-Mutee'ee al-Ash'ari on an Endless Chain of Events (Hawaadith):

"The infinite regress (endless chain) which is impossible is the endless chain of contingent effects and causes (meaning each and every effect and cause is dependent on a prior one for its own existence). As for an endless chain in aathaar (effects, events) then we do not submit that it is impossible, and this endless chain is in relation to the aathaar (effects, events). Al-Asfahani said in Sharh al-Mahsul, "And this (what is said by al-Asnawi) has an observation against it because binding from it is the permissibility of events which have no beginning, and this is false in our view."

Then Bakheet al-Mutee'ee comments, quote: Al-Asnawi said: "The infinite regress (endless chain) which is impossible is the endless chain of (dependent) effects and causes (meaning each effect and cause requires a prior one for its existence). As for an endless chain in aathaar (effects) then we do not submit ... to the end." His speech is good, and as for the saying of al-Asfahani "And this (what is said by al-Asnawi) has an observation against it because binding from it is the permissibility of events which have no beginning, and this is false in our view", then we say: Just because it is baatil (false) in his view does not mean that it is baatil (false in reality) and in the matter itself. Because right until now, there has not been any evidence established for the impossibility of an endless chain (infinite regress) of aathaar (effects, events) present in external (reality), even if (the view) that an endless chain in this regard is impossible is widespread.

And that the view of an endless chain of events (hawaadith) is binding from [this view] does not harm the aqidah unless when we say, "There is no beginning to them (meaning, each and every one of the events does not have a beginning)" with the meaning "(no beginning) to their existence (wujood)" and this has not been said by anybody. Everybody is agreed that whatever is besides Allaah, the Exalted, from what has been or is yet to be, is originated, recent (Haadith), meaning, came to existence after non-existence, irrespective of looking at whether there is a limit to them in the past and future, or there is not limit to them (in the past and future) or to one of them (past or future). Do you not see that the consensus has been established upon the bliss of the people of Paradise, that it does not end and does not stop at a limit in the future, and after it itself had been originated (Haadith) with the meaning that it existed after non-existence. It does not harm us if we say that there is no end to it with the meaning that its individual instances will never cease and the absence of any limit at which they stop. But if we were to say that there is no end to them, with the meaning that their eternity is obligatory by virtue of their own inherent right, this would be disbelief. And likewise in the past, we speak of events without a beginning with the meaning that their individual instances do not have a limit at which they stop, and every single one of them existed after non-existence, however they do not cease within the infinite past. And if we said "there is no beginning to their (individual) existence (wujood) and there is no commencement for them (as in, for each individual instance, thereby making each individual instance eternal and without beginning)" then that would be speaking with their eternity and that is disbelief..."

This is from "Sullam al-Wusool li Sharh Nihaayt al-Sool" of al-Mutee'ee (Aalam al-Kutub, Cairo, 1343H, 2/103).

[aMuslimForLife]

12 years ago i signed up as Maturidee on this forum. I see it just as a name, in fact i wanted to change but could not register anew.

Well, i think you dont understand the issue. As opposed to the Asharis i do not believe in a dead-time creation and a in-active God.

My proofs are from the Qur'aan, here are two verses to illustrate very nicely, a key central issue around this whole debate and if you grasp it, the matter will become easy to understand and the error of the kalam theologists will be readily apparent. The first is the saying of Allaah, the Exalted about Paradise:

مَّثَلُ الْجَنَّةِ الَّتِي وُعِدَ الْمُتَّقُونَ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الأَنْهَارُ أُكُلُهَا دَآئِمٌ وِظِلُّهَا

The description of the Paradise which pious have been promised! Underneath it rivers flow, its provision is eternal and so is its shade. (13:35)

And also the saying of Allaah, the Exalated:

إِنَّ هَذَا لَرِزْقُنَا مَا لَهُ مِن نَّفَادٍ

It will be said to them)! Verily, this is Our provision which will never finish. (38:54)

In these two verses we see that Paradise and its reward, and its provision is eternal (though it had a beginning and was preceded by non-existence). The provision being referred to is referring to food, sustenance. Now, what this means is that the genus of food will be eternal and never expire. But as for individual instances of food, are they eternal? Of course not! So when you eat of a fruit, that one instance of fruit had a beginning, was preceded by non-existence and then expired and is not therefore eternal, but as a genus (collection, group, kind) that type of fruit will never expire, Allaah will always cause it to exist and renew, and likewise with all other rewards in Paradise, their specific instances expire but their genus is always present and it is renewed through Allaah's speech and action, which is also eternal, since Allah never ceases to be one who speaks and acts through His will and power as and when He wills (to bring about things), and all provisions given to the inhabitants of Paradise are from Allaah, they are His actions of providing for His believing servants whom He entered into Paradise. Thus, whilst every specific instance of that particular type of fruit came into being from non-existence, the genus (group) of that fruit will be eternal and never perish.

Now, to Ahl al-Sunnah there is absolutely no difference between an endless chain of events in the past and an endless chain of events in the future. It is a contradiction to affirm one and deny the other.

Note: This refutes also your flawed view about time. Time and space are measurements of existing things or events. In kalam theology, they treat time and space as if it was an actual dedicated self subsisting creature that Allah “Created”. So in this belief, to accept time coexisting along with the acts of God supposedly before “pre-time” would entail a blasphemy. Yet, in Sunni Islam, time and space is not viewed, spoke of, or treated as some form of self subsisting creature that Allah specifically created. Time and space are measurements of existing things or events. Time is merely the measurement of one event to another event. The same with space, which is the measurement between existential objects and the distance between them. As for time, Allah did not take the time out to dedicate the making of a creature called “time” as He does with actual existing things (humans, animals, planets, etc etc). Rather its just the measurement of one event juxtaposed to some other prior event. When time is correctly viewed like this, then the idea of being concerned over whether “time has existed along with Allah” essentially remains irrelevant regardless if there is an actual reality of infinite regress of events for the past or not.

It is not the position of the Asharis that any created thing is self-subsisting.

"It is He who created you and what you do" (Qur'an 37:96).

Asharis believe creation is contingent and dependent on Allah, while Allah is independent and self-subsisting (Sura 112).

Time is measurement, but this measurement is based on the movement of creation. Space is a location or a place that is based on reference points in creation. And Allah does not indwell in creation nor is He subjugated to creation. Allah is the creator and controller of creation, thus the controller and creator of time and space.

This is why we are told not to curse time, because Allah is the controller of it.

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Allah Almighty said: The son of Adam abuses me. He curses time and I am time, for in my hand are the night and day.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 4549, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2246)

Time can be altered. The Night of Power is 1000 months, (sura 97) or a Day is like a 1000 years (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or a day is like 50,000 years (Sura 70:4).

And Allah knows best.

[maturidee]

This is why we are told not to curse time, because Allah is the controller of it.

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Allah Almighty said: The son of Adam abuses me. He curses time and I am time, for in my hand are the night and day.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 4549, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2246)

Time can be altered. The Night of Power is 1000 months, (sura 97) or a Day is like a 1000 years (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or a day is like 50,000 years (Sura 70:4).

And Allah knows best.

The hadith does state that He created time. For example Ibn Hazm has a different view about this hadith. If i remember correctly he said that time is a eternal attribute of Allaah.

[aMuslimForLife]

The hadith does state that He created time. For example Ibn Hazm has a different view about this hadith. If i remember correctly he said that time is a eternal attribute of Allaah.

So you think time is uncreated?

Time is a measurement based on the movement of created things, like the rotation of the Earth. Allah says, "in My hand are the night and day." Night and day are based on the rotation of the Earth, and the Earth is created. A day is based on rotation of the Earth spinning on its axis. A year is based on revolution of the Earth moving around the Sun. Both the Sun and Earth were created by Allah.

There is a hadith which states the Sun will rise from the west in the last days.

[maturidee]

Who in this Ummah today relies on Ibn Hazm for Aqida?

Well, do you think that any regular person in this ummah believes that Allaah does not Hear it right at the spot when one says " Sami' Allaahu liman hamidah, Rabbanaa lakal hamd " during salaah ?

Do you think they will believe it accordingly ashari creed that Allaah actually did not Hear it (since this neccasiates a accident) but Knew it in pre-eternity as He Knew all things in pre-eternity in a single instant? Or do you think a ashari would claim Allaah did Hear in pre-eternity a non-existent worshipper saying it ?

[maturidee]

And i have another one: Do you think that anyone in this ummah would believe that right at the moment i am writing this post Allaah actually does not see me?

Do you think they would believe it accordingly ashari creed that Allaah does not see me know (since this would neccesiate a accident) but that he knew it from pre-eternity in a single instant. Or would you think a ashari would believe that Allaah saw in pre-eternity a non-existent me writing this comment?

Just asking...

[aMuslimForLife]

Well, do you think that any regular person in this ummah believes that Allaah does not Hear it right at the spot when one says " Sami' Allaahu liman hamidah, Rabbanaa lakal hamd " during salaah ?

Do you think they will believe it accordingly ashari creed that Allaah actually did not Hear it (since this neccasiates a accident) but Knew it in pre-eternity as He Knew all things in pre-eternity in a single instant? Or do you think a ashari would claim Allaah did Hear in pre-eternity a non-existent worshipper saying it ?

To be honest, I have never been taught the above from any Ashari scholar. I've been taught that Allah hears and sees.

The Ashari School of Aqida is divided into two parts. Usul al Din - Foundations of the Religion, which is based on the Quran and Sunnah and Ilm al Kalam - Scholastic Theology.

Asharis books of Aqida may contain both, and it is not obligatory for an Ashari to believe in all the conclusions that some of the scholars may have argued in those books. Many of the arguments exists in the books of Aqida as a means to teach the students of knowledge how to argue and identify strong arguments from weak arguments. They aren't there to say, we have to believe this or believe that. This is why books on Aqida should be studied with a shaykh who can explain the text properly.

The Ashari Muhadith, Shaykh al Islam Imam al Nawawi said concerning these two parts.

Concerning Usul Deen: Al Nawawi said, “As for the basic obligation of Islam, and what relates to tenets of faith, it is adequate for one to believe in everything brought by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and to credit it with absolute conviction free of any doubt.”

Concerning Ilm Kalam (Scholastic Theology- Discursive Proofs): Al Nawawi said, “Whoever does this is not obliged to learn the evidences of the scholastic theologians. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) did not require of anyone anything but what we have just mentioned, nor did the first four caliphs, the other prophetic Companions, nor others of the early Muslim community who came after them.” (al Majmoo)

And Imam Nawawi is considered an Ashari by all Asharis without exception. And all Asharis consider his opinion in matters of Aqida authoritative.

Allah says, "There is nothing like unto Him, yet He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer. "(42:11)

Imam al Ghazali says, "He (Allah) is all hearing and all seeing. He hears and sees, and nothing audible escapes His hearing no matter how quiet,nor does anything visible escape His vision no matter how small. Distance does not obscure His hearing, nor darkness veil His sight. He sees without pupils or eyelids, and hears without ear canals or ears, just as He knows with a heart, grasps without limbs, and creates without tools. His attributes no more resemble those of His creatures than His essence resembles the essences of His creatures." (Aqida al Ghazali also called al Risala al qudsiyya fi qawaid al aqaid - The Jerusalem epistle on the principles of the creed)

This is a standard text of Ashari Aqida, still taught today.

And Allah knows best

[Abu Sulayman]

Bakheet al-Mutee'ee al-Ash'ari on an Endless Chain of Events (Hawaadith):
...

He's mistaken on this issue and his view on this matter does not represent the Asha'ira.

Did you see how easy it is to reject wrong statements?
Instead of admitting that that the belief in Hawadith la Awwala laha (contingent / created things having no first) has no place in Islam, you blindly defend it just because Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) defended it (and this by the way due to him reading too much of the works of the philosophers and being influenced by them).