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

[maturidee]

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).

This is issue is like ABC tot me. I do not even need to follow Ibn Taymiyyah or else. Allaah could always have created something with a begin out of nothingless. Period. As simple as that. If you deny it, then the burden of limiting Allaah is upon you.

[maturidee]

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

Then you have affirmed an newly arising accident for Allaah. Do you understand this?

[Abu Sulayman]

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.

So you believe that there could be an endless chain of events before this very moment that we're writing each other? Then how did we reach this moment if there were a chain of ENDLESS events before us? It's obviously impossible for an endless chain of events to have existed before us and this is something were Ash'aris and Hanbalis actually agree.
If you're saying "no it's possible", then this is like acting as if trinity is possible too because both is clearly illogical.

Then: According to the Shar'i texts there is a first creation and it's also mentioned that Allah ta'ala existed while nothing else existed. So who gave you the right to reject these texts or to distort their meaning?

Temporality or created / contingent things having no first (Hawadith la Awwala laha) is nowhere supported by the Shar'i texts, rather the opposite. Al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la [al-Hanbali] (d. 458 AH) explicitly calls those who doubt this as ATHEISTS in his al-Mu'tamad (as already quoted HERE) and he lived way before Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH).
In fact if you were to see who from among the known classical scholars of Fiqh, Hadith, Tafsir and other sciences supported the belief in Hawadith la Awwala laha or regarded it as possible, you would not really find anyone to mention, but rather find them making Tabdi' or even Takfir of the one supporting this [dis]belief!
Only the philosophers and Ibn Taymiyya - who got this position from the philosopher Ibn Rushd (d. 595 AH) in the first place - supported this illogical position.

Regarding the future: It's possible for something to keep on existing without coming to an end if Allah ta'ala has willed it. This is not the same as saying that created things having no first and acting as if it's possible that a number of ENDLESS chain of events have PASSED until we reached to this very moment. An endless chain of events can by definition not come to an end in order for one to reach this moment.

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”.
...

This actually just shows your ignorance regarding Ash'aris, because they say that time and space are i'tibari things, which means that they are mental constructs and not real existing things. This however does not mean that this gives you the right to act as if these things apply to our Creator.

The thing that you don't seem to understand is that Allah ta'ala is beyond our imagination and therefore also beyond time and space. Your mistake is that you're - knowingly or unknowingly - trying to understand the reality of Allah ta'ala, which inevitably leads to Tashbih.

[aMuslimForLife]

Then you have affirmed an newly arising accident for Allaah. Do you understand this?

Oh you're one of those Salafis, who wants to have an Ilm al Kalam debate because you are losing the Quran and Sunnah debate....

I follow the Quran and Sunnah. Let's stick with the Quran and Sunnah. As a Muslim don't you think it is better to stick with the Quran and Sunnah, I mean why delve into Greek Philosophy when we don't have too?

[maturidee]

So you believe that there could be an endless chain of events before this very moment that we're writing each other? [B]Then how did we reach this moment if there were a chain of ENDLESS events before us?

I think you didn't understand it. The events itself are not an endless chain, all the events have a begin. This means there are a finite number of events, from a event whenever back in time till this event, hence we reached this moment. What is endless is, is the chain of actions (with its affects) of Allaah. As Allaah was ever as He was.

[Abu Sulayman]

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 ?

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...

Allah ta'ala is described with absolute perfection and He's free from any flaws, likeness or similarity. This is the foundation upon which the people of the Sunna view the Shar'i texts and this foundation is supported by clear-cut Ayat.

So let's implement this upon the attributes of Sam' and Basar:
Allah ta'ala is All-Hearing and All-Seeing and He's free from any flaws, likeness or similarity. This is what the people of the Sunna believe. We do not delve into the reality of His attributes, but rather affirm the divine attributes and relegate their reality to Him, because the reality of our Creator is beyond our imagination.

As for you creed: "God is All-Hearing and All-Seeing, but I'll imagine that God's attributes are somehow similar to my attributes and therefore think that God must go through moments in order for Him to be described with these attributes..."

The fundamental problem that you have is that you don't know your limits as a created being and start imaging the reality of the Creator and this leads you to all kinds of mistakes (including Tashbih).
Always remember: We're are tiny creatures and have no right to speak regarding our Creator as if we're speaking about another human being.

This is issue is like ABC tot me. I do not even need to follow Ibn Taymiyyah or else. Allaah could always have created something with a begin out of nothingless. Period. As simple as that. If you deny it, then the burden of limiting Allaah is upon you.

Come on, let's be honest with each other. Muslims in general believe that created things have a first and this because the Shar'i texts all indicate this!

Allah ta'ala could obviously have created other worlds before our world, but the Shar'i texts tell us that this world is the first and we accept this and believe in this. We believe that Allah ta'ala is Fa'alun lima yurid (He does whatever He wants) and He's not forced to create in order to be "perfect" as you "Salafis" believe.

The problem is that you're claiming that created things could have no first, which means that there always existed a creation alongside Allah ta'ala (and this necessitates the belief in the eternity of the world, which we both regard as disbelief) . Now the creation as a genus must have a beginning, because otherwise the eternity of the world would be necessitated from this.

[maturidee]

Oh you're one of those Salafis, who wants to have an Ilm al Kalam debate because you are losing the Quran and Sunnah debate....

I follow the Quran and Sunnah. Let's stick with the Quran and Sunnah. As a Muslim don't you think it is better to stick with the Quran and Sunnah, I mean why delve into Greek Philosophy when we don't have too?

I dont call myself a salafi. I am just investigating islamic creed. I follow also the Qur'aan and Sunnah.

But as i have showed the asharis in their creed are clearly illogical and paradoxal.

How they want affirm for Allaah seeing and hearing if they deny any newly arising accident for Allaah?

[Abu Sulayman]

I think you didn't understand it. The events itself are not an endless chain, all the events have a begin. This means there are a finite number of events, from a event whenever back in time till this event, hence we reached this moment. What is endless is, is the chain of actions (with its affects) of Allaah. As Allaah was ever as He was.

Believe me, I understand you. That's why I didn't state that you believe in the possibility of the world being eternal as a singular - even if this necessarily follows from your position (but I'm not ascribing to you this Lazim of your Madhhab!) -, but rather in kind or as a genus.

Allah ta'ala always existed and he never ceases to exist, because He's essential in His existence. We both agree on this, right?
He jalla jalaluhu always had the power to create and He created the world as He willed, so the creation is only possible in existence and dependent on Allah ta'ala for its existence. Agreed, right?

Now your argument is: Since Allah ta'ala always existed, it's possible that He created an infinite number of things one after the other before our existence - such that there is no first creation - while every one of these [created] things have a beginning.
The mistake that you're doing here is the following: You're assuming that Allah ta'ala is in time and goes through moments and that Him being eternal means to have existed since an infinite amount of time. Then you follow from this that denying the possibility of the above means to deny God's ability to create since eternity.
This is not correct, rather Allah ta'ala is beyond time and time is only a measurement that applies to created things, so that which you followed from your first mistake does not apply in reality.


If you want to argue otherwise and claim that Allah ta'ala is going through time, then why are you rejecting the statement of the philosophers that the world is eternal?
Let me explain their argument: God always existed and always had power to create. So He created the world since eternity - which makes the world eternal alongside Him -, because He Himself is Eternal.
What is their mistake?: They basically committed the mistake as you: Thinking that God being eternal means that He existed since an infinite amount of time.


The correct position is:
Allah ta'ala is the First and the Last and He existed before the existence of any created thing or being - because He's the Creator of all things and beings - and this means that His existence precedes the creation as a singular AND as a genus / kind!

[Abu Sulayman]

I dont call myself a salafi. I am just investigating islamic creed. I follow also the Qur'aan and Sunnah.

But as i have showed the asharis in their creed are clearly illogical and paradoxal.

How they want affirm for Allaah seeing and hearing if they deny any newly arising accident for Allaah?

Your problem is not simply with the Ash'aris, but rather with the Hanabila also because they have also declared Allah ta'ala transcendent from being subject to changes. In fact the Hanabila BEFORE Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) mentioned a consensus regarding this - which Ibn Taymiyya boldly rejected as is usual of him - and the Hanabila after him CONTINUED on this consensus and did not agree with Ibn Taymiyya on this.


I would like you to concentrate on this, because I opened this thread in order to compare the Hanabila of the past with today's so called "Salafis" and show that they do not agree with their creed.

[Abu Sulayman]

From another thread:

It's one thing to respect al-Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) as a Hanbali scholar, but it's a different one to try to spread his abnormal ideas and act as if the Hanabila were in agreement with him on these views.

Some of the major abnormal views of Ibn Taymiyya on creedal issues:

1) Rejection of relegating the knowledge of the correct interpretation [of the texts regarding the divine attributes] to Allah ta'ala (Tafwidh): This is something that no Hanbali scholar before him ever did. Rather they would defend Tafwidh - and state that these texts are from the Mutashabihat - and regard it as the only correct way and criticize the Ash'aris for Ta`wil ONLY, but never for Tafwidh.
Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) mentions Tafwidh explicilty in his Rawdhat al-Nadhir and defends it!

2) The claim that God is subject to changes (Hulul al-Hawadith): The Hanbali authorities BEFORE him explicitly stated that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from this. In fact it's mentioned in the Hanbali creedal work al-Idhah fi Usul al-Din [by Imam Ibn al-Zaghuni (d. 527 AH) that there is consensus among this nation regarding this being impossible ("لأن ذلك يوجب كون ذاته تعالى محلا للحوادث وهذا محال اتفقت الأمة قاطبة على إحالته")!
Ibn Taymiyya knew about this consensus (he mentions it!) and also that his own Hanbali forefathers - including his grandfather the Imam Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 652 AH) (who is among the greatest authorities of the Madhhab!) - believed Allah ta'ala to be transcendent from this, yet he explicitly mentioned that he disagrees with them on this and has left their way on this and on other issues of the foundations of religion and jurisprudence!

3) The claim that emergent things have no first (Hawadith la Awwala laha) and that the creation maybe eternal in kind (Qadim al-Naw'): No Hanbali has ever uttered such a thing! This entails open rejection of religious texts and al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) regards this as the belief of atheists (!) in his al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din.

4) The claim that the annihilation of the hellfire (Fana` al-Nar) is a correct opinion: We again do not know of any Hanabila before him ever supporting such a deviant position, which is refuted by the religious texts. His student Ibn Qayyim (d. 751 AH) mentioned that this position was adopted by him later in his life. He has a book on this called as "al-Radd 'ala man qala bi Fana` al-Janna wal Nar", where he refutes the deviant position that both paradise and hellfire will come to an end, but defends at the same time the deviant position that hellfire alone will come to an end.

There are other points, but I would say the above are the major points and some of them have been called as disbelief by Sunni authorities who lived before him.
The above points are wrong according to both groups of classical Sunnis: Ash'aris and Hanbalis.


Another major problem with Taymiyyans is the following:
They do not openly state what they believe and do not clarify it even after being asked again and again: This is especially true regarding the issue of corporeality (Tajsim). No one knows whether they believe God to be a 3-dimensional (or n-dimensional) being or whether they regard Him to be transcendent from this.
This point in itself is enough to stay away from them, because it seems that they are hiding something and don't want the people to know it. If not, then what stops them from clarifying that which they regard as correct without coming up with a dichotomy that the one asking them is obviously not intending?

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) stated in his al-Tis'iniyya 2/492:

وقد ظن من ذكر من هؤلاء كأبي علي وأبي الحسن بن الزغواني، أن الأمة قاطبة اتفقت على أنه لا تقوم به الحوادث، وجعلوا ذلك الأصل الذي اعتمدوه، وهذا مبلغهم من العلم، وهذا الإجماع نظير غيره من الإجماعات الباطلة المدعاة في الكلام وغيره -وما أكثرها- فمن تدبر وجد عامة المقالات الفاسدة يبنونها على مقدمات لا تثبت إلّا بإجماع مدعى أو قياس، وكلاهما عند التحقيق يكون باطلًا
- end of quote -

So he mentions Abu 'Ali al-Hashimi [al-Hanbali] (d. 428 AH) and Ibn al-Zaghuni [al-Hanbali] (d. 527 AH) and their statement regarding the consensus that Allah ta'ala is not subject to changes.
He thereafter rejects that such a consensus exists.

Now just look at the death dates: There is LITERALLY 300 years between them and we do not find a single Hanbali telling to Imam Abu 'Ali al-Hashimi "no you're wrong"! In fact we find it explicitly stated in the creedal books of the Hanabila BEFORE AND AFTER Ibn Taymiyya that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from being subject to changes. We likewise see Ibn Taymiyya explicitly stating that he has left the position of his [Hanbali] forefathers on this and other issues.

Yet we're supposed to believe Dr. Hatem al-Haj that there is no difference between him and [most of] the rest of the Hanabila.
If only people would start reading the actual sources.

[maturidee]

The problem is that you're claiming that created things could have no first, which means that there always existed a creation alongside Allah ta'ala (and this necessitates the belief in the eternity of the world, which we both regard as disbelief) . Now the creation as a genus must have a beginning, because otherwise the eternity of the world would be necessitated from this.

False. How can a creation exist beside Allaah if i say whatever Allaah creates, Allaah precedes it, and the created comes to existance from non-existance. So never is there anything else beside Allaah always existing.

Thus: every single thing created by Allaah was always preceded by its own non-existence and there is nothing that is eternal alongside Allaah. However, the genus of Allaah's actions are eternal, without any one specific action of His being eternal and the genus of events (brought about through Allaah's action) therefore follow the same principle, which is that the genus of events [following on from Allaah's actions] can also be said to be perpetual (after having first considered them to be permissible or possible). What we are distinguishing here is between (قدم النوع), the genus being eternal and (قدم العين), any particular instance being eternal. The Philosophers claimed that a particular act of Allaah is eternal supporting their view that the universe is eternal.

To summarize:

Ahl al-Sunnah say Allaah created the creation through speech and action which are tied to His will and power and since He is eternally like this and was never devoid of His attributes, then it is permissible and possible (yajuz, yumkin) to speak of an endless chain of events in the past [and this refers to Allaah's actions and what results from them of things external to His self] without that necessitating that any entity is eternal with Allaah, without having a beginning for its existence. Even if alongside that we say that the perpetual existence of the genus of created events (following on from Allaah eternally being one who speaks and acts as He wills) is a permissible or possible matter and for which there is no evidence that proves it impossible, neither through reason nor through revelation. And the illustration of that is simple. We ask the Mutakallimeen. Is it possible or impossible for Allah to have created anything before the heavens and earth? If they say "Yes, it is possible or permissible", then they have affirmed the permissiblity of an endless chain of events, because we can then ask the same question for that prior created thing, was it possible or impossible for Allaah to have created something prior to it. So this falsifies the basis of their entire theology and bang goes their corrupt proof of huduth al-ajsaam that relies upon the premise of an endless chain of events being impossible (for which they have no proof). And if they say, "No, it is impossible", then they are speaking about Allaah without knowledge and have no proof for this saying and it is a revilement upon Allaah's power, and it opposes what is indicated in the texts of created things prior to the creation of the heavens and earth [which they spuriously claim was the beginning of "space" and "time" - blindly-following the atheists in that saying!], such as the Throne, the water, the pen, the preserved tablet, which in turn indicate the permissibilty of other entities and events we have not specifically been informed of but on account of the generality of evidences in the Book and Sunnah are a permitted matter. Further, just like it is obligatory to affirm that Allaah is al-Aakhir (the Last, after whom there is none) whilst believing at the same time that Paradise is eternal, along with its inhabitants, then the issue of believing in the permissibility (jawaaz) or possibility (imkaan) of an endless chain of events in the past (each and every single one of which was preceded by its own non-existence) alongside affirming Allaah to be al-Awwal (the First, before whom there was none) poses no problem at all. Let any Ashari explain to us any real difference between this or that!

[maturidee]

]
The mistake that you're doing here is the following: You're assuming that Allah ta'ala is in time and goes through moments and that Him being eternal means to have existed since an infinite amount of time. Then you follow from this that denying the possibility of the above means to deny God's ability to create since eternity.
This is not correct, rather Allah ta'ala is beyond time and time is only a measurement that applies to created things, so that which you followed from your first mistake does not apply in reality.


If you want to argue otherwise and claim that Allah ta'ala is going through time, then why are you rejecting the statement of the philosophers that the world is eternal?
Let me explain their argument: God always existed and always had power to create. So He created the world since eternity - which makes the world eternal alongside Him -, because He Himself is Eternal.
What is their mistake?: They basically committed the mistake as you: Thinking that God being eternal means that He existed since an infinite amount of time.

Well, i already told you what i think about time, you object that this means God is subject to time. In reality time is subject to God–God creates time moment by moment by His will and power. God is eternal, but one of His actions can precede another (since we say a dynamic God is more perfect than a still God), and “time” simply means the succession of God’s acts. If God stopped acting, time would stand still–the universe would be like a paused video game. God acts every moment by causing atoms and photos to vibrate and move, and this is perhaps what causes time to exist. If everything stopped moving, time would stand still.

And they ask you to hasten the punishment. But God never breaks His promise. A day with your Lord is like a thousand years of your count.
(22:47)

The above verse both suggests that God is involved dynamically with time, and that time is relative. God can control how fast time moves in a universe merely by slowing down or speeding up how fast photons and atoms vibrate and move. The above verse suggests that our universe runs very fast compared to how God measures time on the outside of the universe. 1000 years pass here inside the universe when only one day passes with God. It is as if we live in a video game that has been sped-up by a factor of about 354360 (these are the number of days in 1000 lunar years).

Ashʿarites say it is impossible for God to do things one after another since He should do everything in one instant in pre-eternity. But Ibn Taymiyya says that a God who creates things one after another is more perfect. And if God creates things one after another, and if He creates each moment, then this means time is real, for us and for God, by God’s own choice in choosing to create each moment. Ashʿarites say time is just an illusion and this makes them deny free will (see my post "Asharis are hidden Jabariyyah").

[maturidee]

Allah ta'ala is described with absolute perfection and He's free from any flaws, likeness or similarity. This is the foundation upon which the people of the Sunna view the Shar'i texts and this foundation is supported by clear-cut Ayat.

So let's implement this upon the attributes of Sam' and Basar:
Allah ta'ala is All-Hearing and All-Seeing and He's free from any flaws, likeness or similarity. This is what the people of the Sunna believe. We do not delve into the reality of His attributes, but rather affirm the divine attributes and relegate their reality to Him, because the reality of our Creator is beyond our imagination.

Do you believe that Allaah saw your present action and heared your present speech: after He didn't saw and heared them?

[maturidee]

This is not correct, rather Allah ta'ala is beyond time and time is only a measurement that applies to created things, so that which you followed from your first mistake does not apply in reality.

The denial of the Mutakallimin that Allaah's actions are successive (rather than taking place all at once, in eternity, or not being attributed to His essence at all) makes binding upon them to speak with the universe being eternal, and this can be illustrated clearly and in depth in a separate article. They say Allaah is not confined by "time" (this is an ambiguous statement, and we agree with it upon its surface, but it implies rejection of a particular matter which is explained in the note below), so if Allaah is not confined by "time" (and time began with the creation of the heavens and earth and which they claim is the first and only creation of Allaah), and his iraadah and qudrah is eternal, and through that eternal iraadah and qudrah He created what is recent (the heavens and earth), then from Allaah's point of view, "time" does not exist (as it does for the creation) - according to how they see things - and therefore, the universe has to have been brought about in eternity as it relates to Allaah Himself because there was no "time" with Allaah, and thus for Allaah there is no "before" and "after" - upon what they claim. Further, if time (and space) was created with the creation of the heavens and earth (as they say), and time did not exist the moment prior to it, this means that the heavens and earth are in fact eternal because their creation took place in eternity (in the absence of the notion of time), with time only coming to be following the commencenment of the creation of the heavens and earth. All of this clashes with the revealed texts in which it is established that time and matter existed prior to the creation of the heavens and earth (decrees were written 50,000 years before actual creation and heavens and earth were created in six days which are other than our days, and the Throne, pen, water and preserved tablet existed before creation of heavens and earth). As for Ahl al-Sunnah, they say that Allaah having speech and action tied to His will and power and which is successive is a completely separate issue to the matter of time, and time is not required for Allaah to be one who speaks and acts by His will successively, since time is simply the measurement of motion (which is relative time) and that Allaah is one who speaks and acts successively is independent of measurement of time, even if we can speak of Allaah's speech and action in relation to relative time as Allaah Himself does in the revealed texts (Allaah's speech and action are mentioned in relation to our measurement of time very often and is frequent and abundant in the revealed texts which none can deny save an arrogant person). Yet none of that necessitates that Allaah is "confined" by time as they claim. Further, had there been no celestial bodies or movement through which any measurement of time can be established, Allaah would remain one who speaks and acts through His wish and power, successively, for eternity and clearly He is not "confined by time."Note: When we say Allaah's has actions which are successive, being this way due to them being tied to His iraadah and qudrah, we do not mean that Allaah can only do one action at any one point or moment, this is not what is meant, but just the notion of succession is being indicated, for it is the case that Allaah has innumerable actions at any one point, Allaah may cause a person to die, another to be born, or to be conceived, and He may mobilize the wind, or the sea, cause a leaf to drop, give honour or dishonour, grant victory or relief and so on, all of these are actions ascribed to Allaah. This is because Allaah's iraadah, qudrah and fi'l is unlike that of the creation, and we cannot truly grasp how it is. However, alongside this, the notion of succession has to be affirmed and without this, you will be forced to gravitate to either the misguidance of the Philosophers of an eternal universe, or to the misguidance of the Mutakallimin of a creation that came about without any act of creation actually taking place in reality. And both of these two misguidances are not too far off from each other (considering that the Mutakallimun claim the heavens and earth were created when there was no "time")!

[maturidee]

If you want to argue otherwise and claim that Allah ta'ala is going through time, then why are you rejecting the statement of the philosophers that the world is eternal?
Let me explain their argument: God always existed and always had power to create. So He created the world since eternity - which makes the world eternal alongside Him -, because He Himself is Eternal.
What is their mistake?: They basically committed the mistake as you: Thinking that God being eternal means that He existed since an infinite amount of time.

The immediate difference between what the Philosophers say and what Ibn Taymiyyah and Ahl al-Sunnah say: The Philosophers assert that Allaah is permanently acting, but their understanding of "acting" is that Allaah's essence "acts" in the sense that His essence necessitates the presence of the universe, and all actions both in their genus (النوع) (as a group, whole) and in specific instances (العين), are all eternal, and they do not hold that Allaah has choice (ikhtiyaar) such that Allaah acts as and when He chooses in a successive manner, rather "acting" is a permanent state of the essence. This leads to the kind of universe:

It means that all things that we see taking place around us, such as the alternation of night and day, the winds, the clouds, the rain, plants and trees growing and so on to include every event in the universe, that they all took place in eternity and this universe is therefore a static universe with everything that happened, happens and is to happen all happening at once, and that this is the only thing present in eternity. Which is the most ridiculous assertion. And this is pure falsehood, this is impossible! Because we see all around us events taking place and changes taking place and new things arising and happening all the time. So it is pure falsehood to assert this, and they, the Mutafalsifah brought something more ridiculous than the Mutakallimun

As for Ahl al-Sunnah they say that Allaah acts according to choice, through His will and power, as and when He wills, and since He has eternally been like that, the genus of His actions can never be said to have been impossible, or non-existent. Thus, we speak of an endless chain of Allaah's actions in the past (as we do in the future). Pay close attention here, you need to use your imagination. When Ahl al-Sunnah say Allah's actions (as a whole, as a genus) are eternal, it is upon their belief that Allaah's actions arise through choice and are successive. Whereas what the Philosophers say (they remove choice from Allaah) and they say Allaah is permanently acting (through His essence, devoid of choice), such that all action is occurring simultaneously in eternity without beginning. This is an impossible scenario to present and one that can't be imagined because it means that all events that ever take place in the universe have to happen at a single instant where we have a freeze-framed, static universe in which all matter and all events that are to ever exist are present eternally with Allaah, necessitate by His essence. This is what the position of the Philosophers necessitates, and as you can see it is the greatest of falsehood, and is proven false just by basic observation, where we see lots of hawaadith (events) taking place and a changing world and a changing universe. As for Ahl al-Sunnah their notion of "action" is unlike that of the Mutakallimun and the Philosophers who are all agreed that Allah does not act through choice in a successive manner. Thus, when Ahl al-Sunnah affirm that the genus of Allaah's actions are eternal, it is impossible for any one action of Allaah to be eternal, because Allah's action here is unlike the action posited by the Philosophers and the Maturidis, and hence it is impossible for a created entity or event arising through Allaah's action (which arises through Allaah's choice, will and power, in a successive manner) to be eternal along with Him, without a beginning.