Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Ash'arism (and Maturidism) and kalam theology in general is just a propped up incoherent academic fraud. The "Ash'arites" have to deny all the attributes pretty much, except life (hayaat) (which is laazim). As for hearing and seeing (these are muta'addi), they must deny them because they imply huduth (Allaah hearing and seeing things that are recent), and likewise iraadah and qudrah (Allaah willing and exercising power over things which are of recent occurrence) and Allah's knowledge (prior to Zayd dying it is in Allaah's knowledge that Zayd is living and will die at an appointed time, and when Zayd has died, it is in Allaah's knowledge that Zayd was living, has died and died at the appointed time). These Jahmites wish to escape from the deity of the Qur'an and seek refuge instead in the deity of Aristotle, an abstract, static, frozen deity, unable to actually hear, actually see, actually speak, or act.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by maturidee View Post
      Ash'arism (and Maturidism) and kalam theology in general is just a propped up incoherent academic fraud. The "Ash'arites" have to deny all the attributes pretty much, except life (hayaat) (which is laazim). As for hearing and seeing (these are muta'addi), they must deny them because they imply huduth (Allaah hearing and seeing things that are recent), and likewise iraadah and qudrah (Allaah willing and exercising power over things which are of recent occurrence) and Allah's knowledge (prior to Zayd dying it is in Allaah's knowledge that Zayd is living and will die at an appointed time, and when Zayd has died, it is in Allaah's knowledge that Zayd was living, has died and died at the appointed time). These Jahmites wish to escape from the deity of the Qur'an and seek refuge instead in the deity of Aristotle, an abstract, static, frozen deity, unable to actually hear, actually see, actually speak, or act.
      Oh you Taymiyyan-Salafi, you speak with the tongue the Jahmiyyah and the Mutazilah. You are trying to convince me, that Allah and created things share Attributes (tashbih). autho bllah. You know my brother or sister that I was once a Taymiyyan-Salafi, so I am not easily deceived by your tactics and methods. You can't fool me, nor am I impressed by your ignorance. You are trying to convince me, that Allah and created things share Attributes (tashbih). This is what the Mutazilah and Taymiyyan-Salafis have in common, in that they both make tashbih of the Attributes of Allah. This is what made the Mutazilah deny the Attributes of Allah, while the Taymiyyan-Salafis simply affirms Tashbih for Allah. (Authibillah). Yes, the Salafis are Al Mushabbihah (Anthropomorphist). Salafi scholars openly admit tashbih (likening Allah to His creation).

      Some Salafis will argue and say, no I have been taught to negate tashbih (likening Allah to His creation). We only affirm the apparent meanings (Dhahir), without radd (rejection), tawil (misinterpretation), tashbih (resemblance), and tamthil (likening).

      Many Salafis are unaware of that tashbih is entailed in their understanding of the dhahir, this is because the beginning student of knowledge are taught to negate tashbih while the advance student of knowledge is taught to affirm tashbih. This can be seen in the writings of Ibn Uthaymeen.




      The Devil's Deception of Salafi Aqida





      Salafis Negate Tashbih In The Beginning:

      Sharh Lumat ul Itiqaad li Ibn Qudamah by Ibn Uthaymeen is a beginning text on Aqida.


      Ibn Uthaymeen said, "The text from the Quran and Sunnah that mention Allah's Attributes can be divided into two categories: Those that are clear and obvious and those that are ambiguous and hidden. The clear ones are those that have an evident wording and meaning. Thus, believing in them, in their literal sense, and affirming their meanings is obligatory without committing radd (rejection), taweel (misinterpretation), tashbih (comparison) and tamthil (representation)." (Ibn Uthaymeen - Sharh Lumat ul Itiqaad li Ibn Qudamah)

      Ibn Uthaymeen also said, “Tashbih – The affirming of a comparison to Allah in which is specific for Him alone, whether with respect to Himself or His Attributes. This amounts to disbelief since it is a form of shirk, ascribing partners to Allah. It consists of ascribing deficiencies to Allah since He is compared to creation, which has deficiencies.” (Ibn Uthaymeen - Sharh Lumat ul Itiqaad li Ibn Qudamah)

      Salafis Affirm Tashbih as they Advance in Aqida

      Ibn Uthaymeen said, “To negate Tashbih (resemblance) in its entirety is not correct, because there are no two things among entities or attributes, except that they share something together between them. This commonality is a type of resemblance. If you, therefore, negate Tashbih absolutely, you are (by that) negating everything wherein there is a form of resemblance between the Creator and the creature. For example, existence: Both the Creator and the creature primarily share this together.” (Ibn Uthaymeen -Sharh Aqida Wasatiyyah)

      Ibn Taymiyyah said, "One may say that there must be a guideline in this area by which it can be known what is permissible for Allah and impermissible for Him in affirmation and negation. Relying upon mere negation of resemblance (tashbih) or an unrestricted affirmation without resemblance is unsound. That is because there are no two things except that they have a shared portion (qadr mushtarak) between them as well as that which sets them apart." [Risala al Tadmuriyya li Ibn Taymiyyah]

      Yes, the Salafis are Al Mushabbihah (Anthropomorphist). And the Mushabbihah are not from Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah.

      Imam al Tahawi said, "We ask Allah for a firm foundation in faith, that He seal our lives with it, and that He protect and preserve us from any heresies, variant and baseless opinions, and corrupt doctrines, such as the Anthropomorphism (al mushabbihah), Rationalists (al Mutazilah), Pantheists (al Jahmiyyah), Determinist (al jabriyyah), Dualists (al qadariyyah) and any other deviant sects that oppose the Sunnah and the majority of Muslim scholars (Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah) and that ally themselves with misguidance. We completely absolved from them. For us, they are astray and ruined. Ultimately, protection and success is from Allah alone." (Aqida al Tahawi)



      The Salafus Salih opposed Tashbih





      Tashbih is to liken Allah to His creation.

      Imam Tahawi said, “Imaginations cannot attain Him; comprehensions cannot perceive Him. Creatures do not bear any similarity (tashbih) to Him.” (Aqida Tahawi)

      Nuaym b Hammad, the Shaykh of Al Bukhari, may Allah have mercy upon them said, "Whoever draws a resemblance between Allah and His creation has disbelieved, and whosoever denies what Allah has described Himself with has also disbelieved - there is no resemblance (tashbih) or likeness (tamthil) in that with which Allah or His Messenger have described Him." [Sharh Risala al Tadmuriyya]

      "Ibn Wahb says, I heard Malik say, "Whoever recites "The Hand of Allah" (3:73)(5:64)(48:10)(57:29) and indicates his hand or recites "The eye of Allah" (20:39)(11:37)(23:27)(52:48)(54:14) and indicates that organ of his: let it be cut off to disciple him over Divine Sacredness and Transcendence above what he has compared Him to, and above his own comparison to Him. Both his life and the limb he compared to Allah are cut off." (Ibn al Arabi al Maliki, Ahkam al Quran)

      Imam Ahmad said, "Whoever moves his hand while reciting the verse, "I created with both My Hands" (38:75) or gestures with his fingers when narrating the hadith, "The heart of the believer is between two fingers of the Merciful," cut their hands or fingers off!" (Al Shahrastani, Al Milal Wal Nihal)

      Compare that with Ibn Uthaymeen statement when he said, I said, " If you say, 'What is the image of Allah in which Adam is created?' We reply, "Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, has a Face, an Eye, Hand and Foot, the Mighty and Sublime, but it is not imperative that these be similar to that of humans. While there is a form of resemblance (tashbih), but it is not a similarity, as there is a resemblance between the first group to enter Paradise and the moon but without being the same." (Ibn Uthaymeen -Sharh Aqida Wasatiyyah) authobillah.

      The Salafi understanding of dhahir in reference to Allah's Attributes entails tashbih (Likening Allah to His creation).

      This is against the Quranic verse, "There is absolutely nothing like Him, yet He Hears and Sees." (42:11)

      Ibn Uthaymeen argues, that Allah negates tamthil not tashbih. The ignorance of this statement is that tamthil includes tashbih.

      Imām al-Rāghib al-Asbahānī said in Mufradāt al-Qur’ān: “Mithl is an expression about resemblance with something in any property from its properties, whatever property it may be. It is broader than other words designated for resemblance. That is, nidd is said about something that shares in essence only, shibh is said about something that shares in quality only, musāwī is said about something that shares in quantity only, shakl is said about something that shares in measure and distance only. Mithl is broader than all of that. This is why when Allāh (Exalted is He) wished to negate tashbīh from every dimension, He mentioned this specifically, so He said: laysa ka mithlihī shay’.” (al-Mufradāt, p. 597)




      The Key to Understanding Their Deviancy




      Allah says, "There is nothing like Him, yet He hears and sees.." "laysa ka mithlihī shay ’.”(42:11)

      Imam al Bayhaqi said, “When Allāh intended to negate tashbih (making a resemblance between Allāh and His creation) in the most emphatic way that a negation can [possibly] be made, He put together in our recitation the particles of similitude (i.e. ka) with the noun of resemblance (i.e. mithl), so that the negation is emphasized to the utmost.” (Al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt, 2:34)

      There is a double emphasis on nothing being like Allah. "laysa ka mithlihī shay": no (laysa) like (ka) like (mithl) Him (hi) a thing (shay).

      "There is absolutely nothing like Him, yet He Hears and Sees." (42:11)

      When you say, Allah's hearing and seeing entails an accident (huduth), this is because you understand Allah's hearing is like our hearing to some degree. You are probably like "how can Allah hear without accidents?", this because you are comparing your hearing with Allah's Hearing. I believe Allah's Hearing and Seeing are completely unlike our Hearing and Seeing in every way. So much so, that Allah's Hearing and Seeing are beyond our comprehension, completely beyond anything we can imagine.

      If you ask me, "How does Allah hears and sees without accidents? "

      I answer, "I don't know how Allah hears and sees, except that I know He does, and say what the Salaf said, "Bila Kayf (without how)."

      I say what Imam Shafi (d. 204 AH) said, “I believe in Allah, according to what came from Allah, according to what Allah intended. And I believe in the Messenger of Allah, according to what came from the Messenger of Allah, according to what the Messenger of Allah intended., peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.” (Ibn Qudamah in Lam’at al Itiqad)

      Or what Imam Shafi's student Imam al Humaydi said, “All that the Quran and Hadiths said, such as, "The Jews say, the Hand of Allah is fettered. Their own hands are fettered."(5:64) "And the heavens are rolled up in His right hand." (39:67) and similar texts in the Quran and the hadith. We add nothing to them nor do we explain them. Rather, we stop exactly where the Quran and the Sunna stopped. You must say, "The Merciful established Himself over the Throne." (20:5). Whoever claims other than this is a Jahmi nullifier." (Al Humaydi's Musnad)

      And I say All the above as an Ashari, a lover of the Quran and Sunnah, and a follower of the way of the Salafus Saleh.

      I am not a Salafi, thus I do not make tashbih, nor I am one of the mutazilah, thus I do not deny what is in the Quran.

      And Allah knows best.
      Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 28-12-20, 12:41 PM.
      My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

      Comment


      • Several points for the Taymiyyan maturidee:

        - This thread is a comparison between the creed of the mainstream Hanabila of the past and the modern "Salafi" movement. I asked you to concentrate on this and you ignored this.

        - May I ask you why you’re copy-pasting from the so called "asharis"-website and thinking that this is how a proper discussion works? The website is filled with mistakes and I've most likely read their half-true and even outright wrong articles BEFORE you. So please make answers to what is stated here and stop copy-pasting.

        - You don't need to explain to me the Madhhab of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) on this issue again and again. I already know his Madhhab on this and you should seriously start understanding what one is saying before trying to explain your Madhhab another time.

        Let me make it easy for you, so that we stop repeating ourselves:
        According to your Madhhab it's possible that before this world there existed another creation and before that another one and before that another one and this goes on and on without reaching a first creation.
        This means that in your understanding it’s possible that the creation is eternal as a genus alongside God. It does not mean that you regard a particular creation to be eternal alongside God.

        This is your Madhhab and I clearly understand it, so for God's sake don’t explain it another time. The actual issue gets lost when you repeat yourself again and again.

        What’s our problem with your understanding:
        Our problem is that you’re opposing the Shar'i texts which state that there is a first creation and our problem with you is also that your statement is illogical and is just a modified version of the position of the philosophers.
        You’re basically saying that it’s possible that a past infinite progression comes to completion and we say it’s impossible.
        Please reread the last sentence again and again until you understand it.

        As for our position:
        The creation - as a genus! - has a beginning, so there existed a first creation before which not a single creation existed. Allah ta’ala precedes the creation and this no matter if one looks at a particular creation or the creation as a genus and saying otherwise is deviation from the correct path. FULL-STOP.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by maturidee View Post

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


          So you believe that Allah ta’ala being described with Sam' and Basar means that He hears and sees things in sequence just like we do and that there happens a change to the divine Self?!
          Why are you forcing your limited imagination and comprehension upon the reality of the divine attributes?!

          What you should do is affirm the attributes of absolute perfection and declare Allah ta’ala transcendent from all flaws, likeness and similarity. You should know your limit and stop trying to speak regarding the reality of the divine attributes, because this is beyond our comprehension.

          Using your "logic" it would mean that God literally wanted "to find out" who will strive for His sake and did not know this eternally (as some mindless Qadariyya claimed):

          { أَمْ حَسِبْتُمْ أَن تُتْرَكُوا وَلَمَّا يَعْلَمِ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا مِنكُمْ وَلَمْ يَتَّخِذُوا مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَلَا رَسُولِهِ وَلَا الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَلِيجَةً ۚ وَاللَّهُ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ }

          [Al-Qur`an al-karim, 9:16]


          And another point: Where does all this "let's use my imagination regarding my Creator as if I'm not a tiny limited servant" stop? What's the next thing you will claim? God sees through literal eyes? O wait, Ibn 'Uthaymin literally states this. Allahul musta'an!


          Last point: We believe that Allah ta’ala is transcendent above going through states or being subject to changes or movement OR stillness. None of this applies to Him, so your dichotomy of "dynamic God vs still God" is rejected, because we don’t ascribe to any of the two.
          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-12-20, 02:03 PM.

          Comment


          • To the Taymiyyan, who wants to divert from the actual topic of this thread:

            You've mentioned two issues - that of the possibility of created things having no first (Hawadith la Awwala laha) and that of God being subject to changes (Hulul al-Hawadith) - and claimed that affirming both is the position of the Ahl al-Sunna.

            Now I ask you who from among the major scholars of the Hanabila of the past agreed with these two points? Quote them!
            How many percent of them had the same position as Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) in these two issues?

            And how many percent of the major Ash'ari and Maturidi scholars have supported this?

            If the people supporting these two positions are almost non-existing among the classical scholars, then are the Ahl al-Sunna such a tiny and unknown group according to you?!?

            Comment


            • Abu Sulayman, first of all don't call me Taymiyyah of Salafi or else beside Muslim. I don't do taqlid. I am a muhaqqiq.

              You said to me, and i quote you:

              ​​​​​​"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)"

              This is a false allegation what you made. I never claimed that always a creation existed or have could existed alongside Allaah. What i said is that always Allaah have could created something that did before not exist.

              So always there was Allaah and nothing beside Him, and then by His Will and Choice He could have created something. When He decides and wants something He just says "Be" and it is.

              Eternity is not a point in time, when the asharis say Allaah willed everything in pre-eternity in a single instant then already this is problematic. This denotes already a point in time, not to speak about the absurd binding neccasities of this view (such as al-jabr). God's eternity means that He always have existed without a begin. It does not mean a single instant of it.

              Space, matter and time (zaman, motion of celestial bodies) all existed before the creation of this creation (without them being eternal), as is clearly evidenced in the texts of the Book and the Sunnah. For Allah wrote the determination (decrees) of this creation 50,000 years before its actual creation, indicating a measurement of time prior to this creation and likewise the six days of creation (of the heavens and earth) are days other than the days of this earth. Muslim brings the hadeeth of Abd Allaah bin Amr in his Sahih, that the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said,"Allaah wrote the decrees of the creation 50,000 years before He created the creation, and His Throne was over the water." This proves the presence of three things, a measurement of time prior to this creation, the Throne and the water and from other ahaadeeth, we learn of the creation of the pen (al-qalam) and the preserved tablet (al-lawh al-mahfudh). As such the claim of "space" and "time" being created with this creation is an incorrect, futile saying. There are statements from the Salaf that the heavens and earth were made from already existing nebula (mist, smoke, vapourized particles) which itself came from already existing water (which ultimately was created by Allaah whenever He wanted it).



              Comment


              • Originally posted by maturidee View Post
                Abu Sulayman, first of all don't call me Taymiyyah of Salafi or else beside Muslim. I don't do taqlid. I am a muhaqqiq.
                Do you even know what a Muhaqqiq is before using such big titles for yourself?

                Then: For God's sake stop repeating yourself and get to the issue of this thread! If you’re unable to understand my comments and this even though I clearly and obviously differentiated between genus / kind and singular / particular from the very beginning, then do not blame anyone except yourself.

                You're literally arguing for the possibility of the creation as a genus (not a particular creation!) to be eternal alongside God, because you think that you can imagine how God's actions are.
                It's weird and frightening how you think you've understood the reality of the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth! What happened to not speaking regarding Allah ta'ala without knowledge?!

                Now answer me please:
                What percentage of the major Hanabila or the Asha'ira or the Maturidiyya agrees with you on Hawadith la Awwala laha and Hulul al-Hawadith?! Or let’s just ask regarding the Hanabila!


                PS: The throne, the water and the pen are all creation! So it's expected for time to apply in the presence of these created things. You've literally no point here!
                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-12-20, 02:38 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                  [B] God being subject to changes (Hulul al-Hawadith) - and claimed that affirming both is the position of the Ahl al-Sunna.
                  There is Fakhr al-Raazi who said "All Factions Affirm 'Hawaadith' For Allaah Despite Denying It" and he gave many proofs.

                  And i believe this is why later Asharis also denied that Allaah hears and sees. No matter what you do, if you affirm it, you affirm hawaadith for Allaah.

                  See: http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...jahmite-as.cfm

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by maturidee View Post

                    There is Fakhr al-Raazi who said "All Factions Affirm 'Hawaadith' For Allaah Despite Denying It" and he gave many proofs.

                    And i believe this is why later Asharis also denied that Allaah hears and sees. No matter what you do, if you affirm it, you affirm hawaadith for Allaah.

                    See: http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...jahmite-as.cfm
                    What kind of "Muhaqqiq" are you please, when you depend on the joke that the [anti-]"asharis"-website is?
                    These articles - which are literally filled with mistakes - are not new to me.
                    You should learn that reading random websites doesn’t mean you've understood the position of the Asha’ira, who by the way were the majority of the leading scholars of this Umma. This alone should make you ashamed to speak regarding them in the manner you speak.

                    If you would do a proper Tahqiq, you would know that this statement in the book of Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) isn’t his own opinion nor does he agree with it! He clarified his own position clearly elsewhere!
                    Imam al-Razi is known for this style of discussing things.

                    And I ask you again: How many from among the major classical Hanabila agrees with both of your points? Give us a percentage! Why are you afraid?
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 28-12-20, 03:16 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                      So you believe that Allah ta’ala being described with Sam' and Basar means that He hears and sees things in sequence just like we do and that there happens a change to the divine Self?!
                      So you believe He Saw and did Hear you always without a change?

                      Fakhr al Raazi when giving proofs that actually all fractions do affirm hawaadith, he wrote:

                      And the second (proof is): That it is impossible for it to be said in past eternity that He used to request from Zaid the establishment of the prayer and giving of Zakah in the present [because Zayd never existed]. Then when Zayd came into existence He began requesting him to establish the prayer in the present and to give the zakah. This request (talb) is an enjoinment and an occurring enjoinment is that which was taking place [requesting Zayd] and then completed and fully taken place [having requested from Zayd], and this necessitates the occurrence of a [new] attribute in the essence of Allaah, the Exalted. And if someone was to say: He being one who [in eternity] requested Zayd in the present to establish the prayer is a [case of a] specific connection (ta'alluq) and a specific relationship (nisbah) [between that which is eternal and that is current, present], and is not [treated as an issue of] attributes (sifaat). We say: These connections and relationships [you are claiming], do they have an actual [true and real] existence or is not the case [that they do]? The second [situation] (that there is not true and real existence to these claimed "connections" and "relationships") requires negation of Him, the Exalted, being one who requests the establishment of the prayer and giving of zakah in the present. And as for the first (that these alleged "connections" and "relationships" are true and real and actually exist), then it requires the occurrence of a [new] attribute in Allaah's essence.

                      And the third (proof is): Which is that it is impossible that He, the Exalted, hears the Voice of Zayd before his existence and that He sees the form of Zayd before its existence. Thus, Him being one who listens to that Voice, this only occurred at the occurrence of that Voice, and His seeing that form [of Zaydd] only occurred at the occurrence of that form, and this requires the occurrence of these [new attributes] in the essence of Allaah, the Exalted.

                      So in summary:

                      ​The second proof: It is not possible for Allaah to have requested in eternity a non-existent Zayd to fulfil the obligation of prayer and zakat in the present (as in now) - since Zayd did not exist then. Requesting something is to make something binding and to make something binding is something that occurs and completes, and this necessitates in al-Razi's terminology, huduth al-sifah, a new attribute in Allaah's essence. To hold that Allaah is eternally requesting Zayd to fulfil the obligation of prayer and zakat, before the creation of Zayd and after Zayd perishes is absurd and opposes naql (revealed text) and aql (sound reason).

                      The Third proof: It is impossible for Allaah to have heard the Voice of Zayd or the form of Zayd before he was created. Allaah hearing that Voice or seeing Zayd was only when Zayd spoke or when he came into existence with a form. This necessitates huduth (something new, recent) in the essence of Allaah according to al-Razi. To put it another way, whatever you are doing right now, did Allaah see you in your bodily form doing it in eternity? If so, that would mean you are eternal along with Allaah's attributes. The answer is no, Allaah is seeing you and your actual form (body with soul) and hearing you (Voice) right now, as you exist, but this was not the case before Allah brought you into existence with an actual form.



                      The Ash'arites of course have no answer to these questions and all they did (and continue to do) was to play word games, and that really is the essence of the Ash'arite (Jahmite) school. It is all about playing with words and definitions to wriggle out of difficulties. So what the Ash'ari (Jahmites) did was to say that hearing (sam') and seeing (basr) are really knowledge (ilm), when Allaah hears, it means He knows and when He sees, it means He knows. And in this way, the Ash'arites are actually forced to deny Allaah has actual hearing (by which He hears His creation) and actual seeing (by which He sees His creation) - otherwise the argument above is binding upon them, and they are forced to acknowledge that the foundation of their madhhab and creed is laid to waste, in ruins, in utter annihilation, and the game is over and done with. This is what we find the Later Ash'aris tending to, explaining away hearing and seeing to mean knowledge, because the implication finally sank into their confused brains (which were roasted and toasted by that ilm-kalaam), after many centuries.

                      Comment


                      • It seems I'm speaking with a wall.

                        I'm asking him to be on-topic and to tell us the percentage of major classical Hanabila who agree with both of his points and he keeps on copy-pasting from a website that is literally filled with mistakes!

                        Let's make it easy for you, o Muhaqqiq:

                        Swear to Allah ta’ala that you’re 100 % sure that Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) believed that Hulul al-Hawadith is necessary upon all groups to affirm and that this is his own position and not part of his typical way of discussing things, where he mentions a position in order to clarify it or refute it later on!

                        It's really a shame how the internet made it possible for children like you to make accusations against the leading scholars of this Umma without having any knowledge of the things that you speak of. Allahul musta'an!

                        Comment


                        • ...




                          My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                            It seems I'm speaking with a wall.

                            I'm asking him to be on-topic and to tell us the percentage of major classical Hanabila who agree with both of his points and he keeps on copy-pasting from a website that is literally filled with mistakes!

                            Let's make it easy for you, o Muhaqqiq:

                            Swear to Allah ta’ala that you’re 100 % sure that Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) believed that Hulul al-Hawadith is necessary upon all groups to affirm and that this is his own position and not part of his typical way of discussing things, where he mentions a position in order to clarify it or refute it later on!

                            It's really a shame how the internet made it possible for you to make accusations without having any knowledge of the things that you speak of. Allahul musta'an!
                            Stay on the topic, it seems you are running away to answer my given arguments and proofs.

                            As i said i am a muhaqqiq. I dont reason things over names or fractions with their views. It does totally not bother me if i would oppose all the Asharis or Hanbalis or Salafis or Hanafis. Nor i am a advocate of any of them.

                            Here i am discussing with you a subject, so just give me direct answers on the subject.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by maturidee View Post

                              So you believe He Saw and did Hear you always without a change?

                              Fakhr al Raazi when giving proofs that actually all fractions do affirm hawaadith, he wrote:

                              And the second (proof is): That it is impossible for it to be said in past eternity that He used to request from Zaid the establishment of the prayer and giving of Zakah in the present [because Zayd never existed]. Then when Zayd came into existence He began requesting him to establish the prayer in the present and to give the zakah. This request (talb) is an enjoinment and an occurring enjoinment is that which was taking place [requesting Zayd] and then completed and fully taken place [having requested from Zayd], and this necessitates the occurrence of a [new] attribute in the essence of Allaah, the Exalted. And if someone was to say: He being one who [in eternity] requested Zayd in the present to establish the prayer is a [case of a] specific connection (ta'alluq) and a specific relationship (nisbah) [between that which is eternal and that is current, present], and is not [treated as an issue of] attributes (sifaat). We say: These connections and relationships [you are claiming], do they have an actual [true and real] existence or is not the case [that they do]? The second [situation] (that there is not true and real existence to these claimed "connections" and "relationships") requires negation of Him, the Exalted, being one who requests the establishment of the prayer and giving of zakah in the present. And as for the first (that these alleged "connections" and "relationships" are true and real and actually exist), then it requires the occurrence of a [new] attribute in Allaah's essence.

                              And the third (proof is): Which is that it is impossible that He, the Exalted, hears the Voice of Zayd before his existence and that He sees the form of Zayd before its existence. Thus, Him being one who listens to that Voice, this only occurred at the occurrence of that Voice, and His seeing that form [of Zaydd] only occurred at the occurrence of that form, and this requires the occurrence of these [new attributes] in the essence of Allaah, the Exalted.

                              So in summary:

                              ​The second proof: It is not possible for Allaah to have requested in eternity a non-existent Zayd to fulfil the obligation of prayer and zakat in the present (as in now) - since Zayd did not exist then. Requesting something is to make something binding and to make something binding is something that occurs and completes, and this necessitates in al-Razi's terminology, huduth al-sifah, a new attribute in Allaah's essence. To hold that Allaah is eternally requesting Zayd to fulfil the obligation of prayer and zakat, before the creation of Zayd and after Zayd perishes is absurd and opposes naql (revealed text) and aql (sound reason).

                              The Third proof: It is impossible for Allaah to have heard the Voice of Zayd or the form of Zayd before he was created. Allaah hearing that Voice or seeing Zayd was only when Zayd spoke or when he came into existence with a form. This necessitates huduth (something new, recent) in the essence of Allaah according to al-Razi. To put it another way, whatever you are doing right now, did Allaah see you in your bodily form doing it in eternity? If so, that would mean you are eternal along with Allaah's attributes. The answer is no, Allaah is seeing you and your actual form (body with soul) and hearing you (Voice) right now, as you exist, but this was not the case before Allah brought you into existence with an actual form.




                              The Ash'arites of course have no answer to these questions and all they did (and continue to do) was to play word games, and that really is the essence of the Ash'arite (Jahmite) school. It is all about playing with words and definitions to wriggle out of difficulties. So what the Ash'ari (Jahmites) did was to say that hearing (sam') and seeing (basr) are really knowledge (ilm), when Allaah hears, it means He knows and when He sees, it means He knows. And in this way, the Ash'arites are actually forced to deny Allaah has actual hearing (by which He hears His creation) and actual seeing (by which He sees His creation) - otherwise the argument above is binding upon them, and they are forced to acknowledge that the foundation of their madhhab and creed is laid to waste, in ruins, in utter annihilation, and the game is over and done with. This is what we find the Later Ash'aris tending to, explaining away hearing and seeing to mean knowledge, because the implication finally sank into their confused brains (which were roasted and toasted by that ilm-kalaam), after many centuries.
                              Let's assume that Fakr al Din al Razi said the above. "Why do I as an Ashari have to agree with everything Fakr al Din al Razi said?" There are literally hundreds of Ashari scholars. Can't I follow the Ashari scholars that I think are closer to the Quran and Sunnah? You post this as if it binding on every Ashari to follow Fakr al Din al Razi. Why can't I follow and agree with Imam al Ghazali or Imam al Bayhaqi or Imam Baqillani, or Imam Ibn Khafif, or Imam Iji, or Imam Sanusi, or Imam al Laqani, or Imam Bajuri, or Imam al Dardir or Imam Abdullah al Haddad, or Imam Uthaman Dan Fodio, or Imam al Juwayni, or Imam al Nawawi, or Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, or Imam Ibn Abdul Salam etc etc?

                              There are hundreds of Asharis scholars, why do I as an Ashari have to agree and follow with Fakr al Din al Razi? Can't I follow a different Ashari scholar?

                              A madhab consists of many scholars not just one. This is true with any madhab. I also follow the Shafi madhab of fiqh, and this madhab is comprised of many Shafi scholars, such as Imam Shafi, Imam al Bayhaqi, Imam Subki, Imam Ibn Abdu Salam, Imam Zakariyya al Ansari, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Imam al Suyuti, Imam al Juwayni, Imam al Nawawi, Imam Rafai, Imam Ibn Hajar al Hayami, etc etc.

                              Please explain why I have to agree and follow everything Fakr al Din al Razi said?
                              My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
                                Please explain why I have to agree and follow everything Fakr al Din al Razi said?
                                Where did i wrote you have tot agree with him? Im am just quoting someone and his proofs.

                                Look at the proof, not the name behind it. If you can, refute every claim made in the proofs.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X