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

  • #46
    Originally posted by salafi7 View Post

    you are an idiot i hate ppl like you who assume things and act like they are smarter than they really are. you are probally a coward who is scared to fight jihad if the time ever came
    SubhanAllah, first of all I am a sister. As a student of knowledge, I take interest to these academic discussions. Your akhlaaq is disgusting. Fear Allah. People of knowledge wouldn't speak like that.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by SeekingtheCreator View Post

      SubhanAllah, first of all I am a sister. As a student of knowledge, I take interest to these academic discussions. Your akhlaaq is disgusting. Fear Allah. People of knowledge wouldn't speak like that.
      oh that expains I thought you were a guy sorry well sister i think you may be upon biddah you should leave sufism and madhabs and be salafi thats the only correct way

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by salafi7 View Post

        oh that expains I thought you were a guy sorry well sister i think you may be upon biddah you should leave sufism and madhabs and be salafi thats the only correct way
        Sorry I was Salafi back in the days, Allah made me see the truth. Al hamdu lillah I am a student of the knowledge and I don't need to follow you, nor any scholar in your school. There are many centuries of knowledge one can follow.

        May Allah cure your self righteousness, it's very apparent. Ameen. I will discontinue this discussion here, as a student I have more important things to do.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by salafi7 View Post
          ..i think you may be upon biddah you should leave sufism and madhabs and be salafi thats the only correct way
          Hmm .. I have never seen a hadith mentioning the word 'salafi'

          ..nor is it mentioned in the Qur'an.
          Having said that, I respect the Ahle-hadith school of thought
          He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside the still waters - Psalms (Zaboor of Dawood)

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by isa_muhammad View Post

            Hmm .. I have never seen a hadith mentioning the word 'salafi'

            ..nor is it mentioned in the Qur'an.
            Having said that, I respect the Ahle-hadith school of thought
            thats fine if you want to call it ahl hadith that works. i just say salafi meaning to follow the scholars of the salaf who were all actually ahl hadith

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by SeekingtheCreator View Post

              Sorry I was Salafi back in the days, Allah made me see the truth. Al hamdu lillah I am a student of the knowledge and I don't need to follow you, nor any scholar in your school. There are many centuries of knowledge one can follow.

              May Allah cure your self righteousness, it's very apparent. Ameen. I will discontinue this discussion here, as a student I have more important things to do.
              thats good but you actually have the self righteousness by what you wrote to me in your original post but whatever

              Comment


              • #52
                (On a general note: My intention for opening this thread is to present the beliefs of the classical and mainstream Hanbali / Athari scholars as explained and presented by themselves in their relied upon books and to show that most of today's "Athari" claimants are not upon their creed and any post which diverts from this topic will be ignored.)


                Now let's resume with the issue of 'Uluw (highness) and Istiwa` (establishment) of Allah ta'ala and the difference that happened between two groups from among the Ahl al-Sunna - the Ash'aris and the Hanbalis! - regarding this issue.
                The classical Hanbali position - as clarified by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) in his Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in (translation of the whole section can be found in POST #20) - has already been mentioned and that is that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is established upon the throne (Mustawin 'ala al-'Arsh) without modality (bila kayf) in the manner befitting His Majesty and its reality should be consigned to Allah ta'ala, because it is beyond imagination and comprehension; and that Allah ta'ala is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih) and above them without place or limitation, because He existed and there was no place, then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.


                I would like to quote another Hanbali scholar, so that the exact difference - between Ash'aris and Hanbalis- regarding the divine 'Uluw and Istiwa` becomes clearer and the following statement of mine is proven to be correct:

                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                But, I'm not even discussing with you from an Ash'ari point of view nor telling you that the Ash'ari and Hanbali position regarding the issue of 'Uluw is exactly the same (because they are not), but rather simply trying to explain the Hanbali position and that they are in reality ALSO affirming a non-bodily existance for Allah ta'ala (which is in agreement with Ash'aris) and this based upon the very belief in 'Uluw.
                As for the standard Ash'ari position, then it is that Allah ta'ala is not inside nor outside the creation, while the Hanabila will not say that (!) rather they will say that Allah ta'ala is upon the throne and beyond his creation (even though these type of statements will also be found in some Ash'ari works).
                The reason for saying not "inside" is that it would mean that God is mixed with the creation and this is disbelief. As for rejecting "outside", then what they (Ash'aris) intended here is to reject the imagination of the Mushabbiha (of the past and the present) who believe that after the creation ends there is some sort of empty space or void and that God is filling it up.
                Note that mainstream Hanbalis also reject this imagination, but won't use the wording used by Ash'aris, rather simply clarify that God's existance is a non-bodily one.
                That is why I did not mention the issue of 'Uluw together with issues where the Hanbalis and Ash'aris differed (i.e. the issue of Harf and Sawt and the issue of Ta`wil) - even though one could mention it with them - and the reason is because even though they do seem to disagree on the first sight, they concluded both a non-bodily existance for Allah ta'ala from this issue.

                So only "Salafis" actually vehemently reject to affirm a non-bodily existence for Allah ta'ala and their understanding of 'Uluw is based upon the imagination that I've already mentioned.
                Al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) said in his al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din (page 54-58):

                Section

                [Allah ta'ala] has indeed described Himself with establishment upon the throne (Istiwa` 'ala al-'Arsh}, for He says { The Most Gracious established Himself upon the Throne } [20:5] and He - glory be to Him - says { Then established Himself upon the Throne } [7:54] [10:3] [13:2] [25:59] [32:4] [57:4].
                That which is obligatory [here] is to state [and affirm] this [divine] attribute without [resorting to] interpretation (Ta`wil) and that it's an establishment (Istiwa`) of the essence upon the throne [and] not upon the meaning of being seated (Qu'ud) and touching (Mumassa) or upon the meaning of highness ('Uluw) and loftiness (Rif'a) [of rank and power] or upon the meaning of establishing dominion (Istila`) and overpowering (Ghalaba); in opposition to the Mu'tazila in their saying [that] "Its meaning is establishing dominion (Istila`) and overpowering (Ghalaba)", and in opposition to the Ash'aris in their saying [that] "Its meaning is highness ('Uluw) of status, great rank and power", and in opposition to the Karramiyya and the Mujassima (anthropomorphists) [in their saying] that "Its meaning is touching (Mumassa) the throne by sitting (Julus) upon it".
                The proof for what we've mentioned that it's not allowed to take it upon the meaning of... (the author mentions then the reasoning why every one of these mentioned interpretations are wrong one after the other)...
                So there does not remain anything except that we've to take this [divine] attribute upon the way stated [in the texts] just like we've stated the attribute of Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn.
                That which shows the correctness of what we've mentioned that it's obligatory to understand it upon the way stated is what is reported from Umm Salama - the wife of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - regarding His statement { The Most Gracious established Himself upon the Throne } [20:5]; she said: The modality (Kayf) is inconceivable in the mind (ghayr ma'qul) and the establishment (Istiwa`) is not unknown (ghayr majhul). Affirming it is from faith (Iman) and denying it disbelief (Kufr).
                Establishment (Istiwa`) is from the attributes of essence [and Allah ta'ala] has always been described with this and this is in analogy to the statement of our [Hanbali] companions, for they have said: Creator (Khaliq), Sustainer (Razzaq), Giver of Life (Muhyi) and Bringer of Death (Mumit), [Allah ta'ala] always been described with these [descriptions].

                Section

                The Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has indeed described Him with descent (Nuzul) to the lowest heaven and with Highness ('Uluw), [but] not in the way of displacement (Intiqal) or movement (Haraka), just like it is possible to see Him (i.e. beatific vision of Allah ta'ala in the hereafter) without [Him] being in a direction (Jiha) and [just like Allah] revealed Himself to the mountain (referring to Aya 7:143), [but] not in the way of movement (Haraka) or displacement (Intiqal). [This is] in opposition to the Mu'tazila and the Ash'aris in their interpretation of this report upon [the meaning of] the descent of His mercy and reward.
                It was narrated... (several narrations are cited where the descent is mentioned)...

                Section

                ...

                Section

                [Asking regarding] whereness (Ayniyya) is allowed regarding [Allah] - glory be to Him -, so that it can be said [and asked] "Where is He?" unlike [the position of] the Mu'tazila and the Ash'aris, who disallow this.
                The proof for this being allowed [to ask] is what was reported from Mu'awiya bin al-Hakam... (in the narration the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - asks a servant girl "Where is Allah?" and she responds by saying "In the heaven")...
                If it would not be allowed to ask this, he would not have asked her.
                It was also reported from Abu Razin.... (in the narration the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is asked where our Lord was before creating the creation)...

                Section

                It is not allowed to describe Him with being is every place or [some] place, [while] it is allowed to say that [Allah] ta'ala is in the heaven (fil Sama`) upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) in opposition to the Mu'tazila in their saying [that] "He is in (every?) place" and [unlike] the Mujassima (anthropomorphists) in their saying [that] "He is in a place" and [unlike] the Ash'aris in their saying [that] "Making the statement that He's in the heaven is not allowed".
                The proof for this is His statement { The Most Gracious established Himself upon the Throne } [20:5] and His statement { Then established Himself upon the Throne } [7:54] [10:3] [13:2] [25:59] [32:4] [57:4] and because the [Islamic] nation longs for Him in their supplications to the direction of the heaven without the [other] directions and the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - judged the servant girl to be upon Islam when he told her "Where is Allah?" and she pointed to the heaven and [Allah] ta'ala says: { Towards Him only ascends the pure good speech, and He raises high the pious deed } [35:10].
                As for the proof that it's not allowed to make the statement regarding [Allah ta'ala] that He's in [some or every] place (Makan): To ascribe Him a place would make it necessary for the place to be eternal like His Eternity - exalted is He - for He has always existed, [while whatever is in] place can not be anything except a body (Jism) or an atom / particle (Jawhar) and [all] atoms and bodies are emergent (Muhdath) [and not eternal].
                As for the proof for making the statement that [Allah ta'ala] is in the heaven (fil Sama`) but not with the meaning of [being in] a place (Makan), then it's His statement - exalted is He - { Have you become unafraid of the One Who is in the heaven, that He will not cause you to sink into the earth ... Or have you become unafraid of the One Who is in the heaven, that He will not send a torrent of stones upon you? } [67:16-17]. Because of this [Imam] Ahmad - may Allah have mercy upon him - regarded it as allowed to make the statement that He's in the heaven - but not upon the way of limitation (Hadd) (!) - because that can be found in the Shar' (divine law) stated, [while] it's not allowed to make the statement of [ascribing a] place, because the [divine] law has not stated this.

                Section

                It's not allowed regarding Him [to be described with] having a limit (Hadd) or an end (Nihaya) or a before or an after or a below or a front or a back, because [all of] these are descriptions that have not been stated by the [divine] law (Shar') [regarding Him] and these descriptions make [being in a] place necessary.
                It's [also] not allowed regarding Him [to be described with] having a modality (Kayf), so that it's not said [and asked], because asking [regarding modality] implies Him to have someone who is similar to Him or equal, [while] there is no one with similarity or likeness to Him.

                Section

                It's not allowed regarding Him [to be described with] having quantity (Kamiyya) and it's not to be said "How much [or many] is He?", because He's One without [any] partners.

                Section

                So if it's said "What is He?", [then] the response [is]: The Lord of the heavens and the earth and their Disposer.

                Section

                If it is said "[From] what [kind] is He?", [then] the response [is]: The One who has no likeness and no match and He's not from a kind that it can be said that He's from such-and-such kind.

                Section

                If it is said "When was He?", [then] the response [is]: This is an expression of a specific time and the Maker (al-Bari) - subhanahu wa ta'ala - has always existed before all of the times without a boundary (Ghaya) or an end (Nihaya).

                Section

                If it said "He is limited (Mahdud) and has an end (Nihaya)[?]", [then] the response [is]: He is the Creator of whatever is limited; and the One who has made whatever has ends can not be limited or be ending. He is the One whom ends (Nihayat) do not surround and boundaries (Ghayat) do not enclose.

                - end of quote -





                Based upon the above quote from the Hanbali creed book al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din we can conclude the following points:

                Issues of disagreement between Hanbalis and Ash'aris regarding Istiwa` and 'Uluw:
                - The prohibition or permissibility of interpretation (Ta`wil) of Istiwa`
                - The permissibility or prohibition of asking regarding whereness (Ayniyya) regarding Allah ta'ala and to describe Him with being in the heaven
                (For the those interested to know the Ash'ari position I would recommend reading the following: Commentary on the Hadฤซth: Where is Allah? by Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH))

                Issues of agreement between Hanbalis and Ash'aris regarding Istiwa` and 'Uluw:
                - The interpretation of the anthropomorphists - who believe that Istiwa` means being seated and touching the throne by sitting on it - is rejected
                - Allah is beyond space / place (Makan) and it's not allowed to describe [or to believe] Him to be in - every or some - place
                - The existance of Allah is a non-bodily one and He's beyond quantity, limits, ends and boundaries

                Conclusion: Both - Hanbalis and Ash'aris - do actually agree regarding the reality of the existance of Allah ta'ala being beyond space and being a non-bodily one, while there is disagreement in the exact details of dealing with the divine attributes and which wording is allowed to be used and which not (and this falls under Ijtihadi differences and does not warrant to regard the opponent as an innovator!).
                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 03-04-20, 04:41 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                  (On a general note: My intention for opening this thread is to present the beliefs of the classical and mainstream Hanbali / Athari scholars as explained and presented by themselves in their relied upon books and to show that most of today's "Athari" claimants are not upon their creed and any post which diverts from this topic will be ignored.)


                  Now let's resume with the issue of 'Uluw (highness) and Istiwa` (establishment) of Allah ta'ala and the difference that happened between two groups from among the Ahl al-Sunna - the Ash'aris and the Hanbalis! - regarding this issue.
                  The classical Hanbali position - as clarified by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) in his Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in (translation of the whole section can be found in POST #20) - has already been mentioned and that is that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is established upon the throne (Mustawin 'ala al-'Arsh) without modality (bila kayf) in the manner befitting His Majesty and its reality should be consigned to Allah ta'ala, because it is beyond imagination and comprehension; and that Allah ta'ala is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih) and above them without place or limitation, because He existed and there was no place, then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.


                  I would like to quote another Hanbali scholar, so that the exact difference - between Ash'aris and Hanbalis- regarding the divine 'Uluw and Istiwa` becomes clearer and the following statement of mine is proven to be correct:



                  Al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) said in his al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din (page 54-58):

                  Section

                  [Allah ta'ala] has indeed described Himself with establishment upon the throne (Istiwa` 'ala al-'Arsh}, for He says { The Most Gracious established Himself upon the Throne } [20:5] and He - glory be to Him - says { Then established Himself upon the Throne } [7:54] [10:3] [13:2] [25:59] [32:4] [57:4].
                  That which is obligatory [here] is to state [and affirm] this [divine] attribute without [resorting to] interpretation (Ta`wil) and that it's an establishment (Istiwa`) of the essence upon the throne [and] not upon the meaning of being seated (Qu'ud) and touching (Mumassa) or upon the meaning of highness ('Uluw) and loftiness (Rif'a) [of rank and power] or upon the meaning of establishing dominion (Istila`) and overpowering (Ghalaba); in opposition to the Mu'tazila in their saying [that] "Its meaning is establishing dominion (Istila`) and overpowering (Ghalaba)", and in opposition to the Ash'aris in their saying [that] "Its meaning is highness ('Uluw) of status, great rank and power", and in opposition to the Karramiyya and the Mujassima (anthropomorphists) [in their saying] that "Its meaning is touching (Mumassa) the throne by sitting (Julus) upon it".
                  The proof for what we've mentioned that it's not allowed to take it upon the meaning of... (the author mentions then the reasoning why every one of these mentioned interpretations are wrong one after the other)...
                  So there does not remain anything except that we've to take this [divine] attribute upon the way stated [in the texts] just like we've stated the attribute of Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn.
                  That which shows the correctness of what we've mentioned that it's obligatory to understand it upon the way stated is what is reported from Umm Salama - the wife of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - regarding His statement { The Most Gracious established Himself upon the Throne } [20:5]; she said: The modality (Kayf) is inconceivable in the mind (ghayr ma'qul) and the establishment (Istiwa`) is not unknown (ghayr majhul). Affirming it is from faith (Iman) and denying it disbelief (Kufr).
                  Establishment (Istiwa`) is from the attributes of essence [and Allah ta'ala] has always been described with this and this is in analogy to the statement of our [Hanbali] companions, for they have said: Creator (Khaliq), Sustainer (Razzaq), Giver of Life (Muhyi) and Bringer of Death (Mumit), [Allah ta'ala] always been described with these [descriptions].

                  Section

                  The Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has indeed described Him with descent (Nuzul) to the lowest heaven and with Highness ('Uluw), [but] not in the way of displacement (Intiqal) or movement (Haraka), just like it is possible to see Him (i.e. beatific vision of Allah ta'ala in the hereafter) without [Him] being in a direction (Jiha) and [just like Allah] revealed Himself to the mountain (referring to Aya 7:143), [but] not in the way of movement (Haraka) or displacement (Intiqal). [This is] in opposition to the Mu'tazila and the Ash'aris in their interpretation of this report upon [the meaning of] the descent of His mercy and reward.
                  It was narrated... (several narrations are cited where the descent is mentioned)...

                  Section

                  ...

                  Section

                  [Asking regarding] whereness (Ayniyya) is allowed regarding [Allah] - glory be to Him -, so that it can be said [and asked] "Where is He?" unlike [the position of] the Mu'tazila and the Ash'aris, who disallow this.
                  The proof for this being allowed [to ask] is what was reported from Mu'awiya bin al-Hakam... (in the narration the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - asks a servant girl "Where is Allah?" and she responds by saying "In the heaven")...
                  If it would not be allowed to ask this, he would not have asked her.
                  It was also reported from Abu Razin.... (in the narration the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is asked where our Lord was before creating the creation)...

                  Section

                  It is not allowed to describe Him with being is every place or [some] place, [while] it is allowed to say that [Allah] ta'ala is in the heaven (fil Sama`) upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) in opposition to the Mu'tazila in their saying [that] "He is in (every?) place" and [unlike] the Mujassima (anthropomorphists) in their saying [that] "He is in a place" and [unlike] the Ash'aris in their saying [that] "Making the statement that He's in the heaven is not allowed".
                  The proof for this is His statement { The Most Gracious established Himself upon the Throne } [20:5] and His statement { Then established Himself upon the Throne } [7:54] [10:3] [13:2] [25:59] [32:4] [57:4] and because the [Islamic] nation longs for Him in their supplications to the direction of the heaven without the [other] directions and the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - judged the servant girl to be upon Islam when he told her "Where is Allah?" and she pointed to the heaven and [Allah] ta'ala says: { Towards Him only ascends the pure good speech, and He raises high the pious deed } [35:10].
                  As for the proof that it's not allowed to make the statement regarding [Allah ta'ala] that He's in [some or every] place (Makan): To ascribe Him a place would make it necessary for the place to be eternal like His Eternity - exalted is He - for He has always existed, [while whatever is in] place can not be anything except a body (Jism) or an atom / particle (Jawhar) and [all] atoms and bodies are emergent (Muhdath) [and not eternal].
                  As for the proof for making the statement that [Allah ta'ala] is in the heaven (fil Sama`) but not with the meaning of [being in] a place (Makan), then it's His statement - exalted is He - { Have you become unafraid of the One Who is in the heaven, that He will not cause you to sink into the earth ... Or have you become unafraid of the One Who is in the heaven, that He will not send a torrent of stones upon you? } [67:16-17]. Because of this [Imam] Ahmad - may Allah have mercy upon him - regarded it as allowed to make the statement that He's in the heaven - but not upon the way of limitation (Hadd) (!) - because that can be found in the Shar' (divine law) stated, [while] it's not allowed to make the statement of [ascribing a] place, because the [divine] law has not stated this.

                  Section

                  It's not allowed regarding Him [to be described with] having a limit (Hadd) or an end (Nihaya) or a before or an after or a below or a front or a back, because [all of] these are descriptions that have not been stated by the [divine] law (Shar') [regarding Him] and these descriptions make [being in a] place necessary.
                  It's [also] not allowed regarding Him [to be described with] having a modality (Kayf), so that it's not said [and asked], because asking [regarding modality] implies Him to have someone who is similar to Him or equal, [while] there is no one with similarity or likeness to Him.

                  Section

                  It's not allowed regarding Him [to be described with] having quantity (Kamiyya) and it's not to be said "How much [or many] is He?", because He's One without [any] partners.

                  Section

                  So if it's said "What is He?", [then] the response [is]: The Lord of the heavens and the earth and their Disposer.

                  Section

                  If it is said "[From] what [kind] is He?", [then] the response [is]: The One who has no likeness and no match and He's not from a kind that it can be said that He's from such-and-such kind.

                  Section

                  If it is said "When was He?", [then] the response [is]: This is an expression of a specific time and the Maker (al-Bari) - subhanahu wa ta'ala - has always existed before all of the times without a boundary (Ghaya) or an end (Nihaya).

                  Section

                  If it said "He is limited (Mahdud) and has an end (Nihaya)[?]", [then] the response [is]: He is the Creator of whatever is limited; and the One who has made whatever has ends can not be limited or be ending. He is the One whom ends (Nihayat) do not surround and boundaries (Ghayat) do not enclose.

                  - end of quote -





                  Based upon the above quote from the Hanbali creed book al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din we can conclude the following points:

                  Issues of disagreement between Hanbalis and Ash'aris regarding Istiwa` and 'Uluw:
                  - The prohibition or permissibility of interpretation (Ta`wil) of Istiwa`
                  - The permissibility or prohibition of asking regarding whereness (Ayniyya) regarding Allah ta'ala and to describe Him with being in the heaven
                  (For the those interested to know the Ash'ari position I would recommend reading the following: Commentary on the Hadฤซth: Where is Allah? by Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH))

                  Issues of agreement between Hanbalis and Ash'aris regarding Istiwa` and 'Uluw:
                  - The interpretation of the anthropomorphists - who believe that Istiwa` means being seated and touching the throne by sitting on it - is rejected
                  - Allah is beyond space / place (Makan) and it's not allowed to describe [or to believe] Him to be in - every or some - place
                  - The existance of Allah is a non-bodily one and He's beyond quantity, limits, ends and boundaries

                  Conclusion: Both - Hanbalis and Ash'aris - do actually agree regarding the reality of the existance of Allah ta'ala being beyond space and being a non-bodily one, while there is disagreement in the exact details of dealing with the divine attributes and which wording is allowed to be used and which not (and this falls under Ijtihadi differences and does not warrant to regard the opponent as an innovator!).
                  The statement of Abu Ya'la is a proof against you and not for you. With all due respect there is a shortcoming in your sincerity (intellectually dishonesty) which prevents you from seeing it.

                  You have not formally studied Ash'ari Aqeedah and more importantly Kalam (you required a Muhaqiq to determine something rather trivial) and therefore you're conclusions are nothing more than the opinion of a novice. No doubt you could say the same about me, however I don't create threads like this and you mentioned me by name in the OP.

                  Abu Ya'la used the term "Mustawen" and mentioned that Allah's Uluw is by His Essence (a term not mentioned in the Quran/Sunnah). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah also considers his understanding of Allah's Uluw to be in conformity with Abu Ya'la as well as Ibn Qudama (who you referenced as being authoritative in the OP; not to mention al-Saffarini). See page 477:

                  https://books.google.ca/books?id=KK9...20Uluw&f=false

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                    - The permissibility or prohibition of asking regarding whereness (Ayniyya) regarding Allah ta'ala and to describe Him with being in the heaven
                    (For the those interested to know the Ash'ari position I would recommend reading the following: Commentary on the Hadฤซth: Where is Allah? by Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH))
                    I would like to focus more on the commentary on the Hadith mentioned above, because it contains some very relevant points to our discussion and it basically summarizes the different Sunni (!) positions regarding this issue:


                    Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said in his commentary upon [Sahih] Muslim the following in explaining the general approach regarding the narrations of the divine attributes (translation taken from above link):

                    ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ุญุฏูŠุซ ู…ู† ุฃุญุงุฏูŠุซ ุงู„ุตูุงุช ุŒ ูˆููŠู‡ุง ู…ุฐู‡ุจุงู† ุชู‚ุฏู… ุฐูƒุฑู‡ู…ุง ู…ุฑุงุช ููŠ ูƒุชุงุจ ุงู„ุฅูŠู…ุงู† . ุฃุญุฏู‡ู…ุง : ุงู„ุฅูŠู…ุงู† ุจู‡ ู…ู† ุบูŠุฑ ุฎูˆุถ ููŠ ู…ุนู†ุงู‡ ุŒ ู…ุน ุงุนุชู‚ุงุฏ ุฃู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู„ูŠุณ ูƒู…ุซู„ู‡ ุดูŠุก ูˆุชู†ุฒูŠู‡ู‡ ุนู† ุณู…ุงุช ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ุงุช . ูˆุงู„ุซุงู†ูŠ ุชุฃูˆูŠู„ู‡ ุจู…ุง ูŠู„ูŠู‚ ุจู‡

                    This is one of the แธคadฤซth which concerns the attributes [of Allฤh]. There are two schools of thought (madhhab) in regards to such แธคadฤซth both of which I have discussed repeatedly in the chapter Kitฤb al-ฤชmฤn.
                    The first madhhab is to believe in it without concerning oneself with its meaning, while maintaining categorically that Allฤh, hallowed is He, does not resemble anything, and maintaining that He transcends the attributes of created things [which madhhab is called tafwฤซแธ].
                    The second madhhab is to interpret (taโ€™wฤซl) the แธคadฤซth in a way which is commensurate with His greatness.

                    - end of quote -

                    Based upon this we understand that there are two ways among the scholars [of Ahl al-Sunna) to understand these types of narrations:
                    1) Tafwidh (consignment)
                    2) Ta`wil (interpretation)


                    That which the Hanabila regard as correct is Tafwidh* only (except if Ahadith and Athar contain an explanation or interpretation), while Ash'aris regard both as correct.

                    (*: Ithbat (affirmation) with Tanzih (transcendence) is not mentioned by most scholars, because it goes back to Tafwidh anyways.
                    An example for this is to say that Allah ta'ala has described Himself with creating Adam - peace be upon him - with His Yadayn (literally: two hands) and that it's an divine attribute additionally to Qudra and Ni'ma and not with the meaning of an organ or a limb or corporeality or a part or a quantity; and an attribute that is as mentioned is beyond our comprehension and imagination, so that the exact meaning is actually consigned to Allah ta'ala, which is the Madhhab of Tafwidh.)

                    After the above statement Imam al-Nawawi mentions the interpretation of the mentioned narration according to the second Madhhab (which can be found in the link above).



                    Thereafter he refers to Al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) - another major Sunni scholar - by saying:

                    ู„ุง ุฎู„ุงู ุจูŠู† ุงู„ู…ุณู„ู…ูŠู† ู‚ุงุทุจุฉ ูู‚ูŠู‡ู‡ู… ูˆู…ุญุฏุซู‡ู… ูˆู…ุชูƒู„ู…ู‡ู… ูˆู†ุธุงุฑู‡ู… ูˆู…ู‚ู„ุฏู‡ู… ุฃู† ุงู„ุธูˆุงู‡ุฑ ุงู„ูˆุงุฑุฏุฉ ุจุฐูƒุฑ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ููŠ ุงู„ุณู…ุงุก ูƒู‚ูˆู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ : ุฃุฃู…ู†ุชู… ู…ู† ููŠ ุงู„ุณู…ุงุก ุฃู† ูŠุฎุณู ุจูƒู… ุงู„ุฃุฑุถ ูˆู†ุญูˆู‡ ู„ูŠุณุช ุนู„ู‰ ุธุงู‡ุฑู‡ุง ุŒ ุจู„ ู…ุชุฃูˆู„ุฉ ุนู†ุฏ ุฌู…ูŠุนู‡ู… ุŒ ูู…ู† ู‚ุงู„ ุจุฅุซุจุงุช ุฌู‡ุฉ ููˆู‚ ู…ู† ุบูŠุฑ ุชุญุฏูŠุฏ ูˆู„ุง ุชูƒูŠูŠู ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ุญุฏุซูŠู† ูˆุงู„ูู‚ู‡ุงุก ูˆุงู„ู…ุชูƒู„ู…ูŠู† ุชุฃูˆู„ : ููŠ ุงู„ุณู…ุงุก ุŒ ุฃูŠ : ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุณู…ุงุก ุŒ ูˆู…ู† ู‚ุงู„ ู…ู† ุฏู‡ู…ุงุก ุงู„ู†ุธุงุฑ ูˆุงู„ู…ุชูƒู„ู…ูŠู† ูˆุฃุตุญุงุจ ุงู„ุชู†ุฒูŠู‡ ุจู†ููŠ ุงู„ุญุฏ ูˆุงุณุชุญุงู„ุฉ ุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉ ููŠ ุญู‚ู‡ - ุณุจุญุงู†ู‡ ูˆุชุนุงู„ู‰ - ุชุฃูˆู„ูˆู‡ุง ุชุฃูˆูŠู„ุงุช ุจุญุณุจ ู…ู‚ุชุถุงู‡ุง ุŒ ูˆุฐูƒุฑ ู†ุญูˆ ู…ุง ุณุจู‚

                    al-Qฤแธฤซ โ€˜Iyฤแธ said : There is no disagreement whatsoever among any of the Muslims โ€“ their fuqahฤโ€™ (experts on the rules of the Sharฤซโ€˜ah), their muhaddithลซn (experts in the science of แธคadฤซth transmission, and criticism), their mutakallimลซn (ulamฤโ€™ of Kalฤm; that is, dialectic theology), their polemicists (naแธhฤr) and their ordinary followers (muqallid) โ€“ that the outward meaning of those texts [from either the Sunnah or the Qurโ€˜ฤn] in which it is mentioned that Allฤh is in the sky is not meant [literally]; for example, the words of the Exalted: โ€œAre you assured that He who is in the sky will not cause the earth to swallow you up?โ€ These and similar texts [which mention that Allฤh is in the sky or seem to imply that] are not to be taken literally (โ€˜alฤ แบ“ฤhirihฤซ); rather, according to them all [that is, all the Muslims and the experts of every field of the Sharฤซโ€˜ah as mentioned above], they are to be taken idiomatically (muโ€™awwalan).
                    So whoever from among the muแธฅaddithลซn, and the fuqahฤโ€™, and the mutakallimลซn asserted the upward direction (jihat al-fauq) without specifying limit or modality did so only by interpreting in the sky to mean over the sky [that is, He whose authority, or power is over the sky].
                    Whereas, whoever from among the great majority of polemicists (naแธhฤr), and mutakallimลซn, and the people of transcendence (asแธฅฤb al-tanzฤซh) denied that He had any limit, and maintained the impossibility of ascribing any direction to Him, hallowed is He, they interpreted the texts in a variety of ways according to the requirement of the context. They mentioned interpretations similar to what we mentioned previously [that is, in his commentary which, however, al-Nawawฤซ did not cite].

                    - end of quote -

                    From this quote we understand that the scholars of Islam from the different fields agreed that the statement fil Sama` (in the heaven) is not to be understood literally regarding Allah ta'ala and that it must be interpreted (because understanding it literally would mean that God is inside or mixed with his creation, which is disbelief by agreement).
                    He then mentions two groups:
                    1) Those who affirmed the [expression of] direction of above (Jihat al-Fawq) without ascribing limitation (Tahdid) or modality (Takyif) said that fil Sama` (literally: in the heaven) means 'alal Sama` (upon [or above] the heaven).
                    2) Those who denied [the expression of] direction (also alongside with abstaining from Tahdid and Takyif), they interpreted the texts in a variety of ways according to the requirement of the context.

                    One can find mainstream Hanbalis who are among the first group mentioned (while other mainstream Hanbalis abstain from affirmation of the expression of direction), while the Ash'aris are usually in the second group.



                    Then Imam al-Nawawi keeps on citing al-Qadhi 'Iyadh:

                    ู‚ุงู„ : ูˆูŠุง ู„ูŠุช ุดุนุฑูŠ ู…ุง ุงู„ุฐูŠ ุฌู…ุน ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุญู‚ ูƒู„ู‡ู… ุนู„ู‰ ูˆุฌูˆุจ ุงู„ุฅู…ุณุงูƒ ุนู† ุงู„ููƒุฑ ููŠ ุงู„ุฐุงุช ูƒู…ุง ุฃู…ุฑูˆุง ุŒ ูˆุณูƒุชูˆุง ู„ุญูŠุฑุฉ ุงู„ุนู‚ู„ ุŒ ูˆุงุชูู‚ูˆุง ุนู„ู‰ ุชุญุฑูŠู… ุงู„ุชูƒูŠูŠู ูˆุงู„ุชุดูƒูŠู„ ุŒ ูˆุฃู† ุฐู„ูƒ ู…ู† ูˆู‚ูˆูู‡ู… ูˆุฅู…ุณุงูƒู‡ู… ุบูŠุฑ ุดุงูƒ ููŠ ุงู„ูˆุฌูˆุฏ ูˆุงู„ู…ูˆุฌูˆุฏุฉ ุŒ ูˆุบูŠุฑ ู‚ุงุฏุญ ููŠ ุงู„ุชูˆุญูŠุฏ ุŒ ุจู„ ู‡ูˆ ุญู‚ูŠู‚ุชู‡ ุŒ ุซู… ุชุณุงู…ุญ ุจุนุถู‡ู… ุจุฅุซุจุงุช ุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉ ุฎุงุดูŠุง ู…ู† ู…ุซู„ ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ุชุณุงู…ุญ ุŒ ูˆู‡ู„ ุจูŠู† ุงู„ุชูƒูŠูŠู ูˆุฅุซุจุงุช ุงู„ุฌู‡ุงุช ูุฑู‚ุŸ ู„ูƒู† ุฅุทู„ุงู‚ ู…ุง ุฃุทู„ู‚ู‡ ุงู„ุดุฑุน ู…ู† ุฃู†ู‡ ุงู„ู‚ุงู‡ุฑ ููˆู‚ ุนุจุงุฏู‡ ุŒ ูˆุฃู†ู‡ ุงุณุชูˆู‰ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ุนุฑุด ุŒ ู…ุน ุงู„ุชู…ุณูƒ ุจุงู„ุขูŠุฉ ุงู„ุฌุงู…ุนุฉ ู„ู„ุชู†ุฒูŠู‡ ุงู„ูƒู„ูŠ ุงู„ุฐูŠ ู„ุง ูŠุตุญ ููŠ ุงู„ู…ุนู‚ูˆู„ ุบูŠุฑู‡ ุŒ ูˆู‡ูˆ ู‚ูˆู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ : ู„ูŠุณ ูƒู…ุซู„ู‡ ุดูŠุก ุนุตู…ุฉ ู„ู…ู† ูˆูู‚ู‡ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุŒ ูˆู‡ุฐุง ูƒู„ุงู… ุงู„ู‚ุงุถูŠ - ุฑุญู…ู‡ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰

                    Then he [al-Qฤแธฤซ โ€˜Iyฤแธ] said: I wish I knew what exactly it is that has united the People of the Sunnah and the Truth, all of them, on the necessity of refraining from thinking about the reality (al-dhฤt) [of Allฤh], as they were ordered [by the Lawgiver], and the necessity to keep silent about what perplexes their intelligences (al-โ€˜aql), and to prohibit explaining how (al-takyฤซf) [is the divine reality], and in what form (al-tashkฤซl) [is it].
                    They kept silent and refrained from [thinking or speaking about the divine reality (al-dhฤt)] not because they had any doubt about the Existent, or about His existence [but because they recognized that His reality is beyond comprehension]. Their silence does not impair their belief in His uniqueness (al-tauแธฅฤซd); rather, it is the essence of al-tauแธฅฤซd [for the recognition that He is other than whatever we imagine Him to be is a requirement of the transcendent perspective of al-tauแธฅฤซd].
                    Some of the ulamฤโ€™ overlooked [some of the strict requirements of the divine transcendence] and indulged in using the term direction (al-jihah) [in relation to Allฤh] fearing to take unwarranted liberties [in interpreting the revealed texts of the Sharฤซโ€˜ah]. But it raises the question of whether or not there is any difference between explaining how (al-takyฤซf) [is the divine reality] and between ascribing directions to Him.
                    No doubt, the course which offers salvation from deviation for those for whom Allฤh has ordained success is to restrict oneself to using such terms as the Law (al-Sharโ€™) itself has used like โ€œand He enforces His will over (fauqa) His slaves,โ€ or the words โ€œthen He subdued [or took control; istawฤ] of the Throne,โ€ while understanding such terms with reference to the verse which comprehends the universal principle of transcendence (tanzฤซh); namely, His word: โ€œNothing is like Him.โ€ For reason can not accept anything which contravenes this universal principle of the Law.
                    And that is the discourse of the Qฤแธฤซ, may Allah Most Highhave mercy on him.

                    - end of quote -

                    From this we understand that the Ahl al-Sunna are agreed upon refraining from thinking about the [reality of the] divine essence, and that one should keep silent regarding the reality of the divine essence because it is beyond our comprehension . They are also agreed upon prohibition of ascribing modality. (So they are agreed upon the transcendence (Tanzih) of Allah ta'ala and his complete dissimilarity to His creation.)
                    In doing the above they are upon the realization of the essence of Tawhid.

                    Then he mentions two groups [from among them]:
                    1) Some of them indulged in using the expression of direction regarding Allah ta'ala because of the fear of taking unwarranted liberties in interpreting the revealed texts. Al-Qadhi 'Iyadh clearly dislikes this way by saying "it raises the question of whether or not there is any difference between explaining how (al-takyฤซf) [is the divine reality] and between ascribing directions to Him".
                    2) Those who adhered to the wordings of the Qur`an al-karim and the [authentic] Ahadith without going beyond them or adding something to them. This is what al-Qadhi 'Iyadh himself supports.

                    Again: One can find mainstream Hanbalis belonging to the first group, but also the second group. Ash'aris are in the second group.
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 03-04-20, 08:28 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                      The statement of Abu Ya'la is a proof against you and not for you. With all due respect there is a shortcoming in your sincerity (intellectually dishonesty) which prevents you from seeing it.

                      You have not formally studied Ash'ari Aqeedah and more importantly Kalam (you required a Muhaqiq to determine something rather trivial) and therefore you're conclusions are nothing more than the opinion of a novice. No doubt you could say the same about me, however I don't create threads like this and you mentioned me by name in the OP.

                      Abu Ya'la used the term "Mustawen" and mentioned that Allah's Uluw is by His Essence (a term not mentioned in the Quran/Sunnah). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah also considers his understanding of Allah's Uluw to be in conformity with Abu Ya'la as well as Ibn Qudama (who you referenced as being authoritative in the OP; not to mention al-Saffarini). See page 477:

                      https://books.google.ca/books?id=KK9...20Uluw&f=false
                      The link I posted quotes al-Razi's Tasis inwhich he claims that his opponents are the Karimis and the Hanbalis. The reality is the Ash'ari position most conforms with Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanbali who said:

                      "Whoever says: "He is established on His throne in His Essence (bi al-dhat)," has made Allah an object of sensory perception. It behooves one not to neglect the means by which the principle of Religion is established and that is reason"

                      http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/ibn_aljawzi.htm

                      Ash'ari view:

                      "Yet the belief that He exists in a place is what yesterday's and today's anthropomorphists pass as the opinion of the Salaf. However, just because someone lived in the first three centuries, it does not mean that he represented the doctrine of the Salaf. It will be clear from the forthcoming opinions of the Salaf and Khalaf that the correct position of Ahl al-Sunna never adds "in person" or "literally" -- which is to specify a modality -- to the mention of Allah's establishment on the Throne, and that to suggest space in the slightest manner is to leave Islam."

                      http://www.sunnah.org/anthro/anthro7.htm

                      An Atheist philosopher would never allow you to prove God's existence using bodies/accidents and then claim that Allah's Essence is Above us. Hence the reason why the Ash'ari positon changed ever since Ibn Fawruk.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                        The statement of Abu Ya'la is a proof against you and not for you. With all due respect there is a shortcoming in your sincerity (intellectually dishonesty) which prevents you from seeing it.

                        You have not formally studied Ash'ari Aqeedah and more importantly Kalam (you required a Muhaqiq to determine something rather trivial) and therefore you're conclusions are nothing more than the opinion of a novice. No doubt you could say the same about me, however I don't create threads like this and you mentioned me by name in the OP.

                        Abu Ya'la used the term "Mustawen" and mentioned that Allah's Uluw is by His Essence (a term not mentioned in the Quran/Sunnah). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah also considers his understanding of Allah's Uluw to be in conformity with Abu Ya'la as well as Ibn Qudama (who you referenced as being authoritative in the OP; not to mention al-Saffarini). See page 477:

                        https://books.google.ca/books?id=KK9...20Uluw&f=false
                        There is really no need for you to doubt my sincerty.
                        The problem with you brother is that you refuse to understand what is being said and are hellbent on using the word "bi Dhatihi" (with His essence), which as you say yourself is not found in the Qur`an or the Sunna! Note that I'm not saying that Ash'aris accept this addition, rather they criticize it! This is also very clear from the quote of al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) above (who criticizes the usage of the term "Jiha" (direction) in an affirming way)!

                        But right now I'm explaining he Hanbali approach and NOT the Ash'ari one, do you realize that?

                        Then: Are you able to claim that I misrepresented the Hanbali position regarding this issue and that the disagreements and agreements in my conclusion are wrong? No you can't, because these points are mentioned in the quote that I brought explicitly and also in other quotes.

                        And: Do the modern-day "Salafi" Mashayikh agree with the Hanabila regarding 'Uluw and Istiwa`?
                        The answer: They agree regarding asking regarding whereness being allowed and to describe Allah ta'ala with being in the heaven and they CLAIM to abstain from interpretation, but we've already seen that a leading "Salafi" like Ibn 'Uthaymin understood Istiwa` as Istiqrar (settlement), which is not just an interpretation, but one in line with the way of the Mushabbiha!
                        Then: While the Hanabila clearly declare Allah ta'ala beyond bodily descriptions and beyond place, limits, ends, boundaries, quantity, etc. (as it clear from the above quote and by other quotes), the "Salafis" vehemently refuse to do so!

                        Now for God's sake try to understand and don't start with this "bi Dhatihi"-thing again:
                        When I say that the Hanbalis and Ash'aris agree that Allah ta'ala is beyond place / space and his existance is a non-bodily one, are you able to deny this being indeed the case as shown from the many quotes?
                        But are we able to say the same regarding modern-day "Salafis", who vehemently refuse to affirm a non-bodily existance for Allah ta'ala?
                        Concentrate on this, because this is not a simple Ijtihadi difference in very detailed issues (as is the difference between Ash'aris and Hanbalis), rather it's an difference regarding the very reality of existance of the divine essence.

                        Anyways, I'm translating a quote by an Ash'ari scholar (i.e. the Shaykh al-Gharsi), who explains the issue of affirmation of the expression of direction (which is found in the texts of some mainstream Hanbalis) by quoting a mainstream Hanbali scholar. So wait until then inshallah.
                        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 03-04-20, 09:30 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                          There is really no need for you to doubt my sincerty.
                          The problem with you brother is that you refuse to understand what is being said and are hellbent on using the word "bi Dhatihi" (with His essence), which as you say yourself is not found in the Qur`an or the Sunna! Note that I'm not saying that Ash'aris accept this addition, rather they criticize it! This is also very clear from the quote of al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) above (who criticizes the usage of the term direction in an affirming way)!

                          But right now I'm explaining he Hanbali approach and NOT the Ash'ari one, do you realize that?

                          Then: Are you able to claim that I mispresented the Hanbali position regarding this issue and that the disagreements and agreements in my conclusion are wrong? No you can't, because these points are mentioned in the quote that I brought and also in other quotes.

                          And: Do the modern-day "Salafi" Mashayikh agree with the Hanabila regarding 'Uluw and Istiwa`?
                          The answer: They agree regarding asking regarding whereness being allowed and to describe Allah ta'ala with being in the heaven and they CLAIM to abstain from interpretation, but we've already seen that a leading "Salafi" like Ibn 'Uthaymin understood Istiwa` as Istiqrar (settlement), which is not just an interpretation, but one in line with the way of the Mushabbiha!
                          Then: While the Hanabila clearly declare Allah ta'ala beyond bodily descriptions and beyond place, limits, end, boundaries, quantity, etc. (as it clear from the above quote and by other quotes), the "Salafis" vehemently refuse to do so!

                          Now for God's sake try to understand on don't start with this "bi Dhatihi"-thing again:
                          When I say that the Hanbalis and Ash'aris agree that Allah ta'ala is beyond place / space and his existance is a non-bodily one, are you able to deny this being indeed the case as shown from the many quotes?
                          But are we able to say the same regarding modern-day "Salafis", who vehemently refuse to affirm a non-bodily existance for Allah ta'ala?
                          Concentrate on this, because this is not a simple Ijtihadi difference in very detailed issues (as is the difference between Ash'aris and Hanbalis), rather it's an difference regarding the very reality of existance of the divine essence.

                          Anyways, I'm translating a quote by an Ash'ari scholar (i.e. the Shaykh al-Gharsi), who explains the issue of affirmation of the expression of direction (which is found in the texts of some mainstream Hanbalis) by quoting a mainstream Hanbali scholar. So wait until then inshallah.
                          Don't get me wrong I appreciate your passion and how much time and effort you spend "studying" these issues. However, your sidettacking away from bi-Dhatihi necessitates that you're either extremely ignorant (regarding philosophy) or intellectually dishonest:



                          The majority of the Hanbalis believe that Allah's Essence is Above the Throne. Case closed. Whatever else appears to differ between them (in your biased eyes) is only a difference in Kalam. The beliefs are the same as al-Saffarini is the greatest example of that.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                            Don't get me wrong I appreciate your passion and how much time and effort you spend "studying" these issues. However, your sidettacking away from bi-Dhatihi necessitates that you're either extremely ignorant (regarding philosophy) or intellectually dishonest:

                            ...

                            The Hanbalis believe that Allah's Essence is Above the Throne. Case closed. Whatever else appears to differ between them (in your biased eyes) is only a difference in Kalam. The beliefs are the same as al-Saffarini is the greatest example of that.
                            Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) is among those who don't see a problem in using the expression of direction (in the manner explained - and disliked! - by al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) above), but He believes in a non-bodily existance of Allah ta'ala like all mainstream Hanbalis!
                            Are you able to say the same regarding the "Salafi" Mashayikh, who refuse to affirm a non-bodily existance?

                            Not just that! He believes - like the rest of the mainstream Hanbalis - that the actions of Allah ta'ala are ETERNAL (which is in accordance to the position of the Maturidis). Do you understand what that means? According to Him the Istiwa` of Allah ta'ala is pre-eternal and this destroys the whole imagination that "Salafi" Mashayikh have regarding this issue!
                            (If it's asked: How is that possible, while the throne is not eternal, then it said: According to this position Allah ta'ala has always been described with Istiwa` (establishment), but its ruling only became apparent after the creation of the throne.)

                            By the way: Believing that God is filling up a void (as "Salafi" Mashayikh believe) is DISBELIEF according to mainstream Hanbalis and Ash'aris! As for [affirming] the expression of direction, then this does not necessitate believing in Tajsim (especially if the person is clearly affirming a non-bodily existance!), because the one doing so is affirming it due to the texts suggesting 'Uluw (highness) and Fawqiyya (aboveness) and in the manner befitting the majesty of Allah ta'ala and not in the manner of created beings!
                            But if one intends that God is in a specific physical direction in relation to the creation and is LITERALLY facing the creation (i.e. with distance and / or touching!) - and this is what "Salafi" Mashayikh believe! -, then this obviously necessitates limitation (Hadd) AND Tajsim. If after this someone still denies Tajsim (note that "Salafis" do NOT deny Tajsim, but rather say "we don't affirm it or reject it", but they do affirm that God has limits, Exalted is Allah ta'ala above what they claim!), then this becomes contradictory to say at least.

                            Anyways, please wait for the quote (a scholarly one!) instead of posting videos by random english speaking people (I haven't watched the video, but I'm somehow sure that he's speaking about the latter people I mentioned and that their position necessitates Tajsim; and I say: This is true! It clearly is necessitated!).
                            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 03-04-20, 10:11 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by salafi7 View Post

                              oh that expains I thought you were a guy sorry well sister i think you may be upon biddah you should leave sufism and madhabs and be salafi thats the only correct way
                              People like you with zero ahqlaq a tiny bit of knowledge and then run around calling people mubtadi etc like it's a joke are the reason salafiyah has a tarnished reputation


                              Do I agree the ashariyah are upon falsehood? Absolutely but your approach to giving dawah is like tossing a cup of water in someone's face and saying but I gave them a drink why isn't this mubtadi drinking

                              Sit down go get knowledge and ahqlaq and then come back and talk about Islam

                              The position of the asharriyah is deviant but if people like yourself are calling to salifya then no wonder people are misguided

                              Go learn ahqlaq then come back and talk about Islam
                              Each person has inside a basic decency and goodness. If he listens to it and acts on it, he is giving a great deal of what it is the world needs most. It is not complicated but it takes courage. It takes courage for a person to listen to his own goodness and act on it.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Rejecting or affirming the expression of direction and the verification of this issue

                                Saying that Allah ta'ala is in the direction of highness (Jihat al-'Uluw) or that He's upon or above the throne with His Essence (bi Dhatihi) or similar statements not found explicitly in the Qur`an and the Sunna is what can be found in the texts of some Hanbali scholars - who at the same time adhere to declaring Allah ta'ala beyond time and place in agreement with the rest of the Sunnis - and their reasoning for this is as al-Qadhi 'Iyadh (d. 544 AH) mentioned and thereafter disliked (see POST #54):
                                "Some of the ulamฤโ€™ overlooked [some of the strict requirements of the divine transcendence] and indulged in using the term direction (al-jihah) [in relation to Allฤh] fearing to take unwarranted liberties [in interpreting the revealed texts of the Sharฤซโ€˜ah]. But it raises the question of whether or not there is any difference between explaining how (al-takyฤซf) [is the divine reality] and between ascribing directions to Him.", end of his quote.

                                Using these terms (Jihat al-'Uluw, bi Dhatihi, etc.) in an affirmative way - even though clearly rejected by Ash'aris in general and some Hanabila! - does not necessitate intending a wrong meaning*, so that it can not be said that doing this necessitates affirming limitation and corporeality regarding Allah ta'ala.
                                (*: The wrong meaning would be to believe God to be in a specific [physical] direction in relation to the creation (i.e. with distance or touching) and this necessitates believing in limitation and corporeality without any doubt!)



                                The verification (Tahqiq) of this issue is mentioned by the Shaykh [Muhammad Salih] al-Gharsi - a knowledgeable Ash'ari scholar - in his Risala al-'Uluw wal Fawqiyya lillah ta'ala as follows:

                                ุฃู‚ูˆู„: ู‚ุฏ ุดุฑุญ ุงู„ุนู„ุงู…ุฉ ุฒูŠู† ุงู„ุฏูŠู† ุงู„ูƒุฑู…ูŠ ููŠ ูƒุชุงุจู‡ (ุฃู‚ุงูˆูŠู„ ุงู„ุซู‚ุงุช) ู‚ูˆู„ ุงู„ู‚ุงุฆู„ูŠู† ุจุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุนู„ูˆ ุจูˆุฌู‡ ุฌูŠุฏ ู„ุง ูŠุฎุงู„ู ู…ุฐู‡ุจ ุงู„ู†ุงููŠู† ู„ู‡ู…ุง ู…ู† ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉุŒ ูู‚ุงู„:

                                ุงู„ู‚ุงุฆู„ ุจุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉ ูŠู‚ูˆู„: ุฅู† ุงู„ุฌู‡ุงุช ุชู†ู‚ุทุน ุจุงู†ู‚ุทุงุน ุงู„ุนุงู„ู…ุŒ ูˆุชู†ุชู‡ูŠ ุจุงู†ุชู‡ุงุก ุขุฎุฑ ุฌุฒุก ู…ู† ุงู„ูƒูˆู†ุŒ ูˆุงู„ุฅุดุงุฑุฉ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ููˆู‚ ุชู‚ุน ุนู„ู‰ ุฃุนู„ู‰ ุฌุฒุก ู…ู† ุงู„ูƒูˆู† ุญู‚ูŠู‚ุฉ.
                                ูˆู…ู…ุง ูŠุญู‚ู‚ ู‡ุฐุง ุฃู† ุงู„ูƒูˆู† ุงู„ูƒู„ูŠ ู„ุง ููŠ ุฌู‡ุฉ ู„ุฃู† ุงู„ุฌู‡ุงุช ุนุจุงุฑุฉ ุนู† ุงู„ู…ูƒุงู†.
                                ูˆุงู„ู…ูƒุงู† ุงู„ูƒู„ูŠ ู„ุง ููŠ ู…ูƒุงู†ุŒ ูู„ู…ุง ุนุฏู…ุช ุงู„ุฃู…ุงูƒู† ู…ู† ุฌูˆุงู†ุจู‡ ู„ู… ูŠู‚ู„: ุฅู†ู‡ ูŠู…ูŠู†ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุณุงุฑุŒ ูˆู„ุง ู‚ุฏุงู…ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูˆุฑุงุกุŒ ูˆู„ุง ููˆู‚ ูˆู„ุง ุชุญุช.
                                ูˆู‚ุงู„ูˆุง: ุฅู† ู…ุง ุนุฏู‰ ุงู„ูƒูˆู† ุงู„ูƒู„ูŠ ูˆู…ุง ุฎู„ุง ุงู„ุฐุงุช ุงู„ู‚ุฏูŠู…ุฉ ู„ูŠุณ ุจุดูŠุกุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุดุงุฑ ุฅู„ูŠู‡ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุนุฑู ุจุฎู„ุงุก ูˆู„ุง ู…ู„ุงุกุŒ ูˆุงู†ูุฑุฏ ุงู„ูƒูˆู† ุงู„ูƒู„ูŠ ุจูˆุตู ุงู„ุชุญุชุŒ ู„ุฃู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ูˆุตู ู†ูุณู‡ ุจุงู„ุนู„ูˆ ูˆุชู…ุฏุญ ุจู‡.
                                ูˆู‚ุงู„ูˆุง: ุฅู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุฃูˆุฌุฏ ุงู„ุฃูƒูˆุงู† ููŠ ู…ุญู„ ูˆุญูŠู‘ูุฒุŒ ูˆู‡ูˆ ููŠ ู‚ุฏู…ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู…ู†ุฒู‡ ุนู† ุงู„ู…ุญู„ ูˆุงู„ุญูŠู‘ูุฒุŒ ููŠุณุชุญูŠู„ ุดุฑุนุงู‹ ูˆุนู‚ู„ุงู‹ ุนู†ุฏ ุญุฏูˆุซ ุงู„ุนุงู„ู… ุฃู† ูŠุญู„ ููŠู‡ุŒ ุฃูˆ ูŠุฎุชู„ุท ุจู‡ุŒ ู„ุฃู† ุงู„ู‚ุฏูŠู… ู„ุง ูŠุญู„ ููŠ ุงู„ุญุงุฏุซ ูˆู„ูŠุณ ู…ุญู„ุงู‹ ู„ู„ุญูˆุงุฏุซุŒ ููŠู„ุฒู… ุฃู† ูŠูƒูˆู† ุจุงุฆู†ุงู‹ ุนู†ู‡ุŒ ูุฅุฐุง ูƒุงู† ุจุงุฆู†ุงู‹ ุนู†ู‡ุŒ ูŠุณุชุญูŠู„ ุฃู† ูŠูƒูˆู† ุงู„ุนุงู„ู… ู…ู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ููˆู‚ ูˆุงู„ุฑุจ ููŠ ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุชุญุชุŒ ุจู„ ู‡ูˆ ููˆู‚ู‡ ุจุงู„ููˆู‚ูŠุฉ ุงู„ู„ุงุฆู‚ุฉ ุงู„ุชูŠ ู„ุง ุชูƒูŠู ูˆู„ุง ุชู…ุซู„ุŒ ุจู„ ุชุนู„ู… ู…ู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุฌู…ู„ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุซุจูˆุชุŒ ู„ุง ู…ู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุชู…ุซูŠู„ ูˆุงู„ูƒูŠูุŒ ููŠูˆุตู ุงู„ุฑุจ ุจุงู„ููˆู‚ูŠุฉ ูƒู…ุง ูŠู„ูŠู‚ ุจุฌู„ุงู„ู‡ ูˆุนุธู…ุชู‡ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠูู‡ู… ู…ู†ู‡ุง ู…ุง ูŠูู‡ู… ู…ู† ุตูุงุช ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ูŠู†.
                                ูˆู‚ุงู„ูˆุง: ุฅู† ุงู„ุฏู„ูŠู„ ุงู„ู‚ุงุทุน ุฏู„ ุนู„ู‰ ูˆุฌูˆุฏ ุงู„ุจุงุฑูŠ ูˆุซุจูˆุช ุฐุงุชู‡ ุจุญู‚ูŠู‚ุฉ ุงู„ุซุจูˆุช. ูˆุฃู†ู‡ ู„ุง ูŠุตู„ุญ ุฃู† ูŠู…ุงุณ ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ูŠู† ุฃูˆ ุชู…ุงุณู‡ ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ุงุชุŒ ุญุชู‰ ุฅู† ุงู„ุฎุตู… ูŠุณู„ู… ุฃู†ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู„ุง ูŠู…ุงุณ ุงู„ุฎู„ู‚. ุงู†ุชู‡ู‰.

                                I say: The 'Allama Zayn al-Din [Mar'i bin Yusuf] al-Karmi [al-Hanbali] (d. 1033 AH) explained in his book Aqawil al-Thiqat the statement of those who say [and affirm the expression of] direction (Jiha) and Highness ('Uluw) in a good way, such that it does not go against the way (Madhhab) of those from the Ahl al-Sunnah who rejected them, so he said:

                                "The one stating [the expression of] direction is saying: The directions cease with the cessation of the world and they end with the end of the last part of the creation, [so the action of] pointing upwards falls upon the highest part of the creation in reality.
                                That which confirms this is that the creation in total (al-Kawn al-Kulli) is not in a direction, because the directions are a sort of space / place (Makan) (i.e. direction is the relative connection between two places).
                                Place / Space in total (al-Makan al-Kulli) is not in a place, because when the places to its sides do not exist, [then] it can not be said that there is a right or a left or a front or a back or an above or a below [to it (i.e. the creation in total)].
                                They (those affirming direction) [also] said: That which is other than the creation in total and is free of the Eternal Essence (i.e. God) is nothing (i.e. not existant) and it is not possible to point at it nor is it known by emptiness or fullness.
                                The creation in total (al-Kawn al-Kulli) is distinguished by the description of "being below" (Taht), because Allah ta'ala has described Himself with Highness ('Uluw) and praised Himself with this [description].
                                They (who accepted the expression of direction) said that [Allah] - glory be to Him - has brought the creation into existance in [having] location (Mahall) and boundary / spatial confinement (Hayyiz) and Allah ta'ala in His Eternity is transcendent from space (Mahall) and spatial confinement (Hayyiz), so that it is impossible according to law (Shar'an) and according to reason ('Aqlan) that after the creation comes into existance He indwells in it or gets mixed with it, because the Eternal [One] (al-Qadim) does not indwell in what is temporal (Hadith) and [He] is not subject to temporality (Mahall lil Hawadith). So [this] necessitates Him to be beyond [the creation] and if He's beyond it, then it is impossible that the world is [described with being] in the direction of above and the Lord with the direction of [being] below, rather He's above with the aboveness (Fawqiyya) that is befitting [for Him], which does not [contain] attributing modality (Takyif) or attributing likeness (Tamthil), but is known through the way of generality and firmness (i.e. because of the texts saying so) and not from the way of attributing likeness or modality.
                                So the Lord (al-Rabb) is described with the aboveness (Fawqiyya) that is befitting His Majesty and Glory and that which is understood from attributes of creation (i.e. the aboveness of created beings) is not to be understood from [the divine aboveness].
                                They [also] said: Definitive proofs have indeed shown the existance of the Maker (al-Bari) and the firmness of His essence with real firmness and that it's not correct [regarding] Him [to be described with the possibility] of touching the creation or that [of the] the creation touching Him, [and] even the opponent acknowledges that [Allah] ta'ala does not touch the creation."

                                - end of quote -

                                The Shaykh then commented on the above by saying:

                                ูˆู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ุชูˆุฌูŠู‡ ุงู„ุฐูŠ ุฐูƒุฑู‡ ุงู„ูƒุฑู…ูŠ ู†ุงุณุจุงู‹ ู„ู‡ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ู‚ุงุฆู„ูŠู† ุจุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉ ุชูˆุฌูŠู‡ ุฌูŠุฏ ูŠุฌู…ุน ุจูŠู† ู‚ูˆู„ ุงู„ู‚ุงุฆู„ูŠู† ุจุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉุŒ ูˆู‚ูˆู„ ุงู„ู‚ุงุฆู„ูŠู† ุจุชู†ุฒู‡ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุนู†ู‡ุŒ ูˆูŠุฑุชูุน ุจู‡ ู…ุง ูˆู‚ุน ุจูŠู† ุงู„ูุฑู‚ ุงู„ุฅุณู„ุงู…ูŠุฉ ู…ู† ุงู„ุฎู„ุงู ูˆุงู„ู†ุฒุงุน ุงู„ุฐูŠ ุฃุฏู‰ ุจู‡ุง ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ูุฑู‚ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุดุญู†ุงุก ูˆุงู„ุจุบุถุงุก.
                                ูˆู‚ุฏ ุฃุดุงุฑ ุฅู„ู‰ ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ู‚ุงุถูŠ ุนุถุฏ ุงู„ุฏูŠู† ุงู„ุฅูŠุฌูŠ ููŠ ูƒุชุงุจู‡ ุงู„ู…ูˆุงู‚ู. ู‚ุงู„: ูˆู…ู†ู‡ู… โ€“ุฃูŠ ู…ู† ุงู„ู‚ุงุฆู„ูŠู† ุจุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉ- ู…ู† ู‚ุงู„ ู„ูŠุณ ูƒูˆู†ู‡ ููŠ ุฌู‡ุฉ ูƒูƒูˆู† ุงู„ุฃุฌุณุงู… ููŠ ุฌู‡ุฉ. ู‚ุงู„ ุงู„ุณูŠุฏ ุงู„ุดุฑูŠู ุงู„ุฌุฑุฌุงู†ูŠ ููŠ ุดุฑุญู‡ (8/19). ูˆุงู„ู…ู†ุงุฒุนุฉ ู…ุน ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ู‚ุงุฆู„ ุฑุงุฌุนุฉ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ูุธ ุฏูˆู† ุงู„ู…ุนู†ู‰ุŒ ูˆุงู„ุฅุทู„ุงู‚ ุงู„ู„ูุธูŠ ู…ุชูˆู‚ู ุนู„ู‰ ูˆุฑูˆุฏ ุงู„ุดุฑุน ุจู‡. ุงู†ุชู‡ู‰.
                                ูˆุญุงุตู„ ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ุชูˆุฌูŠู‡ ุฃู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู„ูŠุณ ุฏุงุฎู„ ุงู„ุนุงู„ู… ู…ุฎุชู„ุทุงู‹ ุจู‡ ู…ู…ุงุฒุฌุงู‹ ุฅูŠุงู‡ุŒ ูƒู…ุง ุฃู† ุงู„ุนุงู„ู… ู„ูŠุณ ุจุฏุงุฎู„ ููŠู‡ ู„ุฃู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู„ู… ูŠุฎู„ู‚ ุงู„ุนุงู„ู… ููŠ ู†ูุณู‡ ูˆุฅู†ู…ุง ุฎู„ู‚ ุงู„ุนุงู„ู… ุฎุงุฑุฌุงู‹ ุนู† ู†ูุณู‡ุŒ ูƒู…ุง ุฃู†ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู„ู… ูŠุญู„ ููŠู‡ ุจุนุฏ ุฃู† ุฎู„ู‚ู‡ุŒ ูˆุฅู„ุง ู„ุฒู… ุงู„ู…ู…ุงุฒุฌุฉ ูˆุงู„ู…ุฎุงู„ุทุฉ ูˆุงู„ุญู„ูˆู„ ูˆุงู„ุงุชุญุงุฏ ูˆู‚ูŠุงู… ุงู„ุญูˆุงุฏุซ ุจู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ูˆู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ุฃู…ูˆุฑ ู…ู†ุชููŠุฉ ุนู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุจุงู„ุฅุฌู…ุงุน.
                                ุจู„ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุจุงุฆู† ุนู† ุงู„ุนุงู„ู… ู„ูŠุณ ุฏุงุฎู„ุงู‹ ููŠู‡ุŒ ูˆู„ูŠุณ ููŠ ุฌู‡ุฉ ู…ู†ู‡.
                                ูˆุฐู„ูƒ ู„ุฃู† ุงู„ุฌู‡ุงุช ุชู†ู‚ุทุน ุจุงู†ู‚ุทุงุน ุงู„ุนุงู„ู…ุŒ ูˆุชู†ุชู‡ูŠ ุจุงู†ุชู‡ุงุก ุขุฎุฑ ุฌุฒุก ู…ู†ู‡ุŒ ูู„ุง ูŠูˆุตู ุงู„ุนุงู„ู… โ€“ูˆู‡ูˆ ุงู„ูƒูˆู† ุงู„ูƒู„ูŠ ุจุฌู…ู„ุชู‡- ุจุฃู† ู„ู‡ ูŠู…ูŠู†ุงู‹ ูˆู„ุง ูŠุณุงุฑุงู‹ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ู‚ุฏุงู…ุงู‹ ูˆู„ุง ุฎู„ูุงู‹ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ููˆู‚ุงู‹ ูˆู„ุง ุชุญุชุงู‹ุŒ ูƒู…ุง ู„ุง ูŠูˆุตู ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุจุฐู„ูƒุŒ ูู„ุง ูŠูƒูˆู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ููŠ ุฌู‡ุฉ ู…ู†ู‡ ูƒู…ุง ู„ุง ูŠูƒูˆู† ู‡ูˆ ููŠ ุฌู‡ุฉ ู…ู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰.
                                ูˆู‚ุฏ ูˆุตู ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู†ูุณู‡ ุจุงู„ุนู„ูˆ ูˆุงู„ููˆู‚ูŠุฉ ูˆุชู…ุฏุญ ุจู‡ู…ุงุŒ ูู†ุซุจุชู‡ู…ุง ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุนู„ู‰ ุฃู†ู‡ู…ุง ูˆุตู ู…ุฏุญ ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ุŒ ูˆุจุงู„ู…ุนู†ู‰ ุงู„ู„ุงุฆู‚ ุจู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุงู„ุฐูŠ ู„ุง ูŠู…ุซู„ ูˆู„ุง ูŠูƒูŠูุŒ ูˆู†ุนุชู‚ุฏ ุงู„ุนู„ูˆ ูˆุงู„ููˆู‚ูŠุฉ ู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู…ู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุฌู…ู„ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุซุจูˆุชุŒ ู…ุน ู†ููŠ ุงู„ุชู…ุซูŠู„ ูˆุงู„ุชูƒูŠูŠูุŒ ูู†ุนุชู‚ุฏ ูˆุตู ุงู„ุฑุจ ุจุงู„ุนู„ูˆ ูˆุงู„ููˆู‚ูŠุฉ ูƒู…ุง ูŠู„ูŠู‚ ุจุฌู„ุงู„ู‡ ูˆุนุธู…ุชู‡ุŒ ุจุฏูˆู† ุฃู† ู†ูู‡ู… ู…ู†ู‡ุง ู…ุง ูŠูู‡ู… ู…ู† ุตูุงุช ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ูŠู†. ู‚ุงู„ ุงู„ุญุงูุธ ุงุจู† ุญุฌุฑ ููŠ ูุชุญ ุงู„ุจุงุฑูŠ(6/136): ูˆู„ุง ูŠู„ุฒู… ู…ู† ูƒูˆู† ุฌู‡ุชูŠ ุงู„ุนู„ูˆ ูˆุงู„ุณูู„ ู…ุญุงู„ุงู‹ ุนู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุฃู† ู„ุง ูŠูˆุตู ุจุงู„ุนู„ูˆ ู„ุฃู† ูˆุตูู‡ ุจุงู„ุนู„ูˆ ู…ู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ู…ุนู†ู‰ ูˆุงู„ู…ุณุชุญูŠู„ ูƒูˆู† ุฐู„ูƒ ู…ู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุญุณุŒ ูˆู„ุฐู„ูƒ ูˆุฑุฏ ููŠ ุตูุชู‡ ุงู„ุนุงู„ูŠ ูˆุงู„ุนู„ูŠ ูˆุงู„ู…ุชุนุงู„ูŠ ูˆู„ู… ูŠุฑุฏ ุถุฏ ุฐู„ูƒ. ุงู†ุชู‡ู‰. ู‡ุฐุง ุจุญุณุจ ุงู„ุชุญู‚ูŠู‚.
                                ูˆุงู„ุญุงุตู„ ุฃู† ุงู„ุฐูŠู† ู†ููˆุง ุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉ ุนู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู†ููˆู‡ุง ุนู†ู‡ ุจู…ุนู†ู‰ ุฃู† ูŠูƒูˆู† ููŠ ุฌู‡ุฉ ู…ุนูŠู†ุฉ ู…ู† ุงู„ุนุงู„ู…ุŒ ูˆุฃู…ุง ุงู„ุฐูŠู† ุฃุซุจุชูˆุง ุงู„ููˆู‚ูŠุฉ ู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ูู„ู… ูŠุฑูŠุฏูˆุง ุฃู†ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ููŠ ุฌู‡ุฉ ู…ุนูŠู†ุฉ ู…ู† ุงู„ุนุงู„ู…ุŒ ุจู„ ุฃุฑุงุฏูˆุง ุฃู†ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุจุงุฆู† ุนู† ุงู„ุนุงู„ู… ูˆู„ูŠุณ ุจุฏุงุฎู„ ููŠู‡ุŒ ูˆุฃู†ู‡ ููˆู‚ู‡ ุจุงู„ููˆู‚ูŠุฉ ุงู„ู„ุงุฆู‚ุฉ ุจุนุฒุชู‡ ูˆุฌู„ุงู„ู‡ ุงู„ุชูŠ ู„ุง ุชู…ุซู„ ูˆู„ุง ุชูƒูŠูุŒ ูˆุชุนู„ู… ู…ู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุฌู…ู„ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุซุจูˆุช ู„ุง ู…ู† ุฌู‡ุฉ ุงู„ุชู…ุซูŠู„ ูˆุงู„ูƒูŠูุŒ ูˆู„ุง ูŠูู‡ู… ู…ู†ู‡ุง ู…ุง ูŠูู‡ู… ู…ู† ุตูุงุช ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ูŠู† ูˆููˆู‚ูŠุชู‡ู…. ูˆุงู„ููˆู‚ูŠุฉ ุจู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ู…ุนู†ู‰ ู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ูˆูƒุฐู„ูƒ ุงู„ุจูŠู†ูˆู†ุฉ ู…ู…ุง ูŠุซุจุชู‡ ุงู„ูุฑูŠู‚ ุงู„ุฃูˆู„ ู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰. ูˆุงู„ุฐูŠ ูŠู†ููˆู†ู‡ ุฅู†ู…ุง ู‡ูˆ ุงู„ููˆู‚ูŠุฉ ุจู…ุนู†ู‰ ุงู„ูƒูˆู† ููŠ ุฌู‡ุฉ ู…ุนูŠู†ุฉ ู…ู† ุงู„ุนุงู„ู… ุงู„ุชูŠ ู‡ูŠ ู…ู† ุตูุงุช ุงู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ูŠู†. ูˆู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ููˆู‚ูŠุฉ ู„ู… ูŠุซุจุชู‡ุง ุงู„ูุฑูŠู‚ ุงู„ุซุงู†ูŠ ุจู„ ู‚ุฏ ู†ููˆู‡ุง ุนู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ุŒ ูู„ู… ูŠุชูˆุงุฑุฏ ู†ููŠ ุงู„ุฌู‡ุฉ ุนู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ู…ู…ู† ู†ูุงู‡ุง ูˆุฅุซุจุงุชู‡ุง ู…ู…ู† ุฃุซุจุชู‡ุง ุนู„ู‰ ู…ุนู†ู‰ ูˆุงุญุฏุŒ ูู„ูŠุณ ุจูŠู†ู‡ู…ุง ุฎู„ุงู ููŠ ุงู„ุญู‚ูŠู‚ุฉุŒ ุจู†ุงุก ุนู„ู‰ ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ุชุญู‚ูŠู‚ุŒ ุจู„ ุฎู„ุงูู‡ู… ูŠุนูˆุฏ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ูุธุŒ ูˆุฃู…ุง ุงู„ุญู‚ูŠู‚ุฉ ูุงู„ูุฑูŠู‚ุงู† ู…ุชูู‚ุงู† ููŠู‡ุงุŒ ูู‚ุฏ ุฃุซุจุช ูƒู„ ู…ู† ุงู„ูุฑูŠู‚ูŠู† ู…ุง ุฃุซุจุชู‡ ุงู„ูุฑูŠู‚ ุงู„ุขุฎุฑุŒ ูˆู†ูู‰ ู…ุง ู†ูุงู‡

                                This explanation (Tawjih) that al-Karmi ascribed to those who say [and affirm the expression of] direction (Jiha) [regarding Allah ta'ala] is a good explanation that unites between the saying of those who say [and affirm the expression of] direction and the saying of those who declare Allah ta'ala transcendent from it. With this [explanation] he [also] solves that which happened from the disagreement and conflict - which lead to disunity, enemity and hatred - between the Islamic groups.
                                Al-Qadhi 'Adhud al-din al-Iji [al-Ash'ari] (d. 756 AH) has indeed pointed to this explanation in his book al-Mawaqif, [for] He said: "From among them - meaning those who say [and affirm] direction - are those who say [that] Him being in a direction is not like bodies being in a direction."
                                Al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jurjani [al-Ash'ari] (d. 816 AH) said in his commentary [upon al-Mawaqif]: "The argument with the one stating this goes back to the wording (Lafdh) [only] without the meaning (Ma'na), and stating this in wording is depending on whether it can found in the [divine] law (Shar') [or not]."

                                The summary [of] this explanation is that Allah ta'ala is not inside the world ('Alam) [nor] mixed [and] mingled with it just like the world is not inside Him, for Allah ta'ala has not created the world in Himself, rather he created it outside of Himself. [Allah] ta'ala also does not indwell in [the world] after creating it, [because] otherwise mingling, mixing, indwelling, unity and subsisting of temporality in Him ta'ala would be necessitated and these issues are rejected regarding Allah ta'ala by consensus.
                                Rather Allah ta'ala is beyond the world (ba`in 'an al-'Alam) [and] not inside it nor in a [specific] direction from it.
                                This is so because the directions cease with the cessation of the world and end with the end of the last part of it, so that the world - and that is the creation in total and sum - is not described with having a right, a left, a front, a back, a below or an above [in relation] to it just like Allah ta'ala is not described with this, so that Allah is not in a [specific] direction in relation to [the world] and [the world] is also not in a [specific] direction in relation to Allah ta'ala.
                                Allah ta'ala has indeed described Himself with highness ('Uluw) and aboveness (Fawqiyya) and has praised Himself with them, so we affirm them as descriptions of praise for [Allah] ta'ala and with the meaning that is befitting of Him ta'ala without ascribing likeness or modality. We believe in highness and aboveness for Allah ta'ala from the way of generality and firmness, while denying ascribing likeness (Tamthil) or modality (Takyif), so we believe in describing the Lord with highness and aboveness in the manner befiiting with His majesty and greatness without understanding from [the divine highness and aboveness] that which is understood from the attributes of the creation.
                                Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar [al-'Asqalani al-Ash'ari] (d. 852 AH) said in his Fath al-Bari: "Just because the direction of highness and belowness is impossible regarding Allah ta'ala [in a sensory manner], it does not mean that He is not described with highness ('Uluw), because describing Him with highness is [intended] from the way of meaning, [while that which is] impossible [regarding Him] is from the way of the sense[s] (i.e. in a sensory manner). That is why the All-High, the Most-High and the Self Exalted are from among His descriptions while the opposite [in meaning] can not be found [in the texts].", end of [his] quote. This is from the way of verification.

                                The summary is that those who denied direction (Jiha) regarding Allah ta'ala denied it regarding Him with the meaning that He is in a specific direction (Jiha Mu'ayyana) in relation to the world, while those who affirmed aboveness (Fawqiyya) regarding Allah ta'ala did not intend that He's in a specific direction in relation to the world, rather what they intended is that [Allah] ta'ala is beyond the world (ba`in 'an al-'Alam) and not inside it and that He is above it with the aboveness that is befitting of His glory and majesty which is without ascribing likeness (Tamthil) or modality (Takyif), so that it is known from the way of generality and firmness and not from the way of ascribing likeness or modality. That which is understood from the attributes of creation [and their aboveness[ is not to be understood from [the divine highness and aboveness].
                                Aboveness (Fawqiyya) with this meaning [mentioned] regarding Allah ta'ala and likewise beyondness (Bayynuna) is what the first group (i.e. those who deny direction) [also] affirms regarding Allah ta'ala. That which they reject is aboveness with the meaning of Him being in a specific direction in relation to the world, which is from the attributes of creation. But this aboveness was not affirmed by the second group (i.e. those who affirm direction), rather they indeed rejected it regarding Allah ta'ala.
                                So that which is found from the rejection of direction regarding Allah ta'ala of those who reject it and the affirmation of those who affirm it is NOT with the same meaning (i.e. their intention with the term "direction" is not the same), so that they are not in disagreement in reality based upon this verification (Tahqiq), rather their disagreement goes back to wording [only].
                                As for the reality: Then both groups are agreed upon it, so that each group affirmed what the other group affirmed and rejected what the other [group] rejected.

                                - end of quote -
                                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 04-04-20, 05:27 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X