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

  • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
    Click image for larger version Name:	131976204_221373796276262_611380193119752466_n.jpg Views:	0 Size:	119.6 KB ID:	12752388

    I just got this commentary entitled Hashiyah al Muwaffaq ala Lumah al Muwaffaq by Shaykh (A communtary on Lumah al Itiqad of Imam Ibn Qudamah) by Muwaffaq al Din Yusuf Bin Saqid al Hanbali.

    Shaykh Muwaffaq al Din Yusuf Bin Sadiq al Hanbali is a traditional Hanbali scholar who has just translated this wonderful text with an excellent commentary.
    Allahumma baarik, where did you get it from? I watched one of his videos and he was mentioning that they're giving them out for free. MashaAllah.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post

      Allahumma baarik, where did you get it from? I watched one of his videos and he was mentioning that they're giving them out for free. MashaAllah.
      https://www.kafilahbuku.com/Islam/Th...ah-al-muwaffaq

      That's the link. I didn't get it for free. I think you have to go and visit his madrasah to get it for free. I paid for mine. And I am ok with paying for it. It is an excellent commentary. He doesn't delve too deep, but deep enough.

      I found the translation interesting. Sometimes I would come across a word and wondered why he picked that word. But overall I enjoyed the book and found it to be very beneficial. It has provided clarity concerning a particular part of that text, that I was struggling with.


      Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 07-01-21, 06:37 PM.
      My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

      Comment


      • Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

        https://www.kafilahbuku.com/Islam/Th...ah-al-muwaffaq

        That's the link. I didn't get it for free. I think you have to go and visit his madrasah to get it for free. I paid for mine. And I am ok with paying for it. It is an excellent commentary. He doesn't delve too deep, but deep enough.

        I found the translation interesting. Sometimes I would come across a word and wondered why he picked that word. But overall I enjoyed the book and found it to be very beneficial. It has provided clarity concerning a particular part of that text, that I was struggling with.

        Insha'Allah I'll be able to read it one day. I'm curious about the words you're referring to.

        Do you perhaps have any information about his madrasa?

        Comment


        • bn Qudaamah al-Maqdisee (d. 620H) said about the Ash'arites in his book, "Hikaayat ul-Munaadharah fil-Qur'aan Ma'a Ba'd Ahl il-Bid'ah" (Narrative of the Debate Regarding the Qur'an with Some of the People of Innovation) - which is his documenting of his debate with the Ash'aris on the subject of the Qur'aan. He says on pages 34-35:

          ​​​​​​And the focus of [these] people [the Ash'arites] is to [say] the Qur'an is created and to agree with the Mu'tazilah, but they love that this should not be known about them, so they embarked upon [sophistry] that [amounts] to arrogant rejection of observable reality, and rejection of the realities, and opposition to the consensus (ijmaa), and throwing the Book and the Sunnah behind their backs, and speaking with something that no one before them has said, neither Muslim nor Disbeliever. And it is strange that they are not daring enough to proclaim their [real] saying openly, and nor to explicitly state it, except in secluded gatherings, even if they were [ones] in authority (i.e. rulers) and were the leaders of the state. And if you were to quote [to others] from their saying that they believe, they would hate it and reject it and become arrogant over it.
          They do not outwardly show except veneration of the Qur'an, and respect of the masaahif (copies of the Qur'an), and standing up (maintaining respect for it) when seeing it. But in the secluded gatherings, they say, "There is nothing in them (the masaahif) except paper and ink, and what else is in them [but that]?"

          And I had quoted some of what had been said by one with whom there was a debate - between me and him - and he became angry and it was burdensome to him, and he is one of the greatest of rulers in the land. And he did not reveal explicitly his saying until I was in seclusion with him, and he said, "I wish to say to what is in the innermost part of myself, and you (in turn) say to me what is in the innermost part of yourself", and he made their saying (that of the Ash'aris) clear to me, along the lines of what we have [already] quoted from them. And when I presented some verse, making it binding upon him [to accept] that they indicate the Qur'an is these [very] surahs (chapters) [in letter and word], he said, "And I say this is the Qur'an (as well). But this is not the eternal Qur'an." I said, "So do we have two Qur'ans?". He said, "Yes, and what will happen if we have two Qur'ans?"

          When I quoted this saying from him (to others) he became angry.

          And some of our companions said to him: "You are the rulers (wulaat ul-amr), the leaders of the state, so what prevents you from openly proclaiming your saying to the general folk, and calling people to speak with it between them." So he was refuted and did not [thereafter] respond to me.

          And we do not know amongst the people of innovation, any faction who conceal their saying, and do not have the boldness to proclaim it (openly) except the Heretics (Zanaadiqah) and the Ash'ariyyah.And Allaah, the Exalted, order His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to openly proclaim the religion, to call to it, and to convey what Allaah revealed to Him, so the Most High said:
          O Messenger! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. Allýh will protect you from mankind. (Al-Ma'idah 5:67)
          So if their saying - as they claim - is the truth, then why do they not openly proclaim it and call the people to it?
          And how is it lawful for them to hide it and conceal it, and to proclaim openly what is different to it, deceiving the public [into thinking they] believe other than it? Rather, if their saying was the truth that the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), His Companions, and the Imaams of the religion after them were upon, how come not one of them openly proclaimed it? And did they all concur upon concealing it?
          Or how was it lawful for the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to conceal it from his ummah whilst he had been ordered to convey what had been revealed to him, and had beed threatened against concealing anything from it with His saying:
          And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. (Al-Ma'idah 5:67)
          And how was it possible for him to make the people presume (something) in opposition to the truth?

          ​​​​​​
          And he said about Abu'l Hasan al Ashari:

          ”What is amazing is that their leader (i.e. Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari) who established their beliefs was a man not known for his religion or piety, nor was he known for any of the Sacred sciences. In fact, he belongs to no science except the science of blameworthy Kalam. All the while they acknowledge that he spent 40 years adhering to Mu’tazili doctrine, and then pretended to have retracted from it, however, nothing could be seen from him after his repentance except this Bid’ah.’

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post

            Insha'Allah I'll be able to read it one day. I'm curious about the words you're referring to.

            Do you perhaps have any information about his madrasa?
            One example is his translation of "Tamthil" is "making examples", instead of "likening". It is an interesting translation. And I wonder why he chose this translation? Why did he prefer "making examples" over "likening" Not that it is a bad translation, but it gives a reflection on how he understands the arabic term, tamthil. He obviously knows what tamthil means.

            I don't have any info on the madrasa. You can email them and they will answer you.
            My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

            Comment


            • Imam al Safarini al Hanbali said, “Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah consists of three groups, the Atharis, their Imam is Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, the Asharis, their Imam is Abu al Hasan al Ashari and the Maturidis and their Imam is Abu al Mansur al Maturidi.” (Lawami al Anwats al Bahiyya)

              Imam Ibn al Shatti al Hanbali said, “Some scholars say that they, the saved group are the People of Hadith, in other words, the Atharis, Asharis and Maturidis.” (Tabsir Al Qani fi al Jami)

              Imam al Mawahibi al Hanbali said, “The factions of Ahlus Sunnah are three: The Asharis, the Hanbalis and the Maturidis. “ *(Al Ayn wa Athar)

              Comments:

              Allah says, “And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you – when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers.” (3:103)


              Ahlus Sunnah Wa Jamaah has reached a point where we are united. There was a time when Asharis and Mautridis opposed each other, now were see each other as Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah. There was a time when the Asharis and Athari-Hanbalis opposed each other, now we see each other as Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah. Allah has commanded us to hold onto one rope as one Jamaah, yet we have people who call themselves Muslims who want to divide us, this is but the work of Shaytaan.

              It is Allah alone who grants us success. Ameen.
              Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 08-01-21, 04:25 PM.
              My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

              Comment


              • I really didn't want to comment in this thread in 2021 but choosing not to clarify this post (for a second time) is more troubling than the spiritual anxiety I am receiving from remaining patient.

                Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

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

                Edit: It should probably read "I believe the views I hold in Aqeedah are sound and consistent with the reality of the religion. Wa Allahu A'lam."
                The phrase "is for the most part sound" in this context is absolutely incorrect and creates unnecessary doubts in the mind of the reader (as well as myself). What I was actually intending when I wrote that post was to incorporate "WaAllahu A'lam" without having to add it in the middle of a paragraph. Perhaps a better way to articulate the point would be to say "I believe the views I hold in Aqeedah are sound (or 'essentially sound' out of intellectual humbleness) and consistent with the reality of the religion".

                Most if not all of my posts in this thread and elsewhere on the forum are caveated with "I strongly sympathize with", "I feel most confident that", "the most consistent representation of", "the closest to the truth", instead of "such and such were completely upon Haqq (i.e. absolutely identical with theology of Rasulullah SAWS on every minute detail)".

                This intellectual humility with regards to the finer details of Ijtihad in Aqeedah is related to the point I was making in this thread and explained briefly by Yasir Qadhi from 03:47:



                In conclusion, I believe that the Atharis in general are upon Haqq in the sufficient sense of the term (they represent the 'intended/expected theology'), but it is inappropriate for anyone to claim Haqq in the absolute or metaphysical sense (which is ultimately only known to Allah who is al-Haqq).

                WaAllahu A'lam

                Comment


                • It should also be stated that determining the "true creed of the Salaf" is also a matter of Ijtihad which great scholars from every Firqah (and even from within each Firqah) have differed over to some extent. This does not render the science of Aqeedah relative in my opinion but the issue is not as black and white as some would like to project.

                  WaAllahu Alam.

                  Comment


                  • As for me I am certain that the true creed of Salaf (the truth) is only found amongst the groups of Ahlus Sunnah (Maturidi, Ash'ari, Athari inc. the extinct Hazmi and Kullabi).

                    And I am certain that Tajsim (e.g. believing Allah can have limits/boundaris or that he is in a certain space i.e. can have things above or below him or that he he is a being subject to the six-directions etc.) is not Sunni creed (true creed of the Salaf and the truth).

                    I admit however that I am only near-certain that these things are disbelief. (I am however certain that they are either innovation or disbelief).

                    Concerning the scholars from the Firaq, some of them may be very knowledgeable, but I do not call them great. I am just stating my view, not looking for an argument.


                    And Allah is Al-Haqq, who alone knows all Truths without limit, and al-Haqq is The Truth who knows the truth in this matter and which is upon Sirat al-Mustaqim. He will judge between them and he is al-Adl, the Just.

                    And Allah is al-Qawiyy, who gives increase in knowledge to whomsoever he wishes. I do not speak regarding Him without knowledge.
                    Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                    "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                    Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                    Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                    1/116

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                      I really didn't want to comment in this thread in 2021 but choosing not to clarify this post (for a second time) is more troubling than the spiritual anxiety I am receiving from remaining patient.



                      The phrase "is for the most part sound" in this context is absolutely incorrect and creates unnecessary doubts in the mind of the reader (as well as myself). What I was actually intending when I wrote that post was to incorporate "WaAllahu A'lam" without having to add it in the middle of a paragraph. Perhaps a better way to articulate the point would be to say "I believe the views I hold in Aqeedah are sound (or 'essentially sound' out of intellectual humbleness) and consistent with the reality of the religion".

                      Most if not all of my posts in this thread and elsewhere on the forum are caveated with "I strongly sympathize with", "I feel most confident that", "the most consistent representation of", "the closest to the truth", instead of "such and such were completely upon Haqq (i.e. absolutely identical with theology of Rasulullah SAWS on every minute detail)".

                      This intellectual humility with regards to the finer details of Ijtihad in Aqeedah is related to the point I was making in this thread and explained briefly by Yasir Qadhi from 03:47:



                      In conclusion, I believe that the Atharis in general are upon Haqq in the sufficient sense of the term (they represent the 'intended/expected theology'), but it is inappropriate for anyone to claim Haqq in the absolute or metaphysical sense (which is ultimately only known to Allah who is al-Haqq).

                      WaAllahu A'lam

                      Even the term "essentially sound.." is problematic in some sense because one could argue that all of our views are "essentially sound" and not necessarily worth correcting one another over (which might actually be the view of Yasir Qadhi - not that I'm making Taqlid of him).

                      Perhaps the only way to resolve this issue is to maintain certainty and conviction (i.e. "I believe the views I hold in Aqeedah are sound and consistent with the Madhhab of the Salaf") without letting this assertion get to your head and prevent you recognizing the truth even if it is elsewhere. The problem is that most people who passionately claim "certainty" or make statements like "there is no Ijtihad in Aqeedah" are the least likely to change their views despite how silly they might look in the eyes of their opponents (say a Najdi convinced of his Wahhabism).

                      That's all for now. Jazakallah Khayr.

                      WaAllahu A'lam
                      Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 09-01-21, 12:08 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by maturidee View Post
                        bn Qudaamah al-Maqdisee (d. 620H) said about the Ash'arites in his book, "Hikaayat ul-Munaadharah fil-Qur'aan Ma'a Ba'd Ahl il-Bid'ah" (Narrative of the Debate Regarding the Qur'an with Some of the People of Innovation) - which is his documenting of his debate with the Ash'aris on the subject of the Qur'aan. He says on pages 34-35:

                        ​​​​​​And the focus of [these] people [the Ash'arites] is to [say] the Qur'an is created and to agree with the Mu'tazilah, but they love that this should not be known about them, so they embarked upon [sophistry] that [amounts] to arrogant rejection of observable reality, and rejection of the realities, and opposition to the consensus (ijmaa), and throwing the Book and the Sunnah behind their backs, and speaking with something that no one before them has said, neither Muslim nor Disbeliever. And it is strange that they are not daring enough to proclaim their [real] saying openly, and nor to explicitly state it, except in secluded gatherings, even if they were [ones] in authority (i.e. rulers) and were the leaders of the state. And if you were to quote [to others] from their saying that they believe, they would hate it and reject it and become arrogant over it.
                        They do not outwardly show except veneration of the Qur'an, and respect of the masaahif (copies of the Qur'an), and standing up (maintaining respect for it) when seeing it. But in the secluded gatherings, they say, "There is nothing in them (the masaahif) except paper and ink, and what else is in them [but that]?"

                        And I had quoted some of what had been said by one with whom there was a debate - between me and him - and he became angry and it was burdensome to him, and he is one of the greatest of rulers in the land. And he did not reveal explicitly his saying until I was in seclusion with him, and he said, "I wish to say to what is in the innermost part of myself, and you (in turn) say to me what is in the innermost part of yourself", and he made their saying (that of the Ash'aris) clear to me, along the lines of what we have [already] quoted from them. And when I presented some verse, making it binding upon him [to accept] that they indicate the Qur'an is these [very] surahs (chapters) [in letter and word], he said, "And I say this is the Qur'an (as well). But this is not the eternal Qur'an." I said, "So do we have two Qur'ans?". He said, "Yes, and what will happen if we have two Qur'ans?"

                        When I quoted this saying from him (to others) he became angry.

                        And some of our companions said to him: "You are the rulers (wulaat ul-amr), the leaders of the state, so what prevents you from openly proclaiming your saying to the general folk, and calling people to speak with it between them." So he was refuted and did not [thereafter] respond to me.

                        And we do not know amongst the people of innovation, any faction who conceal their saying, and do not have the boldness to proclaim it (openly) except the Heretics (Zanaadiqah) and the Ash'ariyyah.And Allaah, the Exalted, order His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to openly proclaim the religion, to call to it, and to convey what Allaah revealed to Him, so the Most High said:
                        O Messenger! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. Allýh will protect you from mankind. (Al-Ma'idah 5:67)
                        So if their saying - as they claim - is the truth, then why do they not openly proclaim it and call the people to it?
                        And how is it lawful for them to hide it and conceal it, and to proclaim openly what is different to it, deceiving the public [into thinking they] believe other than it? Rather, if their saying was the truth that the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), His Companions, and the Imaams of the religion after them were upon, how come not one of them openly proclaimed it? And did they all concur upon concealing it?
                        Or how was it lawful for the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to conceal it from his ummah whilst he had been ordered to convey what had been revealed to him, and had beed threatened against concealing anything from it with His saying:
                        And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. (Al-Ma'idah 5:67)
                        And how was it possible for him to make the people presume (something) in opposition to the truth?

                        ​​​​​​
                        And he said about Abu'l Hasan al Ashari:

                        ”What is amazing is that their leader (i.e. Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari) who established their beliefs was a man not known for his religion or piety, nor was he known for any of the Sacred sciences. In fact, he belongs to no science except the science of blameworthy Kalam. All the while they acknowledge that he spent 40 years adhering to Mu’tazili doctrine, and then pretended to have retracted from it, however, nothing could be seen from him after his repentance except this Bid’ah.’

                        Great read, but what exactly makes ibn Qudamah right on the issue of the Quran?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post


                          Even the term "essentially sound.." is problematic in some sense because one could argue that all of our views are "essentially sound" and not necessarily worth correcting one another over (which might actually be the view of Yasir Qadhi - not that I'm making Taqlid of him).

                          Perhaps the only way to resolve this issue is to maintain certainty and conviction (i.e. "I believe the views I hold in Aqeedah are sound and consistent with the Madhhab of the Salaf") without letting this assertion get to your head and prevent you recognizing the truth even if it is elsewhere. The problem is that most people who passionately claim "certainty" or make statements like "there is no Ijtihad in Aqeedah" are the least likely to change their views despite how silly they might look in the eyes of their opponents (say a Najdi convinced of his Wahhabism).

                          That's all for now. Jazakallah Khayr.

                          WaAllahu A'lam
                          This is a much better way to put it, basically, you do not believe that other sunnis are ahlul bidah anymore, rather all are sincerely trying to reach the truth and have evidences behind them.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                            This is a much better way to put it, basically, you do not believe that other sunnis are ahlul bidah anymore, rather all are sincerely trying to reach the truth and have evidences behind them.
                            I respect the view that the Ash'aris are from Ahl al-Bid'ah because it was held by great scholars whose theological paradigms I'm most convinced by. However, I do not completely dismiss the claim made by others like Imam al-Saffarini who included them as part of Ahl al-Sunnah while still refuting their positions when they conflicted with the Athari creed.

                            Ultimately, I think that it is possible for "Salafi-Atharis" or Atharis who prefer Ibn Taymiyyah(ra) over Ibn Hamdan(ra) to theologically coexist with the Ash'aris and Maturidis if both parties came to the table with the intentions of seeking reconciliation. This could be achieved if both camps recognized the internal theological consistencies of each others paradigms. The Ahl al-Kalam should concede the point that based on Salafi-Athari theological/philosophical standards they are not guilty of committing Tajsim despite whatever conflict this might posit with their proofs for the existence of God. Likewise the Salafis must give credit to the fact that Allah has Willed (by way of Qadr) for the Ash'aris to emerge as the dominant theological school throughout most of Islamic history. Obviously more can be said in support of the legitimacy of either group but I believe these are among the fundamental points of recognition.

                            Here's an interesting excerpt from one of Shaykh Yusuf Bin Sadiq's Facebook sessions wherein he claims that not being from Ahl al-Sunnah doesn't necessarily render the group from Ahl al-Bid'ah:

                            "Do you consider the Ashaa'ira from Ahl al-Sunnah or Ahl al-Bid'ah? The Ashaa'ira are from Ahl al-Sunnah according to some of the Hanaabilah. Not being from Ahl al-Sunnah doesn't mean you are from Ahl al-Bid'ah. I think this.. because Ibn Qudama didn't mention their names as the Mubtadi'ah at the end of Lumatul Itiqad, yet he harshly talked about them in other books. Ya'ni, you might be something in between, so you're not really Ahl al-Bid'ah and you're not from Ahl al-Sunnah. In my opinion they are from Ahl al-Sunnah. Why? Because they are doing Tanzih in the end; they are not claiming anything bad of Allah, but they have mistakes. Having mistakes is fine. Maybe these mistakes are excused according to Allah. And one or two mistakes in such issues does not make them from Ahl al-Bid'ah in my opinion. And also my Shuyukh are Ashaa'ira, so what do you expect me to say? That they are Mubtadi'ah? I would never say so. So I will always take the opinion in the Hanbali Madhhab that they are from Ahl al-Sunnah."

                            https://m.facebook.com/rewaqalhanabi...ll_videos_card

                            I should also state because it is related to your post that I don't necessarily believe the Ash'aris and Maturidis are going to be punished simply for being of that persuasion. Perhaps Allah will reward and punish based on the intentions and sincerity of why each person chose what they believed. This while rewarding the Salafi-Atharis more because they chose the most practical and sincere interpretation possible.

                            WaAllahu A'lam
                            Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 09-01-21, 06:12 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                              I respect the view that the Ash'aris are from Ahl al-Bid'ah because it was held by great scholars whose theological paradigms I'm most convinced by. However, I do not completely dismiss the claim made by others like Imam al-Saffarini who included them as part of Ahl al-Sunnah while still refuting their positions when they conflicted with the Athari creed.

                              Ultimately, I think that it is possible for "Salafi-Atharis" or Atharis who prefer Ibn Taymiyyah(ra) over Ibn Hamdan(ra) to theologically coexist with the Ash'aris and Maturidis if both parties came to the table with the intentions of seeking reconciliation. This could be achieved if both camps recognize the internal theological consistency of each others paradigms. The Ahl al-Kalam should concede the point that based on Salafi-Athari theological/philosophical standards they are not guilty of committing Tajsim despite whatever conflict this might posit with their proofs for the existence of God. Likewise the Salafis must give credit to the fact that has Allah Willed (by way of Qadr) for the Ash'aris to emerge as the dominant theological school throughout most of Islamic history. Obviously more can be said in support of the legitimacy of either group but I believe these are among the fundamental points of recognition.

                              Here's an interesting excerpt from one of Shaykh Yusuf al-Sadiq Facebook sessions wherein he claims that not being from Ahl al-Sunnah doesn't necessarily render the group from Ahl al-Bid'ah:




                              I should also state because it is related to your post that I don't necessarily believe the Ash'aris and Maturidis are going to be punished simply for being of that persuasion. Perhaps Allah will reward and punish based on the intentions and sincerity of why each person chose what they believed. This while rewarding the Salafi-Atharis more because they chose the most practical and sincere interpretation possible.

                              WaAllahu A'lam
                              Let's leave this here, not much to discuss anyway, I pretty much agree, I was just pointing out that your view is no longer the typical salafi view.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                                Great read, but what exactly makes ibn Qudamah right on the issue of the Quran?
                                Please brother don't quote this specific user. He was filling the thread with his off-topic posts and even went as far as affirming a size for the being he worships.
                                ​​​
                                Regarding Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) and his position regarding the divine speech:
                                His position regarding it is nearer to the Ash'aris than to the modern "Salafis", because he declared that the actual speech of Allah ta'ala is transcendent from Ta'aqub (following of each other) of words and letters and that His speech is eternal and not emergent or new, while these "Salafis" believe in Ta'aqub and the divine speech being emergent and not eternal (the only thing eternal for them is "God's power to speak").

                                It's quite dishonest for the "Salafis" to be quoting him in order to attack Ash'aris, because he would have ooposed them even stronger if they would have existed in his time.

                                With the above being said: His harshness in answering the Ash'aris was wrong and the same is true for the harshness of some Ash'aris towards the Hanabila.
                                ​​​​
                                ​​​​​
                                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 09-01-21, 06:36 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X