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 Abu Sulayman View Post

    No, there is no translation (as far as I know).

    But this is my translation of the relevant part in question of the statement of Ibn 'Uthaymin:

    "We believe that God has a real / literal face. But if we were to be asked regarding its modality [like] whether it's rectangular or circular or square-shaped or round or what is similar to this, how do we respond [then] ?... We respond [by saying] ʼGod knows bestʼ..."
    - end of quote -

    ​​​​​​I think it's quite obvious that a Muslim should not be speaking in this manner regarding the Creator subhanahu wa ta'ala.
    Note that the lessons of the above quoted person are filled with these type of mindless statements.
    Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

    So this anthropomorphism belief in Allah SWT as in face, arm, leg, height length etc etc etc, what is it classed as kufr, haram etc?
    It's disbelief (Kufr), but Takfir is disagreed upon. The classical scholars differed between Tabdi' and Takfir, but they were agreed upon that these type of beliefs are very dangerous and in opposition to the Qur`an al-karim.

    ​​​

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

      Well, they try distort his words because it wouldn't look good if they would openly state that they believe that "Imam al-Tahawi is a deviant". I mean the rank of Imam al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH) and his general acceptance among the people of the Sunna is known to them.
      Add to this: His work is representative of the creed of the early Muslims, so attacking his creed openly would destroy their whole claim of "following the Salaf".

      Just an example how they distort his words: Imam al-Tahawi categorically declared Allah ta'ala transcendent from limits (Hudud) and added to this the negation of parameters, or having constituents, limbs or instruments. So he leaves no room for Tajsim whatsoever as is obvious from the very wording he uses.
      Ibn Baz - another "major Salafi" - didn't like this and claimed "the author means limits that we know, but God has limits that He knows". I mean it's so obvious that Imam al-Tahawi never intended this as is clear from the very meanings that he negated alongside limits!



      Our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is referred to as Nur (light) in the Book of Allah ta'ala (see Aya 5:15) and you can check the classical books of Tafsir (like the one of Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH)) in support of this. This obviously does not exclude him - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - from being a human being from the offspring of Adam - peace be upon him -, but our Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is the Best of all humankind and the creation in general as is known.

      Our Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is alive in his grave and informed regarding our state and he prays for his Umma and all of this is established through authentic narrations. He's the most knowledgeable among the creation, because Allah ta'ala teached him more knowledge from the unseen than any other creation.
      This however does not mean that he - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is All-Knowing and All-Seeing, because these are divine attributes and exclusive to Allah ta'ala as we all know.
      Brother please can you provide the reference that Nabi sallahu alayhi wa salaam prays for us in the grave?
      Of course I assume you're on about barzakh which is obviously total different stage to dunya

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

        Brother please can you provide the reference that Nabi sallahu alayhi wa salaam prays for us in the grave?
        Of course I assume you're on about barzakh which is obviously total different stage to dunya
        Al-Ḥāfiẓ Abu Bakr Al-Bazzār stated in his Musnad2: Yūsuf bin Musa narrated to us, ‘Abd Al-Majīd bin ‘Abd Al-Azīz bin Abī Rawwād narrated to us, from Sufyān, from Abdullāh bin Al-Sā’ib, from Zādhān, from Abdullāh, from the Prophet ﷺ that he said:

        حَيَاتِي خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ تُحَدِّثُونَ وَنُحَدِّثُ لَكُمْ، وَوَفَاتِي خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ تُعْرَضُ عَلَيَّ أَعْمَالُكُمْ ، فَمَا رَأَيْتُ مِنَ خَيْرٍ حَمِدْتُ اللَّهَ عَلَيْهِ، وَمَا رَأَيْتُ مِنَ شَرٍّ اسْتَغْفَرْتُ اللَّهَ لَكُمْ

        My life is a great good for you: you will relate about me and it will be related to you. And my death is a great good for you, your actions will be presented to me and if I see goodness I will praise Allāh for it, and if see any evildoing I will ask forgiveness (of Allāh) for you.

        Al-Ḥāfiẓ Al-‘Irāqi in Tarḥ Al-Tathrīb3 said: Its chain is excellent (jayyid).

        Al-Haythamī in Majma’ Al-Zawā’id4 said: Al-Bazzār narrated it and its narrators are narrators of the saḥīḥ.

        Al-Suyūṭī authenticated it in Al-Khaṣā’iṣ5, and in his exegesis of Al-Shifā, and it is as he has stated.


        (Taken from the article "...And My Death is a Great Good For You by Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh" and Arabic text was added by me with the link.)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

          حَيَاتِي خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ تُحَدِّثُونَ وَنُحَدِّثُ لَكُمْ، وَوَفَاتِي خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ تُعْرَضُ عَلَيَّ أَعْمَالُكُمْ ، فَمَا رَأَيْتُ مِنَ خَيْرٍ حَمِدْتُ اللَّهَ عَلَيْهِ، وَمَا رَأَيْتُ مِنَ شَرٍّ اسْتَغْفَرْتُ اللَّهَ لَكُمْ

          My life is a great good for you: you will relate about me and it will be related to you. And my death is a great good for you, your actions will be presented to me and if I see goodness I will praise Allāh for it, and if see any evildoing I will ask forgiveness (of Allāh) for you.
          Just curious how you came up with نحدث meaning "it will be related"? Clearly the ن is for نحن and it is an active voice Form II verb, indicative, perfect tense, 1st person, plural meaning "we related".

          That is how the Hadith appears in Musnad al-Bazzar. Other references have it as يحدث which is probably what your translation is based on.

          Also, al-Munawi in his Fayd al-Qari and other Muhadditheen are clear in saying this alleged Hadith is weak since 'Ibn Abi Rawwad was weakened by some scholars of Ilm ar-Rijal. The only other testifying report is found in Musnad al-Harith and it is Mursal and also weak, so it doesn't strengthen it.

          Al-Iraqi says in his Takhrij of al-'Ihya' that it is 'Ibn Abi Dawud instead of 'Ibn Abi Rawwad, and he says that even though Muslim brought a Hadith through him in his Saheeh and 'Ibn Ma'een and an-Nasa'ee declared him trustworthy, the majority weakened him. So, apparently al-Iraqi is of two minds about this alleged Hadith.

          Shaykh Tareq bin Awadallah at IUM who is the Hadith instructor there wrote about this Hadith specifically as an example of a Hadith in which there are two parts- the first part you left out and the second part which you quoted. The first part is Saheeh and confirmed through various trustworthy routes from Sufyan ath-Thawri, however those routes do not include this second part you have quoted. The second part you have quoted is reported only by this 'Ibn Abi Rawwad, who, even though Muslim related a Hadith through him, his memory was impugned and this second part is not part of the original Hadith. Rather, he mixed this second part from the route of Musnad al-Harith, which is Mursal and agreed upon as weak, with the first part from 'Ibn Mas'ud RA which is authentic.

          So, this is an example of a Hadith in which a narrator switched parts of the wording of the Hadith with the wrong chain of narration.

          Judging merely on the basis of the chain itself, Muhadditheen like al-Haythami, al-Iraqi, and others said the chain is "Jayyid" or "strong". However, based on the discussion of this Hadith by scholars of 'Ilal and Ilm ar-Rijaal, the Hadith is in fact weak and the chain has a hidden defect.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post



            It's disbelief (Kufr), but Takfir is disagreed upon. The classical scholars differed between Tabdi' and Takfir, but they were agreed upon that these type of beliefs are very dangerous and in opposition to the Qur`an al-karim.

            ​​​
            You're wrong.

            Classical scholars affirm the Zaahir and Haqiqah of the Attributes as the Aqidah of Ahl as-Sunnah. Your translation and the Ash'ari distortion of the meaning of the terms "Zaahir" and "Haqiqah" as "literal" and "real" is typical of your penchant for exaggeration and meager attempts at painting the creed of Ahl as-Sunnah with the brush of Tashbeeh and Tajseem in order to make your negations and false interpretations seem more reasonable.

            The default understanding of the Attributes is to take them upon their "Zaahir" or "apparent meaning" and to affirm they are "Haqiqah", or "real in meaning" as opposed to "Majaaz" or "figurative".

            If you can't be honest in your discussion of the opposing argument's Istilaah/technical terminology, then what is your purpose here except to proselytize and demonize?

            Comment


            • The translation is taken from the article article "...And My Death is a Great Good For You by Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh" and it's not like you found a great mistake in order for you to act like this.

              Then: Stop acting as a Muhaddith and click at the link, where you will see the Hadith being spoken regarding its authenticity in detail. I don't post links in order for it to be ignored.

              Then: Our Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - praying for us is something generally accepted by the classical scholars and no one will find a problem with this except mindless Najdis!

              ​​​​​But let us get back to the issue of the divine attributes, because this is what this thread is about.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

                You're wrong.

                Classical scholars affirm the Zaahir and Haqiqah of the Attributes as the Aqidah of Ahl as-Sunnah. Your translation and the Ash'ari distortion of the meaning of the terms "Zaahir" and "Haqiqah" as "literal" and "real" is typical of your penchant for exaggeration and meager attempts at painting the creed of Ahl as-Sunnah with the brush of Tashbeeh and Tajseem in order to make your negations and false interpretations seem more reasonable.

                The default understanding of the Attributes is to take them upon their "Zaahir" or "apparent meaning" and to affirm they are "Haqiqah", or "real in meaning" as opposed to "Majaaz" or "figurative".

                If you can't be honest in your discussion of the opposing argument's Istilaah/technical terminology, then what is your purpose here except to proselytize and demonize?
                You don't need to be telling me about these issues and I don't see any need in repeating myself. Your sect is famous for misunderstanding everything and then acting bold.

                You people are not affirming what is "apparent in meaning" - even if you claim so - rather you're simply affirming a certain amount of similarity between the Creator and the creation and this in the reality. I've given examples for this.

                We have already seen that your sect believes that God has a size and we have also seen how Ibn 'Uthaymin thinks that God is described literally with a face such that it has a form, but he simply doesn't know the exact form and stays silent about it.
                As for his "face of a horse and face of a cat"-example while speaking about the divine attributes, then it just shows the lack of respect that he has for the Creator.

                If these type of statements are not Tajsim, then Tajsim does not exist upon this globe.

                Another thing: Aren't you that Mexican guy, who believes that the thing that he worships is SITTING. I think you had written this on your facebook account.
                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 14-01-21, 07:51 AM.

                Comment



                • Imam al-Qurtubi's Takfir upon those affirming the literal meaning of the Mutashabihat


                  Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says:

                  { هُوَ ٱلَّذِيۤ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ ٱلْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ ٱلْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ٱبْتِغَاءَ ٱلْفِتْنَةِ وَٱبْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ ٱللَّهُ وَٱلرَّاسِخُونَ فِي ٱلْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ ٱلأَلْبَابِ }

                  { He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding. }

                  [3:7]


                  Imam al-Qurtubi (d. 671 AH) stated in his Tafsir (explanation) regarding the above Aya (see also next page) the following (translation taken from here: "Followers of the Allegorical Verses"):

                  قوله تعالى: { فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ٱبْتِغَاءَ ٱلْفِتْنَةِ وَٱبْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ } قال شيخنا أبو العباس رحمة الله عليه: متبِعو المتشابه لا يخلو أن يتبعوه ويجمعوه طلباً للتشكيك في القرآن وإضلالِ العوامّ، كما فعلته الزنادقة والقرامِطة الطاعنون في القرآن؛ أو طلباً لاعتقاد ظواهر المتشابه، كما فعلته المجسِّمة الذِين جمعوا ما في الكتاب والسنة مما ظاهره الجِسمية حتى ٱعتقدوا أن البارىء تعالى جسم مجسم وصورة مصوّرة ذات وجه وعين ويد وجنب ورجل وأصبع، تعالى الله عن ذلكٰ؛ أو يتبعوه على جهة إبداء تأويلاتها وإيضاح معانيها، أو كما فعل صبِيغ حين أكثر على عمر فيه السؤال. فهذه أربعة أقسام:

                  الأوّل: لا شك في كفرهم، وأن حكم الله فيهم القتل من غير ٱستتابة.
                  الثاني: الصحيح القول بتكفيرهم، إذ لا فرق بينهم وبين عباد الأصنام والصور، ويستتابون فإن تابوا وإلا قتلوا كما يفعل بمن ٱرتدّ.
                  الثالث: ٱختلفوا في جواز ذلك بناء على الخلاف في جواز تأويلها. وقد عرف أنّ مذهب السلف ترك التعرّض لتأويلها مع قطعهم بٱستحالة ظواهرها، فيقولون أمِرّوها كما جاءت. وذهب بعضهم إلى إبداء تأويلاتها وحملِها على ما يصح حمله في اللسان عليها من غير قطع بتعيين مجمل منها.
                  الرابع: الحكم فيه الأدب البليغ، كما فعله عمر بصبيغ


                  The Exalted said: [But those in whose hearts is perversity] follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings.

                  Our Shaykh, Abu al-‘Abbās (rahmatullah ‘alayhi) said:

                  Furthermore, the followers of the allegorical verses (mutashābih) are not free from:

                  • Following it and collecting it, seeking to raise doubts in the Qur’ān and (seeking to) misguide the laymen as done by the Zanādiqah (deviants), the Qarāmiṭah, and the refuters of the Qur’ān.

                  • Or, seeking to believe in the outward (ẓawāhir) meanings of the mutashābih as done by the anthropomorphists (deluded ones who give physical traits to Allah), those who collected from the Qur’ān and Sunnah whatever gave a physical meaning when taken literally (ẓāhir). To the extent that they believed that the Creator is a physical body and a fashioned form, possessing a face and other things: hand, eye, side and finger. Exalted is Allah from that, with the most Supreme Exaltation.

                  • Or they sought out these (mutashābih) with a view to manifest its interpretations and clarify its meanings.

                  • Or (they did) like Subaygh when he asked ‘Umar رضي الله عنه about them (the mutashābih) excessively.


                  So these are four categories:

                  • The First: there is no doubt about their disbelief (kufr) and that the judgment of Allah concerning them is execution without even asking them to repent.

                  • The Second: The most sound (opinion) is to make takfīr on them (to consider them to be kāfirs), since there is no difference between them and worshippers of idols and images. And they should be asked to repent. Thereafter, either they’ll repent, or if not, they should be executed as is done to an apostate (murtad).

                  • The Third: There is a difference of opinion concerning that (action) based upon the difference of opinion in the permissibility of (various) ta’wīls (interpretations) of the mutashābih. And it is known that the madhhab of the Salaf (pious predecessors) was to leave the undertaking of interpreting them while being certain that the literal meaning (ẓawāhir) was impossible. So they would say, “Let it pass as it came!” And some of them (the Salaf) took the madhhab of manifesting its interpretations by interpreting it with meanings consistent with the (Arabic) tongue without definitively confirming a specific possible meaning.

                  • The Fourth: The judgment for him is to be taught a profound lesson as Amīr al-Mu’minīn ‘Umar ibn al Khaṭṭāb رضي الله عنه did to Subaygh.

                  - end of quote -

                  Comment


                  • As a reminder, so that no one tries to fool us and act as if we're misrepreseting their views:


                    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                    Here is a prime example for OPEN Tajsim:


                    Pseudo-Salafis say God has a ‘Size’

                    On the Multaqa Ahl al Hadeeth forum the Salafi shaykh Haitham Hamdan reaffirms the statement of sh Ibn Taymiyyah: ‘That something existing should not be increasing, or decreasing, or neither increasing nor decreasing, and yet exist and not have a size – this is impossible(Bayan Talbis Al-Jahmiyyah, 3/146)


                    Question from Abu Fadl:
                    How do Salafi’s view the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah:
                    فأما كون الشيء غير موصوف بالزيادة والنقصان ولا بعدم ذلك وهو موجود وليس بذي قدر فهذا لا يعقل (Talbîs al-Jahmiyyah)
                    It seems he find it impossible that a being (whether necessary or possible) could exist without having a size. If this interpretation is wrong, what is the Salafi interpretation?

                    Salafi shaykh Haitham Hamdan the Administrator says:
                    Yes this is what this great scholar is saying. And “Salafis” agree with him.
                    It is impossible for a creature to be present outside the human mind (not to be a mere mental being); and not have a size.
                    A mere mental being does not have a size or place. Example: numbers. They are mere mental beings with no existence outside the human mind. It is OK for them not to have a size.



                    - end of quote -

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

                      You're wrong.

                      Classical scholars affirm the Zaahir and Haqiqah of the Attributes as the Aqidah of Ahl as-Sunnah. Your translation and the Ash'ari distortion of the meaning of the terms "Zaahir" and "Haqiqah" as "literal" and "real" is typical of your penchant for exaggeration and meager attempts at painting the creed of Ahl as-Sunnah with the brush of Tashbeeh and Tajseem in order to make your negations and false interpretations seem more reasonable.

                      The default understanding of the Attributes is to take them upon their "Zaahir" or "apparent meaning" and to affirm they are "Haqiqah", or "real in meaning" as opposed to "Majaaz" or "figurative".

                      If you can't be honest in your discussion of the opposing argument's Istilaah/technical terminology, then what is your purpose here except to proselytize and demonize?
                      I have two questions:

                      1) Even if we say take the apparent meaning, we can say the apparent is what the text says without delving into the meanings, so Allah has wajh, which is an attribute that we cannot actually imagine or comprehend at all. Is this correct in your opinion?

                      2) Who says we must take the apparent meaning? How can you actually prove what the Sahabah believed? So far I have never seen anyone prove that the sahabah understood these issue in the way salafis do, if you have anything to offer then please share it.

                      Comment


                      • AbuNajm is actually a good example of what is wrong with modern "Salafis":

                        This guy is a Mexican revert, who has learned Arabic on his own. Now until here this a good thing, but what will follow is not really that good.

                        He works as a translator and has also translated different Islamic works. His translation in general maybe okay, but maybe of course lacking in issues of detailed terminology - because he hasn't studied the connected sciences - and his "Salafi" bias also makes him come up with wrong translations like his mindless claim that one should translate Istiwa 'ala al-'Arsh regarding Allah ta'ala as "sat on the throne".

                        This person is not proficient in the Arabic language on the level of real scholars, nor has he studied Hadith or Fiqh with teachers, yet you'll see him acting as a Muhaddith - like we saw above - and a Faqih every now and then. His attitude was criticized on the old IA forums even by "Salafi" minded people.

                        Note that this lack of proficiency is not something specific regarding this person: Even the "major scholars" of the "Salafis" share this quality.

                        Take for example al-Albani - whom they regard as a "great Muhaddith": He had not gone through any book of Hadith with teachers and was mostly self-taught and came up with all kind of mistakes.
                        Or take their Ibn 'Uthaymin - whom they regard as a "great scholar": He knew only basic issues of the Arabic language, but was nowhere proficient in it. This reached such a degree that he would make very ridiculous claims regarding the meaning of Ayat and Ahadith, which no Arab in his right mind would do. I mean him describing God with "a real cloak and wrapper" and his claim that "we don't know how he put them on" is something no Arab would understand from the authentic narration where it states that Allah ta'ala says "Might is My wrapper and pride is My cloak. I will punish anyone who contends with Me over either of them.".

                        But one should not be surprised with all of this, because their leader is Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH): He didn't even know 'Ilm al-Balagha (science of rhetoric in the Arabic language) (as shown HERE), which means that he was not even on the level of a serious student of knowledge let alone that of a scholar or a leading one.
                        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 14-01-21, 01:26 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post
                          1) Even if we say take the apparent meaning, we can say the apparent is what the text says without delving into the meanings, so Allah has wajh, which is an attribute that we cannot actually imagine or comprehend at all. Is this correct in your opinion?
                          If he were to take this understanding, then we would not have any problems with him. We also believe that Allah ta'ala is described with Wajh, but its reality is beyond our imagination and comprehension like all divine attributes.
                          Ibn 'Uthaymin clearly does not believe this, but rather affirms a certain amount of similarity in the reality, which is why he assumes that Wajh is a literal face with a form.

                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          Or take their Ibn 'Uthaymin - whom they regard as a "great scholar": He knew only basic issues of the Arabic language, but was nowhere proficient in it. This reached such a degree that he would make very ridiculous claims regarding the meaning of Ayat and Ahadith, which no Arab in his right mind would do. I mean him describing God with "a real cloak and wrapper" and his claim that "we don't know how he put them on" is something no Arab would understand from the authentic narration where it states that Allah ta'ala says "Might is My wrapper and pride is My cloak. I will punish anyone who contends with Me over either of them.".
                          And here we have Ibn 'Uthaymin speaking about the "real cloak and wrapper" [that he ascribes to God] and how the Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Hussayn comments on this mindless statement of his and explains how any normal Arab would understand the above mentioned narration:

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

                            You're wrong.

                            Classical scholars affirm the Zaahir and Haqiqah of the Attributes as the Aqidah of Ahl as-Sunnah. Your translation and the Ash'ari distortion of the meaning of the terms "Zaahir" and "Haqiqah" as "literal" and "real" is typical of your penchant for exaggeration and meager attempts at painting the creed of Ahl as-Sunnah with the brush of Tashbeeh and Tajseem in order to make your negations and false interpretations seem more reasonable.

                            The default understanding of the Attributes is to take them upon their "Zaahir" or "apparent meaning" and to affirm they are "Haqiqah", or "real in meaning" as opposed to "Majaaz" or "figurative".

                            If you can't be honest in your discussion of the opposing argument's Istilaah/technical terminology, then what is your purpose here except to proselytize and demonize?
                            He (Abu Sulayman) is right, and even though what you said after that is correct, (that the Athari affirm the Zahir/Haqiqah as you have stated) it doesn't prove him wrong. The Ash'ari/Maturidi use Zahir to refer to the corporealist meaning, the Athari use these to refer to the real meaning i.e. Allah's attribute of Yad is a real attribute like any other real attributes he has. His Qudrah is real, his Ilm is real etc. It is not a physicallity nor is it a metaphor - the idea that it is a physicallity is what is being refuted.

                            E.g. from the work of an Athari, Ibn al-Bannah (d. 471 H):

                            He stated clearly when explaining the Sifat of Nuzul:
                            "And this and what resembles it; then taking al-Nuzul to be descending to empty space, occupying space and movement, is kufr. To carry it upon zahirihi (its apparentness) is permissible."

                            - Al-Usul al-Mujarradah of Ibn al-Banna, p.47
                            If you are an affirmer of the attributes without following into Tasbih, then we have no issue with you. Yes, if you here to argue against later Ash'ari who turned to Ta'til of the Sifat al-Khabariyyah, then ultimately I myself will not defend them. That is not what the brothers are arguing over - they are arguing against those who interpret al-Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah work's and adopt from it belief that results in Tajsim. If you do not interpret it that way, then they are not criticising you, they are criticising the Mujassimah who take those works that way.

                            (I don't debate on these topics anymore, just pointing something out).

                            Now if you had not stated what you stated before, I would have had a good opinion of you.

                            Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

                            Just curious how you came up with نحدث meaning "it will be related"? Clearly the ن is for نحن and it is an active voice Form II verb, indicative, perfect tense, 1st person, plural meaning "we related".

                            That is how the Hadith appears in Musnad al-Bazzar. Other references have it as يحدث which is probably what your translation is based on.

                            Also, al-Munawi in his Fayd al-Qari and other Muhadditheen are clear in saying this alleged Hadith is weak since 'Ibn Abi Rawwad was weakened by some scholars of Ilm ar-Rijal. The only other testifying report is found in Musnad al-Harith and it is Mursal and also weak, so it doesn't strengthen it.

                            Al-Iraqi says in his Takhrij of al-'Ihya' that it is 'Ibn Abi Dawud instead of 'Ibn Abi Rawwad, and he says that even though Muslim brought a Hadith through him in his Saheeh and 'Ibn Ma'een and an-Nasa'ee declared him trustworthy, the majority weakened him. So, apparentlyal-Iraqi is of two minds about this alleged Hadith.

                            Shaykh Tareq bin Awadallah at IUM who is the Hadith instructor there wrote about this Hadith specifically as an example of a Hadith in which there aretwo parts- the first part you left out and the second part which you quoted. The first part is Saheeh and confirmed through various trustworthy routes from Sufyan ath-Thawri, however those routes do not include this second part you have quoted. The second part you have quoted is reported only by this 'Ibn Abi Rawwad, who, even though Muslim related a Hadith through him, his memory was impugned and this second part is not part of the original Hadith. Rather, he mixed this second part from the route of Musnad al-Harith, which is Mursal and agreed upon as weak, with the first part from 'Ibn Mas'ud RA which is authentic.

                            So, this is an example of a Hadith in which a narrator switched parts of the wording of the Hadith with the wrong chain of narration.

                            Judging merely on the basis of the chain itself, Muhadditheen like al-Haythami, al-Iraqi, and others said the chain is "Jayyid" or "strong". However, based on the discussion of this Hadith by scholars of 'Ilal and Ilm ar-Rijaal, the Hadith is in fact weak andthe chain has a hidden defect.
                            I was about to start typing an angry reply to this, but I realised it is best if I just highlight certain parts so people can see the contradiction in your thought process.

                            You are another perfect example of why laypeople do not rate Hadith (I know who you are by the way, the translations you have done and I do not care - you are a layperson - you are not a Muhaddith by any stretch of the imagination - a Muhaddith is someone like Shaykh Muhammad Awaamah, or the very scholars you are quoting disc. this Shaykh Tareq who is clearly a joke). I am not a Muhaddith either, we should not be talking about things without knowledge. The only thing you can criticise here with any authority is his translation, as that is what you are- a translator.1

                            The ratings of our classical Scholars Al-Haythami (d. 807 H) and Al-Iraqi (d. 806 H) are correct, and as for you, you rejected the Hadith based off of its content (which is reprehensible in Ilm al-Hadith) and then used the common man's ignorance of Ilm al-Rijal to follow your desires and pick-and-choose criticism against a narrator without principle, performing your own Tarjih upon the Riwayat of the Hadith (or your Shaykh2 did this), so you can weaken the Hadith, thinking the common man is too incompetent to realise what you are doing.

                            For those who want to see a real authentication from real Muhaddithin for the Hadith, read this - and refer to the works quoted. Brother Abu Sulayman has also provided a good link.

                            Note: The topic of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam being made to be a witness over us by Allah Azza Wa Jal, is also found in the Qur'an 33:45.
                            1. I don't care about your Ijazat, your Ijazat are nothing to us. The Ijazah only holds authority when it is given by an authority. You are not a scholar, so do not pretend you are. You are like the rest of us, O translator.
                            2. In fact your Shaykh did nothing, he took it from al-Albani (d. 1420 H i.e. more than 20 years ago). We can see the chain of your own knowledge is weak.
                            Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 14-01-21, 02:08 PM.
                            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 Abu Sulayman View Post

                              You don't need to be telling me about these issues and I don't see any need in repeating myself. Your sect is famous for misunderstanding everything and then acting bold.

                              You people are not affirming what is "apparent in meaning" - even if you claim so - rather you're simply affirming a certain amount of similarity between the Creator and the creation and this in the reality. I've given examples for this.

                              We have already seen that your sect believes that God has a size and we have also seen how Ibn 'Uthaymin thinks that God is described literally with a face such that it has a form, but he simply doesn't know the exact form and stays silent about it.
                              As for his "face of a horse and face of a cat"-example while speaking about the divine attributes, then it just shows the lack of respect that he has for the Creator.

                              If these type of statements are not Tajsim, then Tajsim does not exist upon this globe.

                              Another thing: Aren't you that Mexican guy, who believes that the thing that he worships is SITTING. I think you had written this on your facebook account.
                              Why don't you ask him what his view on ISIS is?
                              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


                              • I've done the work and study to have the Ijazaat and Athbaat that I have received from MULTIPLE scholars and I have the signed documents and books to prove it.

                                As for my work- then it is still being used for Islamic courses at colleges and universities around the world for Fiqh, Usul, and Hadith courses.

                                As for my studies, then Allah knows best the efforts and sacrifices I have made while scholars have acknowledged them with their blessing and passing to me their authorizations.

                                I've yet to see anyone else in this thread have their credentials checked. I recommend that if that is the standard being put on the discussion, then everyone in this thread be prevented from posting until they can prove their credentials on the subjects discussed.

                                Otherwise, save your false indignation and self-righteousness about "credentials" and "scholarship" since it only seems to apply to those who disagree with you and prove what you're saying is wrong.

                                Personal attacks? Pointing out the race/ethnicity of a forum member during an Islamic discussion? Making accusations about support for outlawed groups?

                                The signs of desperate people who sense a threat to their claim to a monopoly on discussion. Typical Ash'aris/Sufis.

                                Shaykh Tarek bin Awadallah is a "joke"? I've met the Shaykh multiple times and discussed with him various aspects of the sciences of Hadith. He is also well-known and accepted by contemporary Muhadditheen as a scholar of the Hadith sciences. In fact, he is one of the scholars that I have the honor of working with personally, though still awaiting a manuscript from him.

                                That's an extremely scummy thing to say about a contemporary scholar and it tells me the low-level of character that you have and the low-level of this "discussion".
                                Last edited by AbuNajm; 14-01-21, 03:36 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X