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
    That is from Abu Sulayman. The following is from a Salafi translation.

    Ibn Uthaymeen said, “To negate Tashbih (resemblance) in its entirety is not correct, because there are no two things among entities or attributes, except that they share something together between them. This commonality is a type of resemblance. If you, therefore, negate Tashbih absolutely, you are (by that) negating everything wherein there is a form of resemblance between the Creator and the creature. For example, existence: Both the Creator and the creature primarily share this together.” (Ibn Uthaymeen -Sharh Aqida Wasatiyyah. pg 144-145 Darussalam, Authorized by the Charitable Foundation of Shaikh Muhammad bin Salih Al Uthaimin)
    The ironic thing is that he calls this "a single translation" and this while you have quoted my translation and the "Salafi" one above, so these are two translations.
    And even if he himself would translate it, the result would be the same and it would not differ really from the two translations presented. Why? Because the Arabic statement in itself is problematic.

    He knows this and this is why he's not translating the other statement with the "God has a real face, but we don't know whether it's rectangular or round or another form"-statement (HERE).

    ​​​​​​Add to this: He claimed it to be "a single source", while a number of quotes have been brought all basically trying to establish the same wrong belief and that is that there is some sort of similarity between the Creator and the creation. High Exalted is Allah above what the criminals claim.

    Note that it's easy to make a separate thread and fill it with the mindless statements of Ibn 'Uthaymin, but I don't have the time right now.


    ​​​​​​I would like to quote here a statement of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), where he mentions what all bodies have in common:

    الوجه الثالث والسبعون أن الأجسام بينها قدر مشترك وهو جنس المقدار كما يقولون ما يمكن فرض الأبعاد الثلاثة فيه وبينها قدر مميز وهو حقيقة كل واحد وخصوص ذاته التي امتاز بها عن غيره كما يعلم أن الجبل والبحر مشتركان في أصل القدر مع العلم بأن حقيقة الحجر ليست حقيقة الماء

    The 73th point is that [all] bodies (Ajsam) share a common factor (Qadar Mushtarak) and that is the genus of volume [or size] (Miqdar) - [OR] AS THEY SAY "that where the three dimensions (al-Ab'ad al-Thalatha) can be established " - and there is a factor [or degree] where they differ and that is the reality of each of [these bodies] and the characteristics of its self (Dhat) through which it differs from other than it just like it is known that the mountain and the ocean are common in the original factor [mentioned before] with the knowledge that the reality of a stone is not the same as the reality of water.
    - end of quote -

    Note that this common factor between bodies applies to the Creator too according to the weird mindset of Ibn 'Uthaymin [and Ibn Taymiyya also at least in the above book] and that for him having a size is not included in the reality [where the Creator differs with the creation], rather having a size is necessary according to their mindset to exist and both Creator and creation share this. (Exalted is Allah with supreme Exaltation above this!)

    This is exactly why they will claim that those who regard the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth to be transcendent from corporeality to be worshiping nothingness, because in their mind even the Creator is corporeal.
    This is why I called them materialists and the classic scholars have mentioned that worshiping 3-dimensional things or beings is from the religion of the pagans and the idol worshipers.
    ​​​​
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 16-01-21, 08:31 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by maturidee View Post
      Ibn Abbas is reported to have said in commentary of a verse of the Qur'aan:

      "The seven heavens and the seven earths and whatever is within them and between them are not in the Hand of ar-Rahman except like a mustard seed in the hand of one of you."


      That Allaah is greater and mightier and greater than everything, and that the universe compared to Allaah is extremely small.

      So what is Ibn Abbas according to you? A mujassim?
      Sounds like a figure of speech, that the creation is nothing compared to Allah, it is something that amazes us

      If you are taking a literal meaning then it would mean Allahs hand is like 100x bigger than the universe......and this is obviously absurd as it means you are putting a limit on Allahs attributes

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

        The ironic thing is that he calls this "a single translation" and this while you have quoted my translation and the "Salafi" one above, so these are two translations.
        And even if he himself would translate it, the result would be the same and it would not differ really from the two translations presented. Why? Because the Arabic statement in itself is problematic.

        He knows this and this is why he's not translating the other statement with the "God has a real face, but we don't know whether it's rectangular or round or another form"-statement (HERE).

        ​​​​​​Add to this: He claimed it to be "a single source", while a number of quotes have been brought all basically trying to establish the same wrong belief and that is that there is some sort of similarity between the Creator and the creation. High Exalted is Allah above what the criminals claim.

        Note that it's easy to make a separate thread and fill it with the mindless statements of Ibn 'Uthaymin, but I don't have the time right now.


        ​​​​​​I would like to quote here a statement of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), where he mentions what all bodies have in common:

        الوجه الثالث والسبعون أن الأجسام بينها قدر مشترك وهو جنس المقدار كما يقولون ما يمكن فرض الأبعاد الثلاثة فيه وبينها قدر مميز وهو حقيقة كل واحد وخصوص ذاته التي امتاز بها عن غيره كما يعلم أن الجبل والبحر مشتركان في أصل القدر مع العلم بأن حقيقة الحجر ليست حقيقة الماء

        The 73th point is that [all] bodies (Ajsam) share a common factor (Qadar Mushtarak) and that is the genus of volume [or size] (Miqdar) - [OR] AS THEY SAY "that where the three dimensions (al-Ab'ad al-Thalatha) can be established " - and there is a factor [or degree] where they differ and that is the reality of each of [these bodies] and the characteristics of its self (Dhat) through which it differs from other than it just like it is known that the mountain and the ocean are common in the original factor [mentioned before] with the knowledge that the reality of a stone is not the same as the reality of water.
        - end of quote -

        Note that this common factor between bodies applies to the Creator too according to the weird mindset of Ibn 'Uthaymin [and Ibn Taymiyya also at least in the above book] and that for him having a size is not included in the reality [where the Creator differs with the creation], rather having a size is necessary according to their mindset to exist and both Creator and creation share this. (Exalted is Allah with supreme Exaltation above this!)

        This is exactly why they will claim that those who regard the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth to be transcendent from corporeality to be worshiping nothingness, because in their mind even the Creator is corporeal.
        This is why I called them materialists and the classic scholars have mentioned that worshiping 3-dimensional things or beings is from the religion of the pagans and the idol worshipers.
        ​​​​
        Ibn Taymiyyah's approach to creed was rejected by the Hanbalis themselves. You don't find Imam Ahmad and the Salaf actively affirming tashbih. They don't have a foundation to stand on. You cannot defend something that is indefensible.
        My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
          A brother had asked the following:

          "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?"
          - end of quote -

          Note that the brother mentioned "height" and "length" together with "face" and "arm", so he intends three dimensional things. So what is the ruling upon the one who regards the Creator subhanahu wa ta'ala to be a 3-dimensional being?


          I responded by saying:

          "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."
          - end of quote -

          Is there anything wrong with the above response?


          Then AbuNajm appeared and made this response:

          "You're wrong. ..."
          - end of quote -

          Wait, so is this person trying to say that believing the Creator to be a being with height, breadth and depth is not a dangerous belief? (He then changed the subject and spoke regarding something that was not the question here, so let's ignore it.)

          AbuNajm, answer! Are you trying to say that this [dis]belief is not dangerous and not in opposition to Islamic understanding!?!


          So there are two things wanted from you AbuNajm:

          1) Translate the following statement of Ibn 'Uthaymin that I posted HERE.

          2) Explain to us what the ruling regarding the one is, who believes the Creator to be a being with height, breadth and depth?
          these are my questions AbuNajm brother if you could please answer them, thanks JazakAllah Khayran

          Comment


          • 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?
            I don't know why you're including "leg", "arm", "height", "length", "etc etc etc." in your question about a statement by 'Ibn Uthaymeen that does not include those things.

            If you would reformulate your question to either: include a statement by a scholar which includes those things in a list of affirmed Attributes for Allah, or, tell me the relevance of adding those to such a list and asking for a ruling about it- I would be happy to respond.

            Comment


            • Let's put names aside and concentrate on the beliefs here:

              If a person believes that the Creator subhanahu wa ta'ala is a being with height, width and depth, then what is his ruling according to the scholars of Islam?

              My answer of it being a very dangerous mistake and that Tabdi' or even Takfir maybe warranted was in this context and it's a fact that this is the ruling stated by the scholars of Islam.

              I think every Muslim should at least agree that this is a very dangerously belief.

              Now if a person says that Ibn 'Uthaymin did not believe this, then this is not the problem and we hope that he did not die upon this.
              Our problem is with those who have this creed or regard it as a possible option and then hide it from the Muslims and lie to them and are trying to lead them step by step to this disbelief.

              Hope my point is clear. The issue is really not names, but rather the belief itself.
              ​​
              The question of the brother Simply_Logical is also regarding the belief itself and not necessarily regarding a specific person.
              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 20-01-21, 06:15 PM.

              Comment


              • An additional point:

                We see some people getting aggressive when Ibn 'Uthaymin and other contemporary people are criticized and basically are trying to say "how dare you to speak against them?" and this while they clearly have problematic statements.

                Then why do you allow yourself to speak against the Sada al-Asha'ira and show enmity towards them and even use the word Ash'ari like it's something really bad to be!?
                These very people have written the best works in almost all Islamic sciences to the degree that you yourself are unable to study the sciences properly without learning from their books and even proudly present your Ijaza to someone like Imam al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH).

                If you choose to be Hanbali in creed (like the creed that is found in Lum'at al-I'tiqad) , then there is nothing wrong with this, but then also respect that there is another school inside Sunni Islam, which is even greater in number than that of the Hanabila.

                Why all these attacks against our tradition? Attacking these leading scholars is at the end of the day an attack against Islam, because Allah ta'ala preserved the Shari'a at their hands and through their swords.

                And why are you trying to cause enmity afer the Hanabila and the Asha'ira had put aside their differences - similar to the Asha'ira and Maturidiyya before - and tolerated each other?
                ​​​​​
                Let us please use our mind and not let the accursed satan to play games with us.

                ​​​​
                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 20-01-21, 06:38 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AbuNajm
                  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?
                  I don't know why you're including "leg", "arm", "height", "length", "etc etc etc." in your question about a statement by 'Ibn Uthaymeen that does not include those things.

                  If you would reformulate your question to either: include a statement by a scholar which includes those things in a list of affirmed Attributes for Allah, or, tell me the relevance of adding those to such a list and asking for a ruling about it- I would be happy to respond.
                  Well you get some Muslims who say for example Allah's arm followed by statement 'the as befits His Majesty'

                  So my question is if in Surah ikhlas 112:4
                  it clearly states the following 'And there is none comparable to Him.”

                  If we can't comprehend what Allah SWT is like due to our limited knowledge/imagination etc how can you even say for example Allah has a hand?

                  Is this not anthropomorphism? Giving Allah SWT human like features?

                  Please help me understand brother JazakAllah khayran thanks 💯

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

                    Well you get some Muslims who say for example Allah's arm followed by statement 'the as befits His Majesty'

                    So my question is if in Surah ikhlas 112:4
                    it clearly states the following 'And there is none comparable to Him.”

                    If we can't comprehend what Allah SWT is like due to our limited knowledge/imagination etc how can you even say for example Allah has a hand?

                    Is this not anthropomorphism? Giving Allah SWT human like features?

                    Please help me understand brother JazakAllah khayran thanks 💯
                    If a literal hand (meaning something 3-dimensional) is affirmed then this is anthropomorphism, but if Yad is affirmed as stated in the book of Allah ta'ala and one is sure that similarity is NOT intended NOR a possible option, then this is correct.

                    The safest and best way is to submit to the texts and believe that these descriptions are attributes of absolute perfection and to relegate their exact explanation and reality to Allah ta'ala while being sure that He jalla jalaluhu is completely unlike His creation, because His reality is beyond our imagination and comprehension.
                    ​​​​
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 20-01-21, 07:04 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                      The safest and best way is to submit to the texts and believe that these descriptions are attributes of absolute perfection and to relegate their exact explanation and reality to Allah ta'ala while being sure that He jalla jalaluhu is completely unlike His creation, because His reality is beyond our imagination and comprehension.
                      ​​​​
                      Imam al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH) stated in his famous and accepted 'Aqida (translation taken from HERE) the following:

                      ومن وصف الله بمعنى من معاني البشر فقد كفر، فمن أبصر هذا اعتبر، وعن مثل قول الكفار انزجر، وعلم أنه بصفاته ليس كالبشر.
                      والرؤية حق لأهل الجنة بغير إحاطة ولا كيفية، كما نطق به كتاب ربنا: ( وجوه يومئذ ناضرة إلى ربها ناظرةوتفسيره على ما أراده الله تعالى وعَلِمَه، وكل ما جاء في ذلك من الحديث الصحيح عن الرسول ﷺ فهو كما قال، ومعناه على ما أراد لا ندخل في ذلك متأولين بآرائنا، ولا متوهمين بأهوائنا، فإنه ما سلم في دينه إلا من سلَّم لله عز وجل ولرسوله ﷺ، ورَدَّ عِلْم ما اشتبه عليه إلى عالمه.
                      ولا يثبت قدم الإسلام إلا على ظهر التسليم والاستسلام، فمن رام عِلْمَ ما حُظِر عنه علمه، ولم يقنع بالتسليم فهمه، حجبه مرامه عن خالص التوحيد، وصافي المعرفة، وصحيح الإيمان، فيتذبذب بين الكفر والإيمان، والتصديق والتكذيب، والإقرار والإنكار، موسوسا تائها، زائغا شاكا، لا مؤمنا مصدقا، ولا جاحدا مكذبا.
                      ولا يصح الإيمان بالرؤية لأهل دار السلام لمن اعتبرها منهم بوهم، أو تأولها بفهم، إذا كان تأويل الرؤية وتأويل كل معنى يضاف إلى الربوبية بترك التأويل ولزوم التسليم، وعليه دين المسلمين.
                      ومن لم يتوَقَّ النفي والتشبيه زل ولم يصب التنزيه، فإن ربنا جل وعلا موصوف بصفات الوحدانية، منعوت بنعوت الفردانية، ليس في معناه أحد من البرية.
                      وتعالى عن الحدود والغايات، والأركان والأعضاء والأدوات، لا تحويه الجهات الست كسائر المبتدعات


                      34. Anyone who attributes to Allah something (exclusively) accredited to humans (and the rest of creation) becomes a disbeliever. He who comprehends this will take heed, he will refrain from saying things such as the disbelievers say, and he will recognise that Allah , in His attributes, is not like human beings.
                      35. The Seeing (of Allah ) by the People of Paradise is factual, though their vision is not all-encompassing and nor is its manner known. As the Book of our Lord expresses: ‘Faces on that Day radiant, looking at their Lord.
                      The exegesis of this is as Allah
                      intends and knows. All of that which has reached (us) in this regard, through the authentic prophetic traditions (hadiths) of the Messenger of Allah (through His Companions رضي الله عنهم), is as he said it and it means what he intended. We do not delve into that interpreting it according to our opinions, and nor imagining it according to our desires. Verily, no individual is safe in his religion unless he submits (completely) to Allah and His Messenger , and leaves the knowledge of whatever is ambiguous to the One who knows of it.
                      36. The foundation of Islam is not secure unless based on assent and submission (to Allah
                      ). Anyone who covets knowledge of that which has been prohibited for him and he is not satisfied by its mere understanding, his aspiration shall veil him from pure monotheism, clear cognizance and true faith. He sways between disbelief and belief, denial and affirmation, acceptance and rejection, being subject to delusions; confused, lost and full of doubt, neither an earnest believer and nor a denying rejecter.
                      37. The belief of a person in the seeing (of Allah
                      ) by the People of Paradise is not correct if he imagines what it may be like, or construes it according to his own understanding, since the analysis of this seeing or the meaning of anything that is attributed to the Lordship (of Allah ), is by avoiding its interpretation and by strictly adhering to submission.
                      Upon this is the religion of the Messengers, (and the tenets of the Prophets and the
                      Muslims).
                      Anyone who does not protect himself against negating (the attributes of Allah ), or assimilating (Allah to something else), has erred and has failed to glorify Allah properly. Verily, our Lord , is qualified with the depictions of Oneness and the qualities of Uniqueness; none of the creation is in any way in that inference.
                      38. Allah
                      is beyond all limits or parameters, or having constituents, limbs or instruments. The six directions do not contain Him, quite unlike all created things.

                      - end of quote -
                      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 20-01-21, 07:38 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Hanbali position regarding Ash'aris in comparison to their position regarding Najdis


                        Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali stated (original statement):

                        The Ash’aris are closer to the pure Hanbalis than Wahhabis are.

                        Yes, we know the [harsh] positions of some of the imams of the Hanbali school, such as al-Muwaffaq, towards the Ash’aris, we know them and memorised them, and O how much we used to mention them.

                        We know the [harsh] position of some Ash’aris towards the Hanbalis.

                        But the general attitude of the madh-hab throughout its history, except for some times and places: was not so.

                        This is exactly what Ibn Taymiyyah used to affirm, he says that he reconciled between the Hanbalis and Ash’aris and that his stance towards them was better than the stance of Imam Al-Muwaffaq ibn Qudāmah.
                        ​​​​​
                        I previously quoted examples of Ibn Taymiyyah's loyalty to the Ash’ari scholars, his veneration and strong praise of them.

                        The Hanbali school’s formal position then settled in the time of the late Hanbalis upon counting the Ash’aris of Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamā’ah, while still alerting us to the differences between us and them.

                        Likewise the Ash’aris and Maturidis also have differences between them, sometimes it would intensify, but the established and settled position of the two groups is that they are both from Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamā’ah.

                        Our Hanbali scholars continued quoting them, explaining their books and reading them, among them is Ibn al-Najjar, who quoted from their creedal books in Sharh Al-Kawkab, likewise he quoted Ibn Taymiyyah, and before him al-Mardawi in al-Tahbeer, and Ibn Muflih. Afterwards: Mar’i, Al-Bahūti, Abdul Bāqi, al-Khalwati, who explained some of their books, as well as Uthman, who read and studied their books and quoted them, Ibn ‘Awad, Al-Saffārini, Al-Qaddoumi, Ibn Badrān who studied the relied upon books of their creed, and the late Hanbalis of Egypt, such as Bassyouni and his students, and many examples. All of this is well-known.

                        Thus the predominant general Hanbali stance towards the Ash’aris, on which the school settled is what we have mentioned.

                        Also the differences between us and them in creedal matters do not exceed the fingers of one hand, and from those who mentioned them is Sheikh Abdul Bāqi al-Mawāhibi, the most famous of which is: interpretation [ta’weel] in certain divine attributes such as the khabariyyah attributes, and the matter of Divine Speech [kalām].

                        It is for this that Abdul Bāqi and Al-Saffārini, stated clearly that they [i.e. Ash’aris] are from Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah along with the Hanbalis; the people of al-Athar [traditionalists].

                        As for the Wahhābis, since their appearance, the Hanbalis do not count them from them, but rather declare them innovators [mubtadi’ah], call them Khawārij, judge them as being astray and refute them, whether they be Hanbalis of Najd, Sham, Egypt, Zubayr [Iraq] or other places. And all of this is well known as well.

                        There is no doubt then that the Ash’aris are closer to us -the Hanbalis- than the Wahhabis.

                        And that they are from Ahlu Sunnah wal Jama’ah by the clear statement of many imams of the school, unlike Wahhabis.

                        As for the claim of Wahhabis that they are followers of Ibn Taymiyyah and all that they affirm is affirmed by Ibn Taymiyyah, therefore the veneration of the Hanbalis for ibn Taymiyyah applies to them also: is a form of the usual lies.

                        Where are they from Ibn Taymiyyah’s knowledge, imamah [scholarly leadership], broad horizon, theorisation and application?! Rather, they are a burden on him, as I have said many times for years.
                        This is why, the Hanbalis’ cooperation with Ibn Taymiyyah differs from their dealings with these people.

                        And all those Hanbalis -who refuted them and declared them misguided and innovators- revered ibn Taymiyyah. This is something denied only by an arrogant person, and ignored only by a biased person.

                        These are all facts that must be clearly stated, no matter how angry or surprised some people may be, or have written, warned, boiled and frothed [raged]. All of this is of no value to us, it doesn’t move us, and doesn’t make an inch of a difference with us.



                        - end of quote -



                        If anyone wants to know what classical Hanabila thought of the Najdis when they appeared, then let him read the following posts from the thread "Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's lack of qualifications and the disasters that resulted from it!":

                        - 'Allama Ibn Suhaym al-Hanbali (d. 1181 AH) regarding the extremism of IAW
                        - 'Allama al-Saffarini al-Hanbali (d. 1188 AH) regarding IAW being a Mujtahid in destroying the divine law!
                        - 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH): Some of his statements in response to the ignorance of his brother IAW
                        - 'Allama 'Abdullah bin Dawud al-Hanbali (d. 1225 AH) regarded IAW a FALSE PROPHET in his "Lightnings and Thunders in Response to the Wretched Ibn Sa'ud"
                        - 'Allama Ibn Humayd al-Hanbali (d. 1295 AH): Praising the father and brother of IAW and criticizing IAW as "the founder of the mission whose evil had spread across the horizon" and mentioning his attempt to assassinate his brother
                        - Shaykh Mustafa bin Ahmad al-Shatti al-Hanbali (d. 1348 AH): Idolatry and its forms (contains criticism of MIAW by the 'Allama Hassan al-Shatti al-Hanbali (d. 1274 AH))


                        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 20-01-21, 08:23 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          A brother had asked the following:

                          "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?"
                          - end of quote -

                          Note that the brother mentioned "height" and "length" together with "face" and "arm", so he intends three dimensional things. So what is the ruling upon the one who regards the Creator subhanahu wa ta'ala to be a 3-dimensional being?
                          Look at the question and look at what provoked the question- your comments and interpretations- not mine.

                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          I responded by saying:

                          "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."
                          - end of quote -

                          Is there anything wrong with the above response?
                          Yes, you quoted me below- "You're wrong".

                          Then AbuNajm appeared and made this response:

                          "You're wrong. ..."
                          - end of quote -

                          But, you're not wrong about the Tabdi' or Takfeer [عام ولا معين] of adding unconfirmed Attributes for Allah AWJ. You are wrong, however, in your interpretations and selective quoting of almost all scholars that you disagree with and want to give false impressions about in order to support your own biases and prejudices against them and the Athari creed.

                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          Wait, so is this person trying to say that believing the Creator to be a being with height, breadth and depth is not a dangerous belief? (He then changed the subject and spoke regarding something that was not the question here, so let's ignore it.)

                          AbuNajm, answer! Are you trying to say that this [dis]belief is not dangerous and not in opposition to Islamic understanding!?!
                          As for the "Leg" of Allah, then I believe the following:
                          قال أبو يعلى الفراء: (أعلم أنه غير ممتنع حمل هذا الخبر على ظاهره، وأن المراد به قدم هو صفة لله تعالى وكذلك الرجل)

                          "Abu Ya'laa al-Faraa' said: "Know that it is not forbidden to convey this report upon its apparent meaning [Zaahir] and that its intended meaning is "Qadam", or "Foot"; and it is an Attribute of Allah ta'aalaa; and likewise "Leg"." [See 'Ibtaal at-Ta'weelaat, 1/195].

                          As for the "Arm" of Allah, then I believe the following:
                          عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ((ضرس الكافر مثل أحد، وفخذه مثل البيضاء، ومقعده من النار كما بين قديد، ومكة، وكثافة جلده اثنان وأربعون ذراعا بذراع الجبار))

                          On authority of 'Abi Hurayrah RA, the Messenger of Allah SAWS said: "The molar of a Disbeliever is like Mount Uhud; his thighs like Mount al-Baydaa'; his seat of Hell-Fire is like the distance between the valley of Qadid and Makkah; the thickness of his skin is 42 arm-lengths by the Arm of Allah." [declared "Saheeh" by many Muhadditheen, early and contemporary].

                          Also, the Hadiith of the "Forearm" of Allah from Musnad Ahmad and others; also declared "Saheeh".

                          How did 'Ibn Mandah categorize this chapter in which the Hadith of the "Forearm" of Allah is included-
                          ذِكْرُ خَبَرٍ آخَرَ يَدُلُّ عَلَى مَا تَقَدَّمَ فِي مَعْنَى الْيَدِ
                          "Mention of a another report showing what preceded regarding the meaning of "the Hand" [of Allah]"

                          As for "height", "length", "3 dimensions"- you are the one alleging scholars have affirmed those beliefs through your personal interpretations of Arabic quotes and some Youtube videos here and there.

                          I haven't seen proof of those beliefs being patently "Salafi" nor have I seen proof of your connection between the use of the term "Miqdar" in some Kalami refutations against Ash'aris by Atharis and the actual belief that Allah has "height" and "length" and "width", or whatever "3 dimensions" your Aristotelian philosophical arguments demand.

                          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                          So there are two things wanted from you AbuNajm:

                          1) Translate the following statement of Ibn 'Uthaymin that I posted HERE.

                          2) Explain to us what the ruling regarding the one is, who believes the Creator to be a being with height, breadth and depth?
                          I'm not going to comment on hypotheticals in Aqidah. If you can show me exactly where any scholar or Imam of Aqidah has affirmed belief in "height", "width", or "depth" for Allah AWJ, then I will comment on that.

                          As for you making those specific connections with the term "Miqdar", then please show me exactly where that is affirmed for Allah AWJ by 'Ibn Taymiyyah or anyone else whose views on Aqidah are widely-accepted as representative of "Salafi" creed.

                          I'm not going to read through 70 pages of your personal interpretations and claims in order to continue this discussion. I don't have time for that.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                            I'm not going to read through 70 pages of your personal interpretations and claims in order to continue this discussion. I don't have time for that.
                            Listen AbuNajm I'm also not interested in a discussion, but I ask you not to be so sensitive and to try to understand what I'm saying.

                            Forget about the names. Let's say for the sake of argument I misunderstood the "Salafi" Mashayikh and that they don't intend what I - and even scholars! - understood from them. If they don't intend these things, then I would be happy.

                            Let's concentrate on the beliefs itself: Imagine someone believes that the Creator subhanahu wa ta'ala is a being with heigth, width and breadth (he may not even state so explicitly, but he still believes this in himself!). What is your position regarding him?
                            Would you regard his position to be correct?
                            Or possible?
                            Or a major mistake?


                            If it's the last one, then our difference is more in wording than in meaning.
                            If it's however one of the first two, then our difference is very big and you can't claim that the scholars of Islam would accept any of the first two.
                            The issue is as simple as that.


                            (Note: This is not a hypothetical question, because historically there used to be people who had this belief and claimed to be Muslims at the same. So what is the ruling that the scholars of Islam gave regarding them? What is the ruling that al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) - whom you quoted above (while I'm not sure whether you understand his style and that his Dhahir is not what the Ash'aris intend when they negate the Dhahir (i.e. the literal lexical meaning that applies to us!), rather only means that the description has a reality, which is beyond our comprehension and imagination) - has mentioned regarding them?)
                            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 20-01-21, 08:48 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

                              Well you get some Muslims who say for example Allah's arm followed by statement 'the as befits His Majesty'
                              Issues of Aqidah are not established, refuted, resolved, or even opined about on the basis of what "some Muslims say".

                              Is "Arm" an affirmed Attribute of Allah AWJ? Who affirms it and who doesn't?

                              Some scholars like Abi Ya'laa, 'Ibn Abi Asim and 'Ibn Mandah affirmed "Arm" as an Attribute based on affirming the apparent meaning of the Hadith that mentions it.

                              Some scholars did not affirm it, like 'Ibn Hibban, al-Hakim, Ibn Qutaybah, adh-Dhahabi and others, even contemporary "Salafis".

                              On that basis, it would not be an affirmation or denial that would make someone a full-fledged "Athari" or "Ash'ari/Jahmi", depending on the choice.

                              Most Attributes are not like this though.

                              What is strange about the arguments surrounding affirming or denying this particular Attribute is how those who deny it rely purely on linguistics to suggest a Ta'weel for the statement and those who affirm it say: "we relegate the meaning to Allah and His Messenger SAWS".

                              This is almost the exact opposite approach usually taken by each side on other Attributes, in other words, it's usually the Atharis arguing that the apparent meaning in the language dictates understanding the meaning of a text about Attributes in such a way, while Ash'aris and Jahmis argue for "relegating the meaning to Allah and His Messenger SAWS".

                              Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post
                              So my question is if in Surah ikhlas 112:4
                              it clearly states the following 'And there is none comparable to Him.”

                              If we can't comprehend what Allah SWT is like due to our limited knowledge/imagination etc how can you even say for example Allah has a hand?

                              Is this not anthropomorphism? Giving Allah SWT human like features?

                              Please help me understand brother JazakAllah khayran thanks 💯
                              The important thing to keep in mind is that human beings don't say "Allah has a hand", rather it is Allah Himself who has informed us of this fact. It doesn't matter if you say it in English or Arabic- it means the same thing.

                              Allah AWJ not being like His creation is a very general statement and principle that, like all other principles in every Islamic science, can be either a scalpel in the hands of an expert surgeon or a button connected to a sledgehammer for a person with the care of a 2-year old in a glass warehouse.

                              Anthropomorphism is an accusation leveled at those who say: "Allah is like a man in [fill in the blank]". The sect that was behind this type of belief specifically has not existed for a very long time. The only accusations of anthropomorphism that remain today are from the Jahmiyyah towards Atharis. Their argument is that understanding the texts of the Attributes upon their apparent meaning in the Arabic language is in itself anthropomorphism. This obviously is a false claim since the Quran and Sunnah were revealed to a Prophet from among the Arabs in order for there NOT to be a lack of clarity.

                              On this forum, we have an anonymous individual inventing his own terms and/or promoting the age-old divisions between Jahmiyyah and Athariyyah but trying to recast the views and positions of the Jahmiyyah as somehow "Hanbali" and "closer" to Athari beliefs than "Salafis".

                              A person would have to be extremely gullible, ignorant, and/or already inclined towards Jahmiyyah in order to accept and believe such a baseless argument.

                              "Salafis" have been around for arguably more than 100 years, and by some criteria for that term, hundreds of years. Not even Ash'aris have argued that they are anywhere near the Hanaabilah in terms of creed, nor have they ever argued that they are "Athari" in creed. In fact, historically they have been at war with the Hanaabilah and Athariyyah.

                              No Ash'aris have ever made the claim, historically, that there is a disconnect between the Hanaabilah and Athari creed, in fact, they use the terms interchangeably.

                              Most "Salafis" that adopt a Madh'hab in Fiqh, especially in al-Hijaz and the Gulf countries, are Hanbali.

                              This is all common knowledge among students of Islam.

                              It's only on a random Muslim forum or a heavily inclined Sufi/Ash'ari forum, that the notion of an Ash'ari/Athari/Hanbali coalition could exist in opposition to "Salafis".

                              It's a ridiculous claim that can only find support in someone's imagination and many distortions of quotes mined from scholars throughout history.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                                Listen AbuNajm I'm also not interested in a discussion, but I ask you not to be so sensitive and to try to understand what I'm saying.
                                You sure type a lot for a person not interested in discussion.

                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                Forget about the names. Let's say for the sake of argument I misunderstood the "Salafi" Mashayikh and that they don't intend what I - and even scholars! - understood from them. If they don't intend these things, then I would be happy.
                                Please link me to your posts in which you quote "scholars" that confirm the very basis of this entire thread, i.e. Ash'aris are closer to the majority of Hanbalis and Atharis in Aqidah than "Salafis".

                                I think a lot of people are missing the forest for the trees on this point. You raise a million and one things only to leave out the most important- what is your proof and who agrees with you on your most basic premise?

                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                Let's concentrate on the beliefs itself: Imagine someone believes that the Creator subhanahu wa ta'ala is a being with heigth, width and breadth (he may not even state so explicitly, but he still believes this in himself!). What is your position regarding him?
                                Would you regard his position to be correct?
                                Or possible?
                                Or a major mistake?
                                That's the rub, isn't it? You want me and everyone here to make judgments based on YOUR presentation and interpretation of the statements of certain scholars, not their EXPLICIT STATEMENTS.

                                If you took the same approach towards the statements regarding Attributes as you do the statements of scholars you seem to hate due to their beliefs, you'd probably be an Athari instead of a Jahmi.

                                Show me an EXPLICIT statement of affirmation of "height", "width", and "breadth" as Attributes of Allah by a "Salafi" scholar whose views on Aqidah are considered representative of "Salafiyyah", and I will answer your question.

                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                (Note: This is not a hypothetical question, because historically there used to be people who had this belief and claimed to be Muslims at the same. So what is the ruling that the scholars of Islam gave regarding them? What is the ruling that al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) - whom you quoted above (while I'm not sure whether you understand his style and that his Dhahir is not what the Ash'aris intend when they negate the Dhahir (i.e. the literal lexical meaning that applies to us!), rather only means that the description has a reality, which is beyond our comprehension and imagination) - has mentioned regarding them?)
                                What you want us all to do is buy into a separate vocabulary and reinterpretation of quotes from scholars that the Jahmiyyah invented to imagine that even those they accuse of Tajseem, Tashbeeh, and Tamtheel all of a sudden agree with them!

                                In your alternate universe, Abu Ya'laa is in agreement with the Ash'aris when he affirms the "Zaahir" of a text related to the Attributes of Allah AWJ.

                                Just `Ajeeb.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X