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 AbuNajm View Post
    You sure type a lot for a person not interested in discussion.
    I'm fast in typing, so even if my posts get a little bit longer it doesn't take me much time.
    Add to this: It's possible for every person to benefit from the other and learn new things and this applies to me and to you, right?
    So let's not view it as a discussion, but rather let's say we're trying to understand each other better.

    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
    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'm sorry, but I'm not here to repeat myself again and again. I've already brought quotes and I've given an updated table of contents (HERE), so it becomes easier for everyone to find the relevant quotes.

    For now look at the statement that I quoted above from the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali (who by the way has also "Salafi" teachers and even used to be "Salafi" himself). (I obviously have much more proofs.)

    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
    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.
    The above was not my question, but rather your [wrong] interpretation of it. Please understand and put names asides. I told you that I've not a problem to say for the sake of argument that I - and the scholars! - have misunderstood "Salafi" Mashayikh. In fact I would be happy, if someone would be able to show me that I've indeed misunderstood them and that they don't regard corporeality regarding the Creator at least as possible.

    I'm speaking specifically regarding the belief.
    Let's say you're 100% sure that someone believes that the Creator subhanahu wa ta'ala is a being with height, width and depth, then what is the ruling upon such a belief?
    1) Is it correct?
    2) Possible?
    3) A little mistake?
    4) A major mistake?


    (If you say that it's a major mistake, then I will be happy and I will not use this as some sort of "proof" that "Salafi" Mashayikh are Mujassima.)

    Please simply answer and remember that the above belief is something that existed and Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) mentioned the existence of this belief in his Maqalat al-Islamiyyin and he also mentioned in it that the people of the Sunna do not believe this.
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 20-01-21, 09:53 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

      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".



      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.
      can you please expand on this, how do you mean its a 'very general' statement? sorry i dont understand brother

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
        .... .and Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) mentioned the existence of this belief in his Maqalat al-Islamiyyin and he also mentioned in it that the people of the Sunna do not believe this.
        So you believe that this the book of Ashaari? Do you even know with whose beliefs he agrees with in this book?

        I think you are really someone with biased views, and little knowledge. You didn't even understand Ibn Taymiyyah's also.

        Ibn Taymiyya believed in eternal creation, BUT he refused to accept that a definite thing or a certain sensible object is eternal, only the process of determining things is
        eternal. This process is based on the principle of causality that the effect comes immediately after the availability of the cause. Cause and effect do not exist together at the
        same time, one, rather, comes after another. This succession or sequence does not imply any time separation between the attributes and their particular determined entities. The frequently repeated example given by Ibn Taymiyya to describe the role of this succession has been the act of striking and pain, where the pain comes immediately after one is struck. In this example Ibn Taymiyya stated that cause and effect are not synchronized, they do not exist in the same moment, but the effect of necessity comes after the cause without delay.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
          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.
          I regard the creed that is found in al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din, Lum'at al-I'tiqad, Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in, al-'Ayn wal Athar, Qala`id al-'Iqyan, Najat al-Khalaf, al-Durra al-Mudhiyya and other such works as Sunni ones. No Jahmi would do so.

          Then: Real Jahmis believed that the Creator is literally everywhere and they had other such ridiculous beliefs. I believe this to be disbelief, so how can I be a Jahmi?
          Then: If you say "then you're a Mu'tazili", then my reply is: The Mu'tazila do NOT believe that the Creator is described with attributes which are za`ida 'ala al-Dhat in the very first place and they believe that human beings create their own actions and other such things. I regard all of this to be deviation, so I can't be a Mu'tazili.

          So do you think it's fair to be calling me a Jahmi, while I don't agree with their views?


          Note that if you believe that Allah ta'ala is transcendent from being a 3-dimensional being, then I will not regard you a Mujassim and rather only think that you use a wrong way in explaining your creed such that it's get easily misunderstood.

          Hope you don't forget my above question, because I would like you to explain to me a statement that I have in mind and how to understand it correctly.
          I'm really open to your explanation, especially when the person who stated it is indeed a scholar and I would be very happy to know that a scholar has not intended such a wrong meaning.

          Comment


          • Time and motion in Ibn Taymiyya’s thought are eternally concomitant to the generation of forms and things. Their eternity is not the eternity of independent substances; rather time and motion accompany essentially the eternity of the generation of all kinds. The generation in God’s essence is a sort of motion, but this motion is not exactly the motion of Aristotelian philosophy. It is not a movement from place to place or from generation to corruption or from corruption to generation. Ibn Taymiyya did not give a full definition of motion as a generation. This motion must be addressed as long as there is a generation in God’s essence. Ibn Taymiyya who continually attempted to base his philosophical theories on the tradition of the Prophet (sunna) found support from religious texts and some Sunnī traditionalists. To him, God is attributed as alive; this implies that every alive being is a moving one. Life and motionlessness are contradictory concepts. Ibn Taymiyya said: “the leaders (imāms) of the Sunnī people like Ḥarb al-Kirmānī (d. 279 AH/893 CE) and ʿUthmān bin Saʿīd al-Dārimī (d. 280 AH/ 894 CE) and others clearly spell the word motion and they considered this belief as the belief of the Sunni people of the past and present time”. ʿUthmān bin Saʿīd and others said: “motion is concomitant with life that is to say, everything alive is in motion, and they considered denial of this to be a Jahmiyya trait”. Ibn Taymiyya concluded that God is alive, and motion is eternal with His life. Time too is eternal as God is eternally producing the forms from His own attributes. This implies of necessity that time was not created in a definite moment. Ibn Taymiyya never made a separation between the eternal consecution of things and time. He did not classify time into many categories such as dahr and surmud, Ibn Taymiyya believed in one kind of time, which is the time of the birth of things and events. He believed, as well, that time is eternal in a way parallel to the process of creation itself, namely that, time counts with the form being generated a while after the existence of God’s attributes as genera and species. The generation of forms gives rise to the eternity of motion and time as well. Bear in mind that according to Ibn Taymiyya, eternity meant the succession of things starting from the essence of God and continuing its generation outside of God’s Self forever.

            Comment


            • /

              Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 20-01-21, 10:38 PM. Reason: A house or a palace

              Comment


              • Originally posted by maturidee View Post
                So you believe that this the book of Ashaari? Do you even know with whose beliefs he agrees with in this book?
                Not necessarily that it has reached us correctly word by word, but it is his work. And before you tell us - in your ignorance - with whose beliefs it agrees, let me tell it:
                It agrees with our beliefs, because he affirms that meanings of absolute perfection subsist in the divine Self (including Wajh, Yad and 'Ayn!) and does not regard it correct to believe that the Creator has tangible / physical "attributes". I can easily quote him from that very book and he OPENLY rejects corporeality in it!

                (He also mentions in the very same book that created and emergent are the same according to all groups and this is in opposition to your claim that something can be emergent and yet uncreated at the very same time.)

                In fact even the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) - who played a leading role in making up this "three stages or al-Ash'ari"-claim - ADMITTED that Imam al-Ash'ari did not believe in Sifat 'Ayniyya!

                Originally posted by maturidee View Post
                Time and motion in Ibn Taymiyya’s thought are eternally concomitant to the generation of forms and things. Their eternity is not the eternity of independent substances; rather time and motion accompany essentially the eternity of the generation of all kinds. The generation in God’s essence is a sort of motion, but this motion is not exactly the motion of Aristotelian philosophy. It is not a movement from place to place or from generation to corruption or from corruption to generation. Ibn Taymiyya did not give a full definition of motion as a generation. This motion must be addressed as long as there is a generation in God’s essence. Ibn Taymiyya who continually attempted to base his philosophical theories on the tradition of the Prophet (sunna) found support from religious texts and some Sunnī traditionalists. To him, God is attributed as alive; this implies that every alive being is a moving one. Life and motionlessness are contradictory concepts. Ibn Taymiyya said: “the leaders (imāms) of the Sunnī people like Ḥarb al-Kirmānī (d. 279 AH/893 CE) and ʿUthmān bin Saʿīd al-Dārimī (d. 280 AH/ 894 CE) and others clearly spell the word motion and they considered this belief as the belief of the Sunni people of the past and present time”. ʿUthmān bin Saʿīd and others said: “motion is concomitant with life that is to say, everything alive is in motion, and they considered denial of this to be a Jahmiyya trait”. Ibn Taymiyya concluded that God is alive, and motion is eternal with His life. Time too is eternal as God is eternally producing the forms from His own attributes. This implies of necessity that time was not created in a definite moment. Ibn Taymiyya never made a separation between the eternal consecution of things and time. He did not classify time into many categories such as dahr and surmud, Ibn Taymiyya believed in one kind of time, which is the time of the birth of things and events. He believed, as well, that time is eternal in a way parallel to the process of creation itself, namely that, time counts with the form being generated a while after the existence of God’s attributes as genera and species. The generation of forms gives rise to the eternity of motion and time as well. Bear in mind that according to Ibn Taymiyya, eternity meant the succession of things starting from the essence of God and continuing its generation outside of God’s Self forever.
                Sounds like pure philosophy! And this is what you call being "textualists"? Allahul musta'an!

                The ironic thing here is that most Hanabila don't agree with the above and explicitly state that Allah ta'ala is not subject to temporality (Hawadith). So are they all deviant? So Ash'aris are deviant and most Hanbalis also? Who's left from the scholars of Islam, then?

                Originally posted by maturidee View Post
                I think you are really someone with biased views, and little knowledge. You didn't even understand Ibn Taymiyyah's also.

                Ibn Taymiyya believed in eternal creation, BUT he refused to accept that a definite thing or a certain sensible object is eternal, only the process of determining things is
                eternal.
                WOW! I understood him EXACTLY as you stated and explained it more than once and yet you repeat yourself. Are we speaking different languages, or what exactly is your problem?

                Please go and repent from your previous comments instead of writing any further things. I'll not entertain any further discussion with you. Peace.



                I would like to post some statements, so AbuNajm may explain them better if possible. But I obviously need to know what he believes regarding the one who believes His Lord to be 3-dimensional (i.e. a being with height, width and breadth).
                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 20-01-21, 10:56 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                  Please go and repent from your previous comments instead of writing any further things. I'll not entertain any further discussion with you. Peace.
                  [/B]
                  If you don't believe that Allaah is physically above the Arsh, distinct from His creation, then it is you who needs to repent.

                  If you don't believe that Allaah is a real self existing being, but He is just a concept in the mind then it is you who has to repent.

                  If you don't believe that Allaah speaks whenever and how He wants, it is you who has to repent.

                  If you don't believe that Allaah has created human kind with a real ability to choose, think and act, it is you who has to repent.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                    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.
                    The above is quite a big mistake, because you're acting as if something that is based upon clear-cut Ayat (the Muhkamat) and something that the scholars of the Sunna in general have regarded as the very foundation in the issue of the divine attributes - and that is Allah's complete dissimilarity to His creation - as something ambiguous!

                    At the very same time you act as if those Ayat and Ahadith which fall under the ambiguous ones in meaning (the Mutashabihat) are clear-cut in meaning and should be taken as the foundation.

                    This is in opposition to the Qur`an al-karim, because the Mutashabih needs to be understood in the context of the Muhkam and not the other way around.

                    Yes, some people may take this foundation and use it in a wrong manner, this however does not change the fact that this issue is the very foundation in the divine attributes.

                    Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                    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.
                    Historically speaking the biggest group of anthropomorphists were the Karramiyya and they did not say that Allah ta'ala is like man in his attributes, but the scholars regarded them as such because of their affirmation of God being subject to temporality and their belief in corporeality.
                    (They even existed in the time of Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) and Herat was filled with them.)

                    Imam Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) famously regarded Muqatil bin Sulayman (d. 150 AH) as an anthropomorphist and this while he had not said that Allah ta'ala is like man (in fact he openly denied this as mentioned in Maqalat al-Islamiyyin), but rather stated things which obviously indicate Tashbih.

                    So the affirmation of a degree of similiarity in the reality falls under Tashbih and you can't deny this.

                    So if a person claims for example that God is described with a literal face and regards a 3-dimensional form regarding it to be possible, then this is Tashbih.
                    "Rectangular or circular [face]... god knows best" does that ring any bell!?

                    Note that we're tiny servants and when we speak regarding Allah ta'ala - the Lord of the Worlds -, then it should be with absolute veneration and respect and praise and while being absolutely sure that we're unable to ever comprehend His greatness and perfection nor are we able to count all that He has blessed us with.
                    We should certainly not speak regarding Him as if we're speaking about the guy next door and we also shouldn't mention the body parts of animals (!) while speaking about the divine attributes. Does this type of mindless speech really deserve a defense?

                    In the hereafter none will come to your rescue, if you have uttered mindless statements regarding the Lord of the Worlds.
                    What will you answer our Lord? "But so and so stated this..."? This will be of no avail.
                    We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and protection.


                    I'll be waiting for a response to my question regarding the ruling upon the belief of the one whom you're 100% sure of believing in a 3-dimensional being as his Lord.
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 21-01-21, 11:40 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                      In the hereafter none will come to your rescue, if you have uttered mindless statements regarding the Lord of the Worlds.
                      What will you answer our Lord? "But so and so stated this..."? This will be of no avail.
                      We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and protection.
                      That is exactly what you did all the time. You cannot think for your self, so you refer to scholars. You follow Ashaari the innovator. There are even reports that he prayed without wudhu after urinating.

                      Even kalaam scholars as Shahristaani considered him a innovator, he wrote regarding Ashaari:


                      فأبدع الأشعري قولاً ثالثاً وقضى بحدوث الحروف وهو خرق الإجماع وحكم بأن ما نقرأه كلام الله مجازاً لا حقيقة وهو عين الابتداع فهلا قال ورد السمع بأن ما نقرأه ونكتبه كلام الله تعالى دون أن يتعرض لكيفيته وحقيقته كما ورد السمع بإثبات كثير من الصفات من الوجه واليدين إلى غير ذلك من الصفات الخبرية



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by maturidee View Post

                        If you don't believe that Allaah is physically above the Arsh, distinct from His creation, then it is you who needs to repent.

                        If you don't believe that Allaah is a real self existing being, but He is just a concept in the mind then it is you who has to repent.

                        If you don't believe that Allaah speaks whenever and how He wants, it is you who has to repent.

                        If you don't believe that Allaah has created human kind with a real ability to choose, think and act, it is you who has to repent.

                        It's like you are arguing over nothing

                        1) If you mean above the throne because it is the highest point of creation and Allah is transcendent and distinct from that, then yes we believe that

                        2) Of course Allah actually exists and is not just in our head, at the same time, we cannot imagine or comprehend his actual existence because it is not like ours

                        3) There's a number of views on this, you are just following one view that does not make any sense when looking at the issue of Qiraa'aat and the human nature of them, but salafis do not make sense anyway, they pride themselves with this, each to their own I guess.

                        4) Again an issue that has been differed upon, at a basic level, every Muslim agrees that we have the ability to choose and act according to our free will.

                        Comment


                        • Words of wisdom by the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali, may Allah ta'ala protect him:

                          كثير من السلفية يرون أن ابن تيمية أعلم بالأشعرية من الجويني، وأعلم بسائر المذاهب من أصحابها.
                          وهو أمر مشهور متداول بكثرة في أدبياتهم.
                          ومن ثم يأخذون أقوال المذاهب من كتب ابن تيمية وهو يرد عليها، ولا يقبلون نقلا يخالف ذلك، ويأخذونه مباشرة على أنه اتهام لابن تيمية بالكذب والتدليس!
                          ومتعصبة الأشعرية يرون أن ما ينسبه بعض أئمتهم للحنابلة هو الصواب الذي يقوله الحنابلة، ولو كانت نصوص الحنابلة الكثيرة على خلافه، بل على تسفيهه!
                          ويستعظم هؤلاء أن يخطّأ السعد التفتازاني مثلا في نسبته قولا ما للحنابلة، فيجعلونه أعلم بمذهبهم منهم!
                          وإذا كنت أيها الأشعري ترد كلام الحنابلة بحجة أن السعد التفتازاتي نسب إليهم خلافه، ففيم إنكارك على السلفي الذي ينسب إليكم خلاف قولكم لأن ابن تيمية قال ذلك؟!
                          وحجتك الداحضة حجته، وآفتك آفته!
                          ولذلك قلنا مرارا منذ سنوات ونحن نعالج هذه الآفات المتجذرة: التعصب آفة نفسية وتربوية واجتماعية، ليس خاصة بالمتمذهبة ولا الراجحية ولا السلفية ولا الأشعرية، ولا التراثية ولا الحداثية.
                          والعجب ممن يطلب علم الكلام الذي لا تقليد فيه وقد يدعي التخصص فيه، ثم يحتج بهذه الخطابيات، ويجحد البدهيات في أخذ المذاهب من كتب أربابها، ويقع في هذه المغالطات بعد استقرار المذاهب وانتشار كتبها مخطوطة ومطبوعة وسهولة الوصول إلى الأقوال!
                          وأعجب من ذلك أن تعير كل طائفة أختها بما هي واقعة فيه!!

                          - end of quote -

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by maturidee View Post

                            That is exactly what you did all the time. You cannot think for your self, so you refer to scholars. You follow Ashaari the innovator. There are even reports that he prayed without wudhu after urinating.

                            Even kalaam scholars as Shahristaani considered him a innovator, he wrote regarding Ashaari:


                            فأبدع الأشعري قولاً ثالثاً وقضى بحدوث الحروف وهو خرق الإجماع وحكم بأن ما نقرأه كلام الله مجازاً لا حقيقة وهو عين الابتداع فهلا قال ورد السمع بأن ما نقرأه ونكتبه كلام الله تعالى دون أن يتعرض لكيفيته وحقيقته كما ورد السمع بإثبات كثير من الصفات من الوجه واليدين إلى غير ذلك من الصفات الخبرية


                            Lol, these Ijmaa' claims are so absurd, there's no such thing as Ijmaa' for the most part, you see claims of Ijmaa' in books all the time, yet they cannot prove that there is Ijmaa' on the Ijmaa' by any means, it's impossible.

                            The Ijmaa' card - A tactic typically used when a scholar has no reply to the opposing argument.

                            Comment


                            • .
                              Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 21-01-21, 01:04 PM.

                              Comment


                              • In his book, "Nihaayat ul-Iqdaam", ash-Shahrastani says on the subject of Allaah's Speech and the Qur'an (p. 177 onwards)

                                قالت السلف والحنابلة قد تقرر الاتفاق على أن ما بين الدفتين كلام الله وأن ما نقرأه ونسمعه ونكتبه عين كلام الله فيجب أن يكون الكلمات والحروف هي بعينها كلام الله ولما تقرر الاتفاق على أن كلام الله غير مخلوق فيجب أن تكون الكلمات أزلية غير مخلوقة ولقد كان الأمر في أول الزمان على قولين أحدهما القدم والثاني الحدوث والقولان مقصوران على الكلمات المكتوبة والآيات المقروءة بالألسن فصار الآن إلى قول ثالث وهو حدوث الحروف والكلمات وقدم الكلام والأمر الذي تدل عليه العبارات وقد حسن قول ليس منهما على خلاف القولين فكانت السلف على إثبات القدم والأزلية لهذه الكلمات دون التعرض لصفة أخرى ورأها وكانت المعتزلة على إثبات الحدوث والخلقية لهذه الحروف والأصوات دون التعرض لأمر ورأها فأبدع الأشعري قولاً ثابتاً وقضى بحدوث الحروف وهو خرق الإجماع وحكم بأن ما نقرأه كلام الله مجازاً لا حقيقة وهو عين الابتداع فهلا قال ورد السمع بأن ما نقرأه ونكتبه كلام الله تعالى دون أن يتعرض لكيفيته وحقيقته كما ورد السمع بإثبات كثير من الصفات من الوجه واليدين إلى غير ذلك من الصفات الخبرية.قالت السلف لا يظن الظان أنا نثبت القدم للحروف والأصوات التي قامت بألسنتنا وصارت صفات لنا فإنا على قطع نعلم افتتاحها واختتامها وتعلقها بأكسابنا وأفعالنا وقد بذلت السلف أرواحهم وصبروا على أنواع البلايا والمحن من معتزلة الزمان دون أن يقولوا القرآن مخلوق ولم يكن ذلك على حروف وأصوات هي أفعالنا وأكسابنا بل هم عرفوا يقيناً أن لله تعالى قولاً وكلاماً وأمراً وإن أمره غير خلقه بل هو أزلي قديم بقدمه كما ورد ذلك وفي قوله "ألا له الخلق والأمر" وقوله "لله الأمر من قبل ومن بعد" وفي قوله سبحانه "إنما قولنا لشيء إذا أردناه أن نقول له كن فيكون" فالكائنات كلها إنما تتكون بقوله وأمره وقوله إنما أمره إذا أراد شيئاً أن يقول له كن فيكون وقوله وإذ قال ربك وإذ قلنا قال الله هذا كله قول قد ورد في السمع مضافاً إلى الله تعالى أخص إضافة من الخلق فإن المخلوق لا ينسب إلى الله تعالى إلا من جهة واحدة وهو الخلق والإبداع والأمر بنسب إليه لا على تلك النسبة وإلا فيرتفع الفرق بين الأمر والخلق والخلقيات والأمريات.
                                قالوا من جهة المعقول العاقل يجد من نفسه فرقاً ضرورياً بين قال وفعل وبين أمر وخلق ولو كان القول فعلاً كسائر الأفعال بطل الفرق الضروري فثبت أن القول غير الفعل وهو قبل الفعل وقبليته قلية أزلية إذ لو كان له أول لكان فعلاً سبقه قول آخر ويتسلسل ثم لما أجمعت السلف على أن هذا القرآن هو كلام الله تعالى لم يرد مناهج إجماعهم ولم يبحث أنهم أرادوا القراءة أو المقروء والكتابة أو المكتوب كما أنهم إذا وصلوا إلى تربة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم قالوا هذا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وحيوا وصلوا وسلموا تسليماً من غير تصرف في أن المشار إليه شخصه أم روحه.
                                وحققوا زيادة تحقيق فقالوا قد ورد في التنزيل أظهر مما ذكرناه من الأمر وهو التعرض لإثبات كلمات الله تعالى حيث قال عز من قائل "وتمت كلمات ربك صدقاً وعدلاً لا مبدل لكلماته" ثم قال "ولولا كلمة سبقت من ربك" وقال "قل لو كان البحر مداداً لكلمات ربي" وقال ولو أن ما في الأرض من شجرة أقلام والبحر يمده من بعده سبعة أبحر ما نفدت كلمات الله" وقال "ولكن حق القول مني لأملأن جهنم وكذلك حقت كلمة العذاب" فتارة يجي الكلام بلفظ الأمر وتثبت له الوحدة الخالصية التي لا كثرة فيها "وما أمرنا إلا واحدة كلمح بالبصر" وتارة يجي بلفظ الكلمات وتثبت لها الكثرة البالغة التي لا وحدة فيها ولا نهاية لها "ما نفدت كلمات الله" فله إذاً أمر واحد وكلمات كثيرة ولا يتصور إلا بحروف فعن هذا قلنا أمره قديم وكلماته كثيرة أزلية والكلمات مظاهر الأمر للأمر والروحانيات مظاهر الكلمات والأجسام مظاهر الروحانيات والإبداع والخلق إنما يبتدئ من الأرواح والأجسام أما الكلمات والحروف فأزلية قديمة فكما أن أمره لا يشبه أمرنا وكلماته وحروفه لا تشبه كلماتنا وهي حروف قدسية وعلوية وكما أن الحروف بسائط الكلمات والكلمات أسباب الروحانيات والروحانيات مدبرات الجسمانيات وكل الكون قائم بكلمة الله محفوظ بأمر الله تعالى ولا يغفل عاقل عن مذهب السلف وظهور القول في حدوث الحروف فإن له شأناً وهم يسلمون الفرق بين القراءة والمقروء والكتابة والمكتوب ويحكمون بأن القراءة التي هي صفتنا وفعلنا غير المقروء والذي ليس هو صفة لنا ولا فعلنا غير أن المقروء بالقراءة قصص وأخبار وأحكام وأوامر وليس المقروء من قصة آدم وإبليس هو بعينه المقروء من قصة موسى وفرعون وليس أحكام الشرائع الماضية هي بعينها أحكام الشرائع الخاتمة فلا بد إذاً من كلمات تصدر من كلمة وترد على كلمة ولا بد من حروف تتركب منها الكلمات وتلك الحروف لا تشبه حروفنا وتلك الكلمات لا تشبه كلامنا كما ورد في حق موسى عليه السلام سمع كلام الله كجر السلاسل وكما قال المصطفى صلوات الله عليه في الوحي أحياناً يأتيني كصلصلة الجرس وهو أشد علي ثم يفصم عني وقد وعيت ما قال والله أعلم.


                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X