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

  • #76
    Another article on Imam al-Saffarini's usage of substance (Jawhar), accidents (Aradh) and body (Jism):

    Imām as-Safārīnī says in his poem:
    and our Lord is not a Jawhar nor (is He) and ‘Ard or Jism exalted be He the possessor of grandeur.
    Glorified is He, He has (performed the act of) Istiwā as it has appeared (in the text) without a ‘how’ indeed exalted and far removed is He from being confined by a limit (Yuhadd)



    A reader only needs to have a glance at al-Saffarini’s introduction to this particular section to know the Salafism of al-Saffarini, and the reason he mentioned the terms like substance (jawhar), accident (‘aradh, and not ‘ardh, as the ignorant author transliterates), and body (jism). Al-Saffarini says:

    ‘Chapter: In regards to the Attributes of Allah that the Imams of the Salaf and the Athari scholars affirm, in exclusion to the others from the scholars of the Khalaf, the people of Kalam, let alone the misguide and corrupt sects, the masters of philosophy, and the heretics. However, because affirming these attributes gives rise to unexpected ideas for the philosophical intellects, the Kalami analogies, and the Khalafi imaginations, which may give impression of Tajsim, the author preceded the chapter (on sifat), with that which negates such (thoughts of tajsim), by saying:

    Our Lord is not a substance (jawhar), nor an accident (‘aradh)
    Nor a body (jism), may His Highness be exalted’

    From this we conclude the following:

    1) al-Saffarini clearly states in the beginning of this new chapter, that he will affirm the forthcoming Attributes (such as, Allah’s literal elevation over His creation, a Face and Hands), which only the Salaf and the Athari scholars affirmed, in exclusion to the Khalaf and the people of Kalam (i.e. the Ash’aris and Maturidis)

    2) He clearly outlines his reasons for mentioning the Kalami terms, such as jawhar and ‘aradh, and that is to put the corrupt philosophical and Ash’ari minds to rest. For they, as he says, unexpectedly understand the literal meanings of this text to be what they see in the creation, and therefore, they are guilty of tajsim by making analogy of Allah’s Attributes to that of His creation.

    We have already mentioned Ibn Taymiyya’s attitude towards the newly invented ambiguous terms, which al-Saffarini agrees to, that neither do we accept them, nor do we reject them, until we know what one means.
    Surely, by using such terms, al-Saffarini is not negating Allah’s Attributes, and how could he, when he has dedicated a whole chapter in affirming Allah’s Face, Hands, etc, which the Ash’arites deny as Attributes of Allah.
    On Istiwā
    Imām as-Safārīnī said:
    “It has been narrated from ash-Sha’bī that he was asked about al-Istiwā. He replied: ‘This is from the Mutshābih of the Qur’ān. We believe in it and we do not delve into its meaning’.”
    He further said:
    “So the meaning of the statement of Umm Salamah radia Allah Anha in the Hadīth and those who traversed her path from the Imāms is that: Istiwā is known; meaning His description that He the Exalted is upon the throne (‘ala al-‘Arsh), (Istiwā) : meaning Istiwā that is known by way of textual evidence that is established by Tawātur (multiple chains of transmission)” (page 200)



    I have already responded to that above by summarising 23 pages of al-Saffarini into four pages clearly showing that al-Saffarini not only affirms literal highness of Allah above His creation, but also affirms for him a direction, and to that end, quotes extensively, whom he refers to as ‘Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya’.

    This also highlights the more-than-obvious deceit on part of the author, who selectively quotes a paragraph, from a twenty-three page long discussion, which, if taken out of context, may seem supporting the argument of Ash’arite tafwidh, while ignoring the glaring affirmation of a direction for Allah, which he considers anthropomorphism."


    https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...and-body-jism/

    Comment


    • #77
      Ibn Uthaymeen on limit:

      He said in response to those who negate the divine attribute of Istiwaa’ (mounting the Throne) under the pretext that this would entail holding that Allaah is bound by Hudood (limits):

      "What do you mean exactly by "Hudood"? If you mean that Allaah is distinct and separate from His creation, then this is true and implies no deficiency nor does it contradict or reduce the divine perfection in any aspect. But if you mean by Hudood that the Throne encompasses Him, then this is false and is not entailed by affirming the "mounting" (Istiwaa’) of Allaah. Verily, Allaah, The Exalted, mounted His Throne while He is greater and mightier than the Throne and all other created beings and things. This does not entail that the Throne encompasses Him nor is that possible; Allaah is greater than all that is created. The universe, from its highest to its lowest, is extremely small in relation to the Creator. The whole earth will be in His grasp on the Day of Resurrection, and the Heavens will be rolled up in His right hand.

      Ibn Taymiyyah on limit and terms like bodies and substances:

      Ibn Taymiyyah said in his Dar' Ta‘aarudh An-Naql wa-l-‘Aql (Reconciling Reason and Revelation):

      "The discourse on Tamtheel (assimilationism, i.e. claiming total equality between the Creator and the created in all attributes) and Tashbeeh (resemblance, i.e. claiming equality between the Creator and the created in most attributes) and rejecting both in relation to the divine attributes of Allaah is one thing and the discourse on Tajseem (anthropomorphism, i.e. likening Allaah to a body) and rejecting it is something else. As to the first, it was negated by the Quran, Sunnah, and consensus of the Salaf (righteous predecessors) and all scholars. There are lengthy reports about their rejection of the claims of the proponents of Tashbeeh, who say that Allaah has a hand like mine, eyesight like mine and feet like mine. The discourse on whether Allaah is a jism or jawhar (substance) either to negate or affirm it, is a bid‘ah (religious innovation) that has no basis in the Quran and Sunnah and none of the early Muslims and early scholars addressed this issue, neither with negation nor with affirmation. The debate among those who affirm it and those who negate it is partially linguistic and partially signification-related; they are both erroneous in some way. If the debate is with someone who says: He is a "body" or "substance", if such a person says: (but) not like the bodies and substances, the problem lies only in the language. If someone says: He is like the bodies and substances, the discourse with such a person will be according to whatever meaning he explains. If the intended meaning is to assimilate Allaah with His creation, then it is rejected if it entails affirming the attribution of the attributes of created beings to Allaah; this is false. If the intended meaning is that Allaah is a body but not like bodies, and that He is exalted above resemblance to His creation, then the argument with them is about the affirmation or negation of this meaning."

      To summarize the issue of hadd (limit) in relation to Allaah, Ibn Taymiyyah underlined in his books Dar' At-Ta‘aarudh and Bayaan Talbees Al-Jahmiyyah that Allaah is beyond the limits that we know but has a limit that only He knows.

      Some scholars negated the attribution of "limit" to Allaah because affirming it may create the misconception that this means that Allaah is contained and confined to space or location; therefore, they negated it so as to reject the idea that anything comprehends Allaah in knowledge or conception and that Allaah exists beyond the limits of created space and location.

      https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/27...-and-direction

      Conclusion: It is the meaning behind the terms that are important and not necessarily the terms themselves.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
        Conclusion: It is the meaning behind the terms that are important and not necessarily the terms themselves.
        Great, but instead of copying the words of the Najdi-fan Abuz Zubair - who mixes falsehood with truth as he has always done - or the "great Salafi" Ibn 'Uthaymin - who explicitly ascribes similarity to God (HERE) and interprets (!) Istiwa with the meaning (!) of settlement (Istiqrar) (HERE) (so it‘s not just about terms, but rather that these people ascribe similarity in meaning and this is disbelief according to al-Tahawiyya!), why don’t we make the issue easy and concentrate on the meaning of terms:

        When the Ash'ari scholars say that Allah ta’ala is transcendent from being a body, then what they intend is that God is not a 3-dimensional being. So the Mujassim is the one who believes God to be a 3-dimensional being (and even if he were to say He has more than three dimensions, he still would be a Mujassim because of affirming the 3 dimensions.).

        Do you accept that this MEANING (i.e. being a 3-dimensional being) does not apply to Allah ta’ala? Yes or no.

        (Please answer, because I‘m not asking you an unclear term, but rather a clear defined meaning. If you run away from answering I‘ll use that against you!)

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

          Great, but instead of copying the words of the Najdi-fan Abuz Zubair - who mixes falsehood with truth as he has always done - or the "great Salafi" Ibn 'Uthaymin - who explicitly ascribes similarity to God (HERE) and interprets (!) Istiwa with the meaning (!) of settlement (Istiqrar) (HERE) (so it‘s not just about terms, but rather that these people ascribe similarity in meaning and this is disbelief according to al-Tahawiyya!), why don’t we make the issue easy and concentrate on the meaning of terms:

          When the Ash'ari scholars say that Allah ta’ala is transcendent from being a body, then what they intend is that God is not a 3-dimensional being. So the Mujassim is the one who believes God to be a 3-dimensional being (and even if he were to say He has more than three dimensions, he still would be a Mujassim because of affirming the 3 dimensions.).

          Do you accept that this MEANING (i.e. being a 3-dimensional being) does not apply to Allah ta’ala? Yes or no.

          (Please answer, because I‘m not asking you an unclear term, but rather a clear defined meaning. If you run away from answering I‘ll use that against you!)
          I'm not going to repeat myself senselessly like a robot. The last few pages and our previous discussion should be sufficient for you to understand my approach. The real issue is that you have not studied Kalam or Mantiq prior to delving into the books of the scholars. Your example is like that of a Muhadith who isn't familiar with Usool al-Fiqh; you require a Faiqh to make sense of the information at your disposal.

          Wallahi I can entertain you once again on this issue. However, it is comical that everytime I've done this you've convineantly skipped over my posts and went on your own tangent. If it makes you feel any better I don't mind you having the last word or convincing yourself that you've "won" the debate (despite not responding to post #71). Perhaps we can continue this discussion after Ramadhan if there's still a need.
          Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 07-04-20, 07:33 PM. Reason: Typo

          Comment


          • #80
            While we're waiting for a response to my question above I would like to note the following:

            Abuz Zubair and his likes can ONLY fool those who do not understand Arabic and are therefore not able to recheck the original sources. An example for this is that he does not tell the reader that the author of al-Durra al-Mudhiyya and Lawami' al-Anwar did not just state that Allah ta'ala is not a body, but he also EXPLAINED what is intended with this statement thereby leaving no doubt whatsoever that God is not a 3 dimensional being in his creed [and the creed of Ahl al-Sunna in general].


            Allah is not composed of parts and the three dimensions do not apply to Him

            Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) said in his 'Aqida poem al-Durra al-Mudhiyya:

            وليس ربنا بجوهر ولا /// عرض ولا جسم تعالى ذو العلا

            Our Lord is not a substance / particle (Jawhar) nor /// [is He] an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism), Exalted is He who is [Most] High
            - end of quote -



            In his Lawami' al-Anwar - which is the explanation of his poem - he clarified his statement "Our Lord is not... a body":

            ولا ) ) هو سبحانه : ( ( جسم ) ) وهو ما تركب من جزئين فصاعدا وعند بعض النظار لا بد من تركبه من ثلاثة أجزاء لتتحقق الأبعاد الثلاثة أعني الطول والعرض والعمق ، وعند البعض من ثمانية ليتحقق تقاطع الأبعاد على زوايا قائمة ، قال السعد : ...ا
            قال الكرماني في شرح الجواهر : ...ا
            فقوله " يمكن " مشعر بأن مناط الجسمية ليس فرض الأبعاد بالفعل حتى يخرج الجسم عن الجسمية بأن لا يفرض فيه الأبعاد بالفعل بل مجرد إمكان الفرض ، وإن لم تفرض أصلا كاف ، وتصوير فرض الأبعاد في الجسم بعد تأليف ما كان ، وهو الطول ، وبعد آخر مقاطع له على زوايا قائمة وهو العرض ، وبعد آخر مقاطع لهما كذلك وهو العمق ، فقوله على زوايا قائمة ليس للاحتراز بل بيان الواقع ، فإن حقيقة الجسم لا يكون إلا كذلك
            ولما نفى كون الباري جل وعز جوهرا أو عرضا أو جسما ؛ لاتصاف الأول بالإمكان والحقارة ، والثاني لاحتياجه إلى محل يقوم به ، والثالث لأنه مركب فيحتاج إلى الجزء فلا يكون واجبا لذاته ولا مستغنيا عن غيره ، وفي ضمن ما نفاه رد على بعض فرق الضلال من المجسمة كما تقدمت الإشارة إلى ذلك في صدر هذا الكتاب ، أعقب ذلك بقوله ( ( تعالى ) ) وتقدس ( ( ذو العلى ) ) في ذاته وصفاته القدسية عما يقول الظالمون علوا كبيرا

            "[N]or" is He - glory be to Him - "a body (Jism)"; and [body] is that which is composed from two parts or more, and according to some polemicists it is necessary for it to be composed of three parts [at least], so that the three dimensions (al-Ab'ad al-Thalatha) - I mean length [or height], width [or breadth] and depth - are fulfilled, and according to some [it is necessary for it to be composed] of eight parts so that the intersection of the dimensions upon right angles are fulfilled.
            Al-Sa'ad said: "..."
            Al-Kirmani said in explanation of the substances: "..."
            His statement "[where] it is possible" gives the impression that the limit for corporeality (Manat al-Jismiyya) is not [whether] dimensions can be established by action such that a body does not get regarded as corporeal if dimensions can not be established regarding it by action, rather the possibility of establishing [dimensions] even if it can not be established at all is enough and the depiction of [the possibiliy of] establishing dimensions regarding a body after it being composed in whatever way; that is the length [or height], and another dimension that is intersected to it on a right angle and that is the width [or breadth], and another dimension that is intersected to both [mentioned dimensions upon a right angle] and that is the depth. So his statement "upon right angles" is not out of cautiousness, but rather in order to make the reality [of a body] clear, because the reality of body is not except like this.
            When [the author of the poem] (he's intending himself) negated that the Maker (al-Bari) - jalla wa 'azz - is a substance (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism), [then this was] due the description of the first (i.e. substance or particle) with being possible [in existance] and insignificant [in size], and the second (i.e. accident) because it is in need for a locus to subsist in, and the third (i.e. body) because it is composed (murakkab) [of parts], so that it is in need of a part and is therefore not essential in his essence nor free of need of something else.
            That which was negated [by the author of the poem] contains a response against some of the deviant groups from among the corporealists (Mujassima) as already pointed to in the beginning of this book. [The author of the poem] followed this by his statement "Exalted is He" and sanctified "He who is [Most] High" in His divine self / essence (Dhat) and [perfect] attributes (Sifat) above what the oppressors claim.

            - end of quote -



            From this quote we can conclude with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that Imam al-Saffarini believes God to be transcendent from being a 3-dimensional being or being composed of parts.

            The question that remains here: Do the modern day "Salafi" scholars agree with the above or not? (They do not as shall be shown.)
            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 07-04-20, 06:26 PM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              From this quote we can conclude with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that Imam al-Saffarini believes God to be transcendent from being a 3-dimensional being or being composed of parts.

              The question that remains here: Do the modern day "Salafi" scholars agree with the above or not? (They do not as shall be shown.)

              Ibn 'Uthaymin's claim: al-Saffarini is wrong and declaring God to be transcendent from being a body is not allowed


              Ibn 'Uthaymin (d. 1421 AH) first spoke regarding the wording which is found in the poem of Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH), so he stated in his "commentary" (read: attempt of refutation!) upon al-'Aqida al-Saffariniyya (i.e. al-Durra al-Mudhiyya):

              قوله : ( وليس ربنا بجوهر ولا عرض ولا جسم ) : هذا الكلام من المؤلف يحتمل معنيين :... أما الوجه الأول : فهذا صحيح وهو أن ننفي القول بأنه جوهر ،لأنه ليس لنا أن نقول : إنه جوهر ، ولا لنا أن نقول : إنه ليس بجوهر ،وأما الوجه الثاني : وهو القول : بأنه ليس بجوهر ، فهذا غير صحيح ،وظاهر كلام المؤلف هو الثاني ،يعني أن المؤلف رحمه الله يرى أن من عقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة أنهم يقولون : ( إن الله ليس بجوهر ولا عرض ولا جسم ) ،ولا شك أن هذا النفي ليس بصحيح ولم يقل أهل السنة بذلك ، وليس هذا مذهبهم ،لأنهم لا يجزمون بنفي شيء أو إثباته إلا بدليل وهذا ليس فيه دليل لا إثبات ولا بنفي

              [As for] his statement (i.e. al-Saffarini) that "Our Lord is not a substance / particle (Jawhar) nor /// [is He] an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism)", then this statement from the author can have two meanings:..
              As for the first way [to understand it]: Then it's correct and that is that we reject the statement that He's a substance (Jawhar), because it is not allowed for us to say that "He's a substance", and likewise it's not allowed for us to say that "He's not a substance".
              As for the second way [to understand it]: Then it's the statement that "He's not a substance", then this is not (!) correct, and the apparent from the saying of the author is the second.
              This means that the author - may Allah have mercy upon him - is upon the position that the belief of Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a is that they say [and believe that] "Allah is indeed not a substance nor [is He] an accident or a body", and there is no doubt that this negation is not correct and the Ahl al-Sunna did not say this, nor is this their way (Madhhab), for they do not declare to be sure regarding negation of something or its affirmation except with a proof while there is no proof regarding this [issue], not [for its] affirmation nor [for its] negation.

              - end of quote -

              It should be noted here that the statement of Imam al-Saffarini can actually have only one meaning and that is the second way that Ibn 'Uthaymin mentions. But at least he admits here that the author intended the second meaning, so let's overlook this.
              What we can not overlook here is his claim that the Ahl al-Sunna did not say this. It seems for Ibn 'Uthaymin only the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) is from the Ahl al-Sunna, while all the Hanabila - and the non-Hanabila anyways - who have stated the same as Imam al-Saffarini stated - like al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) in al-Mu'tamad, Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH) in Tabaqat al-Hanabila, Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in, Imam 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH) in al-'Ayn wal Athar, Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH) in Qala`id al-'Iqyan, Imam 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH) in Najat al-Khalaf and many others - are "not upon the way of Ahl al-Sunna" in this.


              Ibn 'Uthaymin then went on and referring to the explanation of these terms and said (so this time he's speaking regarding the meaning and not just the terms!):

              أما عن تفسير جوهر وعرض وجسم فكالآتي : الجوهر : ما قام بنفسه ،والعرض : ما قام بغيره ،والجسم : القائم المجسم ، فالمؤلف يرى أن من عقيدتنا أن ننفي هذه الثلاثة عن الله عز وجل ، ولكن هذا ليس بصحيح ،وليس من مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة

              As for the explanation of [the expressions] substance (Jawhar), accident ('Aradh) and body (Jism), then it is as follows:
              A substance (Jawhar): That which subsists in itself.
              An accident ('Aradh): That which subsists in others.
              A body: The corporeal [thing or being] subsisting [in itself[.
              So the author (i.e. al-Saffarini) is on the position that it's from our beliefs to deny these three regarding Allah ta'ala - 'azza wa jall -, but this is not correct and not from the way (Madhhab) of Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a.

              - end of quote -

              It should be noted here that his definition of substance and accident is way too broad and not complete (!) and not in accordance with what Imam al-Saffarini said, but let's concentrate on the explanation of body - which is correct - even though he does not use the terms used by Imam al-Saffarini (as quoted ABOVE).
              So according to Ibn 'Uthaymin it's "not from the way of Ahl al-Sunna" to deny that God is a "corporeal [thing or being] subsisting [in itself]", nor is it allowed to affirm this.


              To make it short: Ibn 'Uthaymin does not know our Lord! He does not know what he's worshipping and what not! He claims that this ignorance is the correct way, but the Hanabila quoted in this thread said all the exact opposite!
              So let no one try to claim that the "Salafis" agree with the Hanabila on Tanzih and Tajsim, for they EXPLICILTY reject the statement of mainstream Hanabila as shown here.



              PS: Ibn 'Uthaymin is the same person who explicitly claimed that "there is some [sort of] of similarity (!) [between the Creator and the creation]" (see HERE), and this claim is what is against the Madhhab of Ahl al-Sunna in reality and shows even more that he does not know the Creator, Exalted is He above what his likes claim!
              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 07-04-20, 08:45 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                .
                Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 07-04-20, 09:43 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  .
                  Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 07-04-20, 09:44 PM. Reason: Khayr

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                    Taḥrīm al-naẓar fī kutub ahl al-kalām (Prohibition of Studying Kalam) - Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali:

                    "Do you suppose that the Prophet be wrong in accepting that from them and being contented with their pure and simple submission to God, rather than they should study the science of speculative theology (Kalam) and examine the "accident" ('Aradh), the "substance" (Jawahar), and the body (Jism); and on the other hand, that the speculative theologians (Mutakalimun) be right with regards to the transgressions of him who has not studied those things? If this be so, then let them claim for themselves a law and a system of worship other than that of Islam, and leave the religion of Muhammad alone" (Pg. 21)

                    "First, it entails accusing the Apostle of God of a fault of omission; for the Prophet did not order any one of his community to learn speculative theology (Kalam), and to examine the rational proofs, that one might thereby know the soundness of his creed" (Pg. 21)
                    Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) is correct that it's not obligatory upon us* to examine the issue of "accident, substance and body", but this does NOT negate the fact that he regards Tashbih wrong in an ABSOLUTE way and that he believes that believing God to be a body (i.e. Tajsim) is disbelief (because it goes against the Qur`anic teaching of "There is nothing like Him").
                    (*: It may however be necessary for a group of scholars to learn 'Ilm al-Kalam in order to refute the enemies of our religion, and this is something even admitted by many Hanabila!)


                    He said in Tahrim al-Nadhar (page 35 of the translation that you used):

                    الثالث أن هذا باطل بسائر صفات الله تعالى سلمتموها من السمع والبصر والعلم والحياة. فإنها لا تكون في حقنا إلا من أدوات. فالسمع من انخراق والبصر من حدقة والعلم من قلب والحياة في جسم. ثم جميع الصفات لا تكون إلا في جسم.فإن قلتم إنها في حق الباري كذلك فقد جسمتم وشبهتم وكفرتم، وإن قلتم لا تفتقر إلى ذلك فلم احتيج إليها ههنا؟

                    Third: This anthropomorphism is false as regards the rest of the attributes of God which you have conceded, namely, hearing, sight, knowledge and life.
                    These attributes cannot exist in our case except in consequence of certain instruments. Thus hearing exists because of a perforation; sight, because of an iris; knowledge, because of a mind; and life exists in a body.
                    Moreover, all of the attributes cannot exist except in a body; therefore, if you say that it is the same in the case of the Creator, you are guilty of tajsim and tashbih-anthropomorphism, and have become unbelievers. On the other hand, if you should say, the divine attributes do not require a body,” then why were they required in the present case?

                    - end of quote -


                    He also said (page 30 of the translation that you used) from the :

                    وإنما يحصل التشبيه والتجسيم ممن حمل صفات الله سبحانه وتعالى على صفات المخلوقين في المعنى ونحن لا نعتقد ذلك ولا ندين به بل نعلم أن الله تبارك وتعالى { ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير } وأن صفاته لا تشبه صفات المحدثين وكل ما خطر بقلب أو وهم فالله تعالى بخلافه لا شبيه له ولا نظير ولا عدل ولا ظهير { ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير

                    Now, tashbih and tajsim-anthropomorphism result only from him who makes the attributes of God accord in meaning with the attributes of created beings. But we do not believe this, nor do we follow it as our religion; on the contrary, we know that so far as God is concerned, “There is nothing anything like Him. He is the Hearing, the Seeing,”[42:11] and we know that His attributes do not resemble those of created beings. All that which occurs in the mind or the imagination, God is different therefrom. He has neither a match, nor an equal, nor a similar, nor an auxiliary; “There is nothing anything like Him. He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” [42:11].
                    - end of quote -

                    Note that both of these statements and the way Imam Ibn Qudama argues here are found actually in that which Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH) mentioned in his Tabaqat al-Hanabila (see HERE) regarding the creed of his father al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) and his Hanbali predecessors.

                    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                    I'm not going to repeat myself senselessly like a robot. The last few pages and our previous discussion should be sufficient for you to understand my approach. The real issue is that you have not studied Kalam or Mantiq prior to delving into the books of the scholars. Your example is like that of a Muhadith who isn't familiar with Usool al-Fiqh; you require a Faiqh to make sense of the information at your disposal.

                    Wallahi I can entertain you once again on this issue. However, it is comical that everytime I've done this you've convineantly skipped over my posts and went on your own tangent. If it makes you feel any better I don't mind you having the last word or convincing yourself that you've "won" the debate (despite not responding to post #71). Perhaps we can continue this discussion after Ramadhan if there's still a need.
                    You always like to say "you're not qualified", while you're not realizing that my understanding of this issue is based upon scholarly explanations and are not just my own. I've already shown that regarding the issue of affirming the expression of direction of highness (HERE) - which you were hellbent on and thinking falsely that it's my own understanding that it does not necessitate Tajsim! - and I'm able to show that regarding other issues too.

                    If you think that your approach is in any way or form clear, then you're wrong. You are unable to tell to your opponent what you believe and what not. Whenever you are asked for clarification you run away. This is not your first time. Whenever you come across a clear statement by Hanbali scholars in their authoritative works, you act as if "it's just a Kalami discussion" (as if they were lying!) even though the context of most of these quotes is not even that of discussion, but rather that of teaching!
                    I won't declare that I "won" the debate, but if you don't answer my question then this indicates your ignorance regarding our Lord.
                    Since you have no clear answer, then this is the end of my discussion with you.

                    Anyways, what is important here is not your personal creed (which may not be necessarily always in line with that of "Salafis"), but rather the creed of "Salafi" Mashayikh.

                    Ibn 'Uthaymin's response to the question "Do you accept that this MEANING (i.e. being a 3-dimensional being) does not apply to Allah ta’ala? Yes or no." is: "We do not affirm or reject this." (as shown ABOVE)
                    Yet, he had the audacity to claim that "there is some [sort of] of similarity (!) [between the Creator and the creation]" (see HERE) - a statement no Sunni in his right mind would ever make! -, which shows that he did not know our Lord.
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 07-04-20, 09:52 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                      Ibn 'Uthaymin's claim: al-Saffarini is wrong and declaring God to be transcendent from being a body is not allowed


                      Ibn 'Uthaymin (d. 1421 AH) first spoke regarding the wording which is found in the poem of Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH), so he stated in his "commentary" (read: attempt of refutation!) upon al-'Aqida al-Saffariniyya (i.e. al-Durra al-Mudhiyya):

                      ...
                      This means that the author - may Allah have mercy upon him - is upon the position that the belief of Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a is that they say [and believe that] "Allah is indeed not a substance nor [is He] an accident or a body", and there is no doubt that this negation is not correct and the Ahl al-Sunna did not say this, nor is this their way (Madhhab),
                      ...
                      - end of quote -
                      On a general note regarding commentaries:
                      When someone writes a commentary (i.e. Sharh) upon a scholarly work, then it is expected from him that he has detailed knowledge of the positions and beliefs of the author and that the commentary explains the positions and statements of the author AND does not attempt to refute them, because there is a difference between a commentary and a refutation.

                      Now let's apply this to the case above:
                      Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) wrote the 'Aqida poem al-Durra al-Mudhiyya (also known as al-'Aqida al-Saffariniyya) and wrote himself a commentary on it (i.e. Lawami' al-Anwar), so that the poem does not need any further commentary, because it has been already explained by the author himself. What one could do now is to write a commentary on the commentary to add more clearness to those points, which may need more explanation and clarification.

                      What did Ibn 'Uthaymin do:
                      He wrote a refutation (!!) of al-'Aqida al-Saffariniyya and rejected many of the major points made by the author one after the other (the above is just one example from many!) and then he still called it as "Sharh" (commentary).
                      He wrote this work - while at the same time not being fully aware of the beliefs of the author - and for him it was enough that the author refers to the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) a lot in his Lawami' al-Anwar (disagreeing and agreeing with him based on the issue discussed; the issues of agreement are usually connected to rejection of Ta`wil, where Ibn Taymiyya is no different to mainstream Hanbalis anyways) in order to write a so called "commentary" on the poem.
                      In the above quote we see that even though he rejects a major point in the belief of the author - and that is the non-bodily existence of Allah ta'ala - he still says "may Allah have mercy upon him" after mentioning him, but this is due to him not knowing his beliefs fully.
                      Because we see that later on Ibn 'Uthaymin accused Imam al-Saffarini of polytheism in lordship and divinity!!!


                      Ibn 'Uthaymin: Al-Saffarini is upon polytheism in lordship and divinity

                      The modern day "Salafi" scholar Ibn Sunayd has a book where he reports the answer to the questions that he had asked Ibn' Uthaymin. The book is named al-Kanz al-Thamin fi Su`alat Ibn Sunayd li Ibn 'Uthaymin (look at this big title, as if he's reporting from a companion or one the great leading scholars of this nation!).

                      In the above mentioned book he asks Ibn 'Uthaymin regarding a statement of Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) - that can be found in his Ghidha` al-Albab - by saying:

                      السؤال (52): وسألته رحمه الله عن قول السفاريني في كتابه «غذاء الألباب» (1/ 426):ا
                      يا سيدي يا رسول الله خذ بيدي ... إني أتيت بلا علم ولا عمل؟
                      الجواب: استنكر رحمه الله ذلك جدا استغرب صدوره من السفاريني وقال لعله نقله عن غيره فقلت: بل صدرت منه فقال: هذا شرك في الربوبية والألوهية

                      Question (52): I asked him (Ibn 'Uthaymin) - may Allah have mercy upon him - regarding the statement of al-Saffarini in his book Ghidha` al-Albab (1/426):
                      "O my master, O messenger of Allah, take my hand /// I have come [to you] without knowledge or [good] deeds"

                      Answer: He - may Allah have mercy upon him - condemned this [statement] very much and found it strange that it came from al-Saffarini.
                      He said "Maybe he just transmitted it from someone else", so I said "[No,] rather it was stated by him".
                      So he said: "This is polytheism (Shirk) (!) in lordship (Rububiyya) and divinity (Uluhiyya)!".

                      - end of quote -

                      Note how the "Salafi" says "may Allah have mercy upon him" twice for Ibn 'Uthaymin, while not saying it ONCE for a great Hanbali scholar like Imam al-Saffarini!
                      And note how Ibn 'Uthaymin accuses Imam al-Saffarini of "polytheism in lordship and divinity" (!), so this makes him worse than the Makkan pagans, because according to Najdi minded people like Ibn 'Uthaymin the Makkan pagans were "complete monotheists regarding the lordship of Allah" (see this thread here in refutation of this claim: Wahhabi claim: Belief in Rububiyya (lordship) of Allah: Muslims = Pagans).
                      The above statement is also called as "polytheism" by the "Salafi" scholar 'Abd al-Rahman al-Barrak (HERE).

                      This means that Ibn 'Uthaymin wrote a whole so called "commentary" (read: attempt of refutation) on the poem of creed by a scholar, whose beliefs he was not even sure of in the first place!!! This is the leading scholar of these "Salafis"!
                      As if that is not enough: He dares to accuse Imam al-Saffarini of polytheism, while he himself made the pagan statement that "there is some [sort of] of similarity (!) [between the Creator and the creation]" (see HERE).

                      The reality however is that there is NO polytheism in the above statement [of al-Saffarini] whatsoever and that the likes of the above statement can be found made by major Hanbali and non-Hanbali scholars before Imam al-Saffarini!
                      Only a Najdi-minded person without understanding will reach to the conclusion that the above statement of Imam al-Saffarini is polytheism!
                      If it is stated that it contains the seeking of aid, then the answer is: Yes, but as Muslims we seek aid from the creation ONLY metaphorically while believing that real help and real influence is from Allah ta'ala alone! It's not the fault of normal Muslims, that Najdis don't get this with their pagan mindset of ascribing real influence to the some of the creation!



                      Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: Al-Saffarini, his teachers and his students did not know Islam!


                      Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) - the leader of the Najdis and "Salafis" - said in a letter to the Shaykh 'Abdullah bin 'Isa [al-Tamimi al-Hanbali] (d. 1175 AH) - a student of the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) - and his son and another scholar the following (as it is found in al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyya) while trying to justify to them his Takfir upon several families:

                      وأنتم تقرون أن الكلام الذي بينته في معنى لا إله إلا الله هو الحق الذي لا ريب فيه، سبحان الله إذا كنتم تقرون بهذا فرجل بين الله به دين الإسلام، وأنتم ومشايخكم ومشايخهم لم يفهموه ولم يميزوا بين دين محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ودين عمرو بن لحى الذي وضعه للعرب بل دين عمرو عندهم دين صحيح ... الرجل الذي هداكم الله به لهذا إن كنتم صادقين لو يكون أحب إليكم من أموالكم وأولادكم لم يكن كثيراً فكيف يقال ... ا

                      You have [already] accepted that the statement which I have explained regarding the meaning of "La Ilaha illa Allah" is the truth without any doubt.
                      Subhanallah, if you are affirming this, then [this] is a man (he's intending himself!!!) through whom Allah has made the religion of Islam clear, [while] you and your teachers (Mashayikh) and their teachers did not understand [Islam], nor were they able to differentiate between the religion of Muhammad - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and the relgion of 'Amr bin Luhayy (!!) - who had invented a religion (i.e. that of idol worship) for the Arabs (those of pre-Islamic times) -, rather according to them the religion of 'Amr bin Luhayy is the correct religion...
                      The man (he's intenting himself again!) through whom Allah has guided you to this, [and] if you are truthful, [then] if he would be more beloved to you than your wealth and your children, then this would be not much [to ask].
                      Then how is possible to be said...

                      - end of quote -

                      Comment: Wallahi, he has lied that they agreed with his explanation and wallahi he has lied in his indirect claim for prophethood!
                      The one who is more beloved to us than our wealth, our children and even our ownselves and the one through whom Allah ta'ala guided us to Islam and pure Tawhid - not the fake "Tawhid" that IAW came with! - is our Master Muhammad al-Mustafa, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam!!!

                      And: Imam al-Saffarini and his teachers and his students knew Islam much better than him and his pagan minded followers, who do not know whether their Lord is a body or transcendent from being a body and who claim that "there is some [sort of] of similarity (!) [between the Creator and the creation]"!

                      In the above letter he's trying to convince the scholars to agree with his unjustified Takfir, but from his letters - and the answers of the scholars against him! - we know that they all rejected his ideas, so that he started making Takfir upon ALL the scholars of his region! This is the leader of the "Salafis", o slaves of Allah! This is their leader!

                      Even major Hanbali scholars of the region like the Shaykh [Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Rahman] Ibn 'Afaliq [al-Ahsa`i al-Hanbali] (d. 1164 AH) and the Shaykh [Muhammad bin 'Abdullah] Ibn Fayruz [al-Ahsa`i al-Hanbali] (d. 1216 AH) - who had to flee to Basra, because the Najdis were trying to kill him! - were not safe from the Takfir of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab! (See al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyya: "فأما ابن عبد اللطيف وابن عفالق وابن مطلق فحشوا بالزبيل أعني : سبابة التوحيد واستحلال دم من صدق به أو أنكر الشرك، ولكن تعرف ابن فيروز أنه أقربهم إلى الإسلام وهو رجل من الحنابلة، وينتحل كلام الشيخ وابن القيم خاصة ومع هذا صنف مصنفا أرسله إلينا قرر فيه هذا الذي يفعل عند قبر يوسف وأمثاله هو الدين الصحيح")

                      Conclusion: If the Shaykh and 'Allama al-Saffarini would have lived in their region, then you can be sure that they would have tried to kill him too!
                      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 08-04-20, 06:45 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        And: Imam al-Saffarini and his teachers and his students knew Islam much better than him and his pagan minded followers, who do not know whether their Lord is a body or transcendent from being a body and who claim that "there is some [sort of] of similarity (!) [between the Creator and the creation]"!

                        In the above letter he's trying to convince the scholars to agree with his unjustified Takfir, but from his letters - and the answers of the scholars against him! - we know that they all rejected his ideas, so that he started making Takfir upon ALL the scholars of his region! This is the leader of the "Salafis", o slaves of Allah! This is their leader!

                        Even major Hanbali scholars of the region like the Shaykh [Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Rahman] Ibn 'Afaliq [al-Ahsa`i al-Hanbali] (d. 1164 AH) and the Shaykh [Muhammad bin 'Abdullah] Ibn Fayruz [al-Ahsa`i al-Hanbali] (d. 1216 AH) - who had to flee to Basra, because the Najdis were trying to kill him! - were not safe from the Takfir of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab! (See al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyya: "فأما ابن عبد اللطيف وابن عفالق وابن مطلق فحشوا بالزبيل أعني : سبابة التوحيد واستحلال دم من صدق به أو أنكر الشرك، ولكن تعرف ابن فيروز أنه أقربهم إلى الإسلام وهو رجل من الحنابلة، وينتحل كلام الشيخ وابن القيم خاصة ومع هذا صنف مصنفا أرسله إلينا قرر فيه هذا الذي يفعل عند قبر يوسف وأمثاله هو الدين الصحيح")

                        Conclusion: If the Shaykh and 'Allama al-Saffarini would have lived in their region, then you can be sure that they would have tried to kill him too!

                        Ibn 'Uthaymin and his broken chain of knowledge

                        It is a known issue that "Salafis" have no chain of knowledge going back to classical Hanabila! And how could they have such chains, while they were trying to kill those very Hanabila?!


                        On the Arabic "ahlalhdeeth"-website we see however that a "Salafi" has tried to make up a "chain" for Ibn 'Uthaymin to connect him with the classical Hanabila, but he failed miserably (as shall be shown):

                        هذا هو نسب شيخنا وأستاذنا العلامة الفقيه المفسر النحوي .. الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين .. وقد أخذ العلم عن شيخه .. وهو أخذ عن العالم الشهير محمد بن فيروز وهو أخذ عن والده عبدالله بن فيروز .. وهو أخذ عن والده محمد بن فيروز الجد..وهو أخذ عن عبد القادر التغلبي ..وهو أخذ عن محمد البلباني وعن الشيخ عبد الباقي والد أبي المواهب...وهما أخذا عن العلامة منصور البهوتي ..ا

                        This is the lineage [of knowledge] of our Shaykh and Ustadh, the 'Allama, Faqih, Mufassir and Nawhi, the Shaykh Muhammad bin Salih al-'Uthaymin.
                        He took [his] knowledge from his teacher...
                        ...
                        He took it from the famous scholar Muhammad bin Fayruz and he took it from his father 'Abdullah bin Fayruz.
                        He took it from his father Muhammad bin Fayruz, the grandfather.
                        He took it from 'Abd al-Qadir al-Taghlabi.
                        He took it from Muhammad al-Balbani and from the Shaykh 'Abd al-Baqi, the father of Abul Mawahib.
                        They [both] took it from the 'Allama Mansur al-Buhuti.
                        ...

                        - end of quote -

                        The one whom he refers to as the "famous scholar" - because he was indeed famous in the whole region for his knowledge! - here is none other than the Shaykh [Muhammad bin 'Abdullah] Ibn Fayruz [al-Ahsa`i al-Hanabli] (d. 1216 AH), who had to flee from the Najdis to Basra, so that they couldn't kill him. He's also the same scholar, whom Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) hated and made Takfir of! Now this is a broken chain!
                        As for the 'Allama 'Abd al-Qadir [bin 'Umar] al-Taghlabi (d. 1135 AH) - the teacher of the grandfather of the Shaykh Ibn Fayruz and the Mufti of the Hanabila in Damascus -, then he's the teacher of the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH). Imam al-Saffarini was not just accused by Ibn 'Uthaymin himself of "polytheism in lordship and divinity", but Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab also regarded him as ignorant of Islam and likewise did he say regading his students and his teachers (which includes the Mufti of the Hanabila 'Abd al-Qadir al-Taghlabi)! So here the chain is again broken!

                        What kind of chain is this, where the people in it are "upon polytheism" and "ignorant of Islam" according to ones own creed?!!



                        An interesting additional information:

                        As for teachers of the 'Allama 'Abd al-Qadir al-Taghlabi, then from among them two persons are mentioned:
                        - The 'Allama [Muhammad bin Badr al-Din] Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH), the author of the 'Aqida work Qala`id al-'Iqyan (mentioned in the OP).
                        - The 'Allama 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH), the author of the 'Aqida work al-'Ayn wal Athar (also mentioned in the OP).


                        Both have been already quoted here:

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        Al-'Ayn wal Athar [fi 'Aqa`id Ahl al-Athar] (page 34-35) by Imam 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH):

                        It's obligatory to be certain that Allah ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar) or a body (Jism) or an accident ('Aradh) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, so whoever believes or says that Allah is - with His essence - in a place (Makan), then he's a disbeliever (Kafir).
                        Rather one has to be certain that [Allah] - subhanahu wa ta'ala - is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih), for He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.
                        He is not known through the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to humans, for He's free of any needs and there is nothing that is not in need of Him. He's not similar to anything and nothing is similar to Him.
                        Whatever comes to the mind or [can] be conveived by the imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Bounty and Majesty.

                        - end of quote -


                        Qala`id al-'Iqyan [fi Ikhtisar 'Aqidat Ibn Hamdan] (page 96-97) by Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH):

                        It's obligatory to be certain that Allah ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar) or a body (Jism) or an accident ('Aradh) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, so whoever believes or says that Allah is - with His essence - in every place or in [some] place (Makan), then he's a disbeliever (Kafir).
                        Rather one has to be certain that He - subhanahu wa ta'ala - is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih), for Allah ta'ala existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place.
                        He is not known through the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to humans and there is no entry for analogy [or comparing] (Qiyas) regarding His essence, attributes and actions.
                        He has not taken a wife or a child [for Himself], for He's free of any needs and there is nothing that is not in need of Him.
                        He's not similar to anything and nothing is similar to Him, so whoever attributes similarity to Him with His creation has disbelieved, like the one who believes Him - ta'ala - to be a body (Jism) or says that "He's a body unlike [other] bodies" (Jism la kal Ajsam).
                        Imagination does not reach Him and comprehension does not grasp Him. He's not similar to the creation and no examples can be given in behalf of Him.
                        He's not known by the sayings [of the people].
                        Whatever comes to the mind or [can] be conveived by the imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Bounty and Majesty.

                        - end of quote -

                        What does Ibn 'Uthaymin believe regarding the creed of these classical Hanabila?

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        Ibn 'Uthaymin then went on and referring to the explanation of these terms and said (so this time he's speaking regarding the meaning and not just the terms!):

                        ...
                        A body: The corporeal [thing or being] subsisting [in itself[.
                        So the author (i.e. al-Saffarini) is on the position that it's from our beliefs to deny these three regarding Allah ta'ala - 'azza wa jall -, but this is not correct and not from the way (Madhhab) of Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a.

                        - end of quote -

                        ...

                        To make it short: Ibn 'Uthaymin does not know our Lord! He does not know what he's worshipping and what not! He claims that this ignorance is the correct way, but the Hanabila quoted in this thread said all the exact opposite!
                        So let no one try to claim that the "Salafis" agree with the Hanabila on Tanzih and Tajsim, for they EXPLICITLY reject the statement of mainstream Hanabila as shown here.

                        PS: Ibn 'Uthaymin is the same person who explicitly claimed that "there is some [sort of] of similarity (!) [between the Creator and the creation]" (see HERE), and this claim is what is against the Madhhab of Ahl al-Sunna in reality and shows even more that he does not know the Creator, Exalted is He above what his likes claim!
                        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 08-04-20, 08:49 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          The exact difference of Ash'aris and Hanbalis in Tafwidh

                          The [Ash'ari] Imam* and Wali of Allah* [Muhammad bin Yusuf] al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) - *this is how the Hanbali author of Najat al-Khalaf fi I'tiqad al-Salaf, the 'Allama 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH) refers to him! - said in his Sharh al-Muqaddimat that there are three positions among the scholars [of Ahl al-Sunna] regarding the Ayat and Ahadith concerning the divine attributes:

                          1) Tafwidh (consignment)
                          2) Ta`wil (interpretation)
                          3) Ithbat (affirmation) with Tanzih (transcendence)

                          Most scholars mention only Tafwidh and Ta`wil as mentioned before, because Ithbat with Tanzih is actually already included as a possible option in Tafwidh.



                          Let us now compare these positions:

                          1) Tafwidh means to believe in the wording of the Ayat and Ahadith and thereafter one directly consigns (or relegates) the intended meaning and its reality to Allah ta'ala, while being sure that there is no likeness and no similarity between the Creator and the creation.
                          This is the Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih according to the Ash'ari scholars.

                          What this means regarding the Ayat where Wajh, 'Ayn, Yad, etc. is mentioned regarding Allah ta'ala is that one leaves it open, whether these descriptions are divine attributes additionally to other attributes (i.e. Ithbat with Tanzih!) or [descriptions] going back to other [divine] attributes (an example: Yad (literally: hand) going back and referring to Qudra (power)) or even going back to the divine self (like understanding Wajh to refer to the divine Dhat (self)) (i.e. Ta`wil).

                          2) Ta`wil means to believe in the wording of these Ayat and Ahadith and to understand these descriptions in their context in the Ayat and Ahadith and according to their usage in the Arabic language (like understanding Saq (literally: shin) to refer to the Shidda (hardship) [on the day of judgement] as Ibn 'Abbas - radiallahu 'anhuma - said), while excluding those interpretations, which contain attributing likeness or similarity (like understanding Istiwa as Istiqrar (settlement) and Julus (sitting)).
                          We find such Ta`wil in the statements of some of the Salaf al-salih.

                          3) Ithbat with Tanzih means to believe in the wording of these Ayat and Ahadith and to affirm the meaning and thereafter one consigns (or relegates) the intended meaning and it's reality to Allah ta'ala, while denying likeness and similarity between the Creator and the creation.
                          Affirming the meaning and thereafter consigning it means to say that these descriptions are divine attributes additionally to other attributes and not going back or referring to other attributes.
                          This is the Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih according to the Hanabila and that is why they disallow Ta`wil, because they do not even believe that the other ways to understand these descriptions are actually acceptable.

                          To make it short: The Tafwidh of the Ash'ari scholars is broader and includes the Hanbali Tafwidh and Ta`wil, while the Hanbali Tafwidh excludes Ta`wil.



                          Illustration of the above explanation by the example of Yad:

                          1) Tafwidh
                          - a devine attribute additionally to Qudra and Ni'ma and not a limb or organ or part or something with quantity. Other options are...
                          - Qudra or...
                          - Ni'ma or...
                          - etc.

                          2) Ta`wil
                          - Qudra or...
                          - Ni'ma or...
                          - etc.

                          3) Ithbat with Tanzih
                          - a devine attribute additionally to Qudra and Ni'ma and not a limb or organ or part or something with quantity. That‘s it!


                          That which the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH ) obviously supports as a Hanbali [in his Lawami' al-Anwar (see this POST)] is the third:
                          He says that the correct way reagarding these Ayat and Ahadith is "that they're not to be interpreted (!) nor to be explained, rather it is obligatory to have belief in them and to consign (!) (Tafwidh) their intended meanings (Ma'na) to Allah ta'ala".
                          When he then spoke regarding Yadayn, he says that they are divine attributes "additionally to Qudra and Ni'ma", but "not with the meaning of an organ or a limb or corporeality or a part or a quantity".

                          Wallahu ta'ala a'lam.
                          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 09-04-20, 03:19 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            The Concept of “Jism” Between Ahlu-Sunnah and Ahlul-Kalam:

                            https://theboriqeenotes.com/2019/08/...d-ahlul-kalam/

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
                              Yasir Qadhi said, ....... Ibn Taymiyyah said Asharis and Ahlus Sunnah (Atharis) were essentially one until the Fitna of Al Qushayri took place in Baghdad.[/URL]
                              see also:
                              https://wahhabisrefuted.wordpress.co...n-al-qushayri/
                              www.marifah.info

                              Wahhabis Refuted
                              Ash'aris

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                                The Concept of “Jism” Between Ahlu-Sunnah and Ahlul-Kalam:

                                https://theboriqeenotes.com/2019/08/...d-ahlul-kalam/
                                honestly the post is absolutely full of lies. as soon as i got to the quote from Umm Al-Barahin of Al-Sanusi I couldn't read any further. flagrant misquote / tampering / deliberate misrepresentation. the quote from Um al-Barahin is discussed in full here if you are interested in the truth - https://wahhabisrefuted.wordpress.co...-diving-texts/
                                Last edited by faqir; 19-04-20, 06:48 PM.
                                www.marifah.info

                                Wahhabis Refuted
                                Ash'aris

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X