Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis"

[AbuNajm]

Which scholars are you referring to?

Athari Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani al-Hanbali رحمه الله in his Kitab sirr al-Asrar wa Mazhar al-Anwar said: " Our Master the Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'The hearts of the children of Adam are between the two fingers of the All-Merciful. He turns them whichever way He wills.' The two fingers of Allah are His attributes of the irresistible power of punishment and the loving and delicate beauty of the beneficence." (Chapter 14, Interpreted/Translated by Shaykh Tosun Bayrak al-Jerrahi al-Halveti)

Which scholars?

Imam an-Nasa'ee
Imam al-Bayhaqi
Imam ad-Darimi
Imam Ibn Khuzaymah
Imam al-Ajurri
Imam ad-Daraqutni
Imam Abi Ya'laa
Imam al-Baghawi
Imam Mar'ee al-Karmi

Better yet, how about you bring us a book that contains a list of the Divine Attributes which DOES NOT contain "Fingers" as an Attribute...That would be a much smaller list of scholars and books...

Side Note:

What kind of nonsense translation is that?!

This is the Arabic quote of Abd al-Qadir al-Jeelani:

والمراد من الأصبعين صفتي القهر واللطف لأن الله منزه عن الأصابع

Anyone who knows a lick of Arabic [and Sufi jargon] knows that the above simply states:

"The intended meaning of "Two Fingers" are the Attributes of Qahr, or subdual, and Latf, or gentleness; since Allah is far above [having] "Fingers"."

If this statement is proven to be from Abd al-Qadir al-Jeelani, then it is a testament to his denial of the Divine Attributes.

This is not a proof for respecting the view of Abd al-Qadir, rather it is a proof against him and against anyone who would try to raise his views as a proof regarding the correct approach towards the Divine Attributes.

I mean, come on- Abd al-Qadir allegedly states directly before this about the verse of the Quran which states {And the middle prayer...}[2:238]:

فقد عُلمت بهذه الآية: والصلوة الوسطى من سورت البقرة 238 والمراد الصلاة الوسطى صلاة القلب

"Thus, it is known through this verse: {And the middle prayer}- the intended meaning of "the middle prayer" is the prayer of the heart..."

Really? Is this the "knowledge" that Sufis of the Qadiriyyah order take from these books and their Mashayikh?

Just provide me a single reputable Tafseer from Ahl as-Sunnah that contains this explanation for that part of the verse, PLEASE...

If these are the quotes and references you're going to bring to the table, please leave me alone. It's a waste of time tracking down these books and verifying these ridiculous quotes...

[AbuNajm]

https://sunnah.com/muslim:2940a

At the end of this Hadith in Sahih Muslim:

"It would be said: Nine hundred and ninty-nine out of one thousand for the Hell-Fire and that would be the day which would make the children old because of its terror and that would be the day about which it has been said: "On the day when the shank would be uncovered" (Quran 68:42)

We also see this Hadith supports the tawil of “shin/shank” to mean “severity".

So-called "Salafis" reject tawil of Sahabas such as Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Said Bin Jubayr, Qataba and others, reject basic majaz/figurative language, and reject what is mentioned in this Sahih Hadith

I'm not a self-described "Salafi", however, let me respond to the nonsense above:

We don't have to reject the explanation found in some Tafaseer for the term "Saaq" in reference to the idiomatic expression: "the war uncovered its shin".

It is a valid linguistic interpretation for the Ayah as worded in the Quran, according to some scholars. Other scholars have rejected this understanding- that's fine.

The problem is with the wording as found in the authentic Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari which has nothing to do with the idiomatic expression as found in the Quran.

And ONCE AGAIN, there is a long list of Imams of Aqidah who compiled books dedicated to the Divine Names & Attributes that included "Shin/Saaq" as a Divine Attribute.

This is not about whether a linguistic or metaphorical explanation can be found for some of the terms ALSO used for the Divine Attributes.

This is about the FACT that Imams of Aqidah and scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah, since the time of the Salaf, have been considering as Divine Attributes the terms found in these verses and narrations.

EVEN the scholars that Ash'aris try to claim as their own, included "Shin/Saaq" as a Divine Attribute in their books of the Divine Names & Attributes.

Wait, are you trying to say that "severity" is the intended meaning when al-Bayhaqi and others cite the Hadith of al-Bukhari and lists "The Shin" in the title of the chapter?

Ridiculous...

[Abu Sulayman]

The problem with people like AN is that they think they know something, while in reality they don't!

Until now he and his likes are unable to understand even basic issues connected to the matter of the divine attributes.

Take for example the description of Saq or Asabi':
There is a HUGE difference - the difference of Iman and Kufr! - between accepting these descriptions as meanings subsisting in the Divine Self and between believing these descriptions to be tangible entities with a size and a form.

When a scholar says "Allah ta'ala is not described with [literal] fingers or a [literal] shin", then this is NOT in order to deny that the descriptions of Asabi' or that of Saq are found in the Sunna, but rather in order to deny that Allah ta'ala is described with being composed of tangible entities as the anthromorphists (like Ibn 'Uthaymin) believe.

Likewise when a scholar mentions an interpretation for these descriptions, then it's because the Arabic language allows this interpretation and because tangible entities - or any similarity in the reality! - is simply NOT intended.


If this much is not understood, then any further discussion is pointless.

[Abu Sulayman]

Ibn 'Uthaymin believed that Tamthil (ascribing likeness) is what the Qur`an denied, while he LIED and claimed that Tashbih (ascribing similarity) is not completely denied.

In his imagination everything that exists in reality - no matter whether Creator or creation! - necessarily must share a common degree of similarity (and he got this pagan idea from Ibn Taymiyya!).
Among that common degree is also having a height / length, breadth / width and depth!
This means that this man could not imagine that there exists anything beyond this material world and was therefore basically no different to atheists and pagans in their disbelief and their worship for other than the Creator of the heavens and the earth.


I would like to quote the beginning of the article "The Divine Attributes: Ahlus Sunnah vs Mujassimah", which clarifies that according to the Qur`an al-karim any similarity or common degree in the reality between the Creator and the creation is categorically rejected:

The Belief of Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah

In the view of Ahlus Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah, Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā) is totally unlike His creation. There is nothing in His essence (dhāt), attributes (sifāt) or actions (af‘āl) that resembles in any way anything found in creation.
This is the clear position of Ahlus Sunnah, and is the decisive and definitive verdict given by the Qur’ān, Sunnah, sayings of the Salaf and the Ahlus Sunnah who followed.

Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā) says in the Qur’ān:

ليس كمثله شيء
“No thing is as His likeness.” (42:11)

This verse, which is the foundation for Sunnī doctrine concerning the oneness and uniqueness of Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā), expressly negates any and all similarity between Creator and creation.
There are a few points to note about the verse:

1. The form of the sentence is “nafy (negation) in the context of nakirah (an indefinite noun).” Shay’ (thing) is an indefinite noun and it has been negated using the word laysa.
It is an established principle of Nahw (Arabic grammar) that a nafy in the context of nakirah connotes total negation. In other words, the form of the sentence grammatically entails that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that resembles Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā).

2. The terms used for resemblance in this verse are two: one particle (harf), ka (like), and one noun (ism), mithl (likeness). This compounding of terms used for resemblance negates the minutest possible similarity.
For instance, if one were to say, “Zayd is not a lion” (laysa Zaydun asadan), this would negate only a gross resemblance. If one were to say, “Zayd is not like a lion” (laysa Zaydun ka asadin), this would negate similarity with a lion to a greater degree. And if one were to say, “Zayd is not as the likeness of a lion,” (laysa Zaydun ka mithli asadin) it would be to negate any similarity between Zayd and a lion.

Imām al-Bayhaqī (384 – 458 H)¹ said:

“When Allāh intended to negate tashbīh (making a resemblance between Allāh and His creation) in the most emphatic way that a negation can [possibly] be made, He put together in our recitation the particles of similitude (i.e. ka) with the noun of resemblance (i.e. mithl), so that the negation is emphasised to the utmost.” (Al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt, 2:34)²

3. The word mithl (likeness) is the broadest term of equation. It incorporates similarity in every possible dimension, whether in appearance, qualities or actions. Other words of equation, like shakl, nidd and musāwī are narrower than mithl. Hence, this entails a negation of similarity in all respects, as it means, “no thing is as His likeness in any respect.”

Imām al-Rāghib al-Asbahānī said in Mufradāt al-Qur’ān:

“Mithl is an expression about resemblance with something in any property from its
properties, whatever property it may be. It is broader than other words designated for
resemblance. That is, nidd is said about something that shares in essence only, shibh is said about something that shares in quality only, musāwī is said about something that shares in quantity only, shakl is said about something that shares in measure and distance only. Mithl is broader than all of that. This is why when Allāh (Exalted is He) wished to negate tashbīh from every dimension, He mentioned this specifically, so He said: laysa ka mithlihī shay’.” (al-Mufradāt, p. 597)³

Hence, the verse is absolutely categorical in its indication that Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā) is totally unlike His creation.

As for rational proof, if we were to assert...

- end of quote -

I would really recommend everyone to read the above article for a better understanding.

[Rauf]

The problem is with the wording as found in the authentic Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari which has nothing to do with the idiomatic expression as found in the Quran.

What do you mean it has nothing to do with? Both of them are about people being ordered to prostrate on the day where SAQ will be revealed, and some would not be able prostrate.

[AbuNajm]

What do you mean it has nothing to do with? Both of them are about people being ordered to prostrate on the day where SAQ will be revealed, and some would not be able prostrate.

Do you know Arabic?

If you did then you would know the difference a pronoun and verb form can make in forming the idiomatic expression which is Tashbeeh, i.e. the day that its severity is exposed.

If you don't, then there's no point entering this discussion with you. All you can do is parrot what you've heard and can't possibly verify and know.

Unless you're alleging that ALL OF THE IMAMS OF AQIDAH AND HADITH who understood "Shin/Saaq" as a Divine Attribute based on the Hadith did not understand Arabic properly and were mistaken in distinguishing between when Tashbeeh/Majaaz is used and when it is not.

The funny thing about all this is in order to claim that the expression in the Quran AND the Hadith is figurative then it is only because of assigning human attributes to an inanimate thing, i.e. assigning the term "Shin" to the Day of Resurrection; and this is actually termed "anthropomorphism".

So, the argument of the Ash'aris is to perpetrate anthropomorphism as a literary device to defend against anthropomorphism with Allah AWJ.

The problem with this is that not a single scholar accepts figurative statements as a basis for Divine Attributes.

And anthropomorphism is impossible for Allah AWJ.

And so Ash'aris continue to throw wet noodles at the wall of Aqidah for whatever sticks with ignorant laypeople to follow their misguidance...

[Rauf]

AbuNajm

When Said ibn Jubayr (d. 94) was asked about it he became very angry and said: “Some people claim that "Allah uncovers His Shin" Rather, He uncovers affliction and hardship.” Narrated by ‘Abd ibn Humayd in his Musnad and Ibn al-Mundhir as cited by al-Suyuti in al-Durr al-Manthur (8:255).

I am not alleging, I have a proof. You need to read what IMAMS OF AQIDAH AND HADITH said about this.

https://ia803205.us.archive.org/14/i...ByIbnAbbas.pdf

[AbuNajm]

AbuNajm

When Said ibn Jubayr (d. 94) was asked about it he became very angry and said: “Some people claim that "Allah uncovers His Shin" Rather, He uncovers affliction and hardship.” Narrated by ‘Abd ibn Humayd in his Musnad and Ibn al-Mundhir as cited by al-Suyuti in al-Durr al-Manthur (8:255).

I am not alleging, I have a proof. You need to read what IMAMS OF AQIDAH AND HADITH said about this.

https://ia803205.us.archive.org/14/i...ByIbnAbbas.pdf

I already dealt with this in previous posts...

[aMuslimForLife]

Is it strange to you that all scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah included this Hadith which contains notice of the "Fingers" of Allah AWJ as among the Ahadith of the Divine Attributes?

If it is to be interpreted figuratively and not based on its apparent meaning [Thahir], then how could figurative expressions about Allah AWJ constitute Divine Attributes?

Before you discuss such topics, you should first learn the difference between the "literal meaning" and the "apparent meaning".

Something that novice Ash'aris seem to be ignorant of is the fact that the "apparent meaning" [Thahir] can be either the figurative [Majaaz] or "real" meaning [Haqiqah]. The term that is often mistranslated by Ash'aris as "literal" is the word حقيقة or Haqiqah in Arabic. This term does not mean "literal" in English. It simply means "non-figurative" or the "real meaning".

There is no need to make this distinction with regards to the Divine Attributes because, as a rule, the language used in the context of Divine Attributes is patently NOT figurative.

So, whenever there is an explanation provided for a verse of the Quran or a Hadith that mentions Allah AWJ and it has more than one explanation provided by authoritative sources, both figurative and non-figurative explanations, the non-figurative is always given precedence. This is a principal in the Arabic language in any discussion.

IF the figurative explanation takes precedence, for whatever reason, then the verse or Hadith ceases to deal with the Divine Attributes. This is how the verses and narrations have been codified as either dealing with the Divine Attributes or not.

It is impossible to have a verse or narration have a figurative interpretation and still receive treatment as related to the Divine Attributes.

That's not to say that verses and narrations which mention Allah AWJ AND have figurative explanations do not describe Allah AWJ. For example, the verse in refutation of the statement of the Jews that "Allah's hand is chained-up" [5:64]. The response from Allah AWJ is: "Rather, both His Hands are outstretched."

Despite the fact that "Two Hands" is an attribute established for Allah AWJ, the mention of the extension of the "Hands" in this verse is not in reference to the Divine Attribute. The apparent meaning in the Arabic language is the figurative expression of stinginess or generosity using a description of "Hands" as the vehicle.

So, the meaning of "generosity" or "generous" is definitely an appropriate and well-known description of Allah AWJ and it even constitutes a Divine Name, i.e. al-Kareem. However, the Arabic term in the verse مبسوط or Mabsuut in reference to the "Two Hands" of Allah AWJ is not codified as a description of the Divine Attribute of "Hands" for Allah AWJ nor is the term codified as a Divine Name, i.e. al-Mabsuut.

Why? Because the expression "Both His Hands are outstretched" is a well-known and well-established figurative expression in the Arabic language and it was intended as such by Allah AWJ and received as such by the Prophet SAWS, the Companions RA and the Salaf.

In the above example, we have the wording of a Divine Attribute [Two Hands] mentioned coupled with a description associated with that wording and yet, due to the existence of a figurative expression in the apparent meaning [Thahir] of the verse, the wording that coincides with a Divine Attribute, i.e. the description associated with it, is not codified as a Divine Attribute.

If this is the case when we have the coinciding wording and associated description directly from Allah AWJ, what about when we have Ash'aris claiming that a text is figurative or metaphorical?

Either a text refers to the Divine Attributes or it does not. If it is, in fact, figurative and it was intended this way, then why are their centuries of scholars, with both Ash'ari and Athari tendencies, including such texts as among those dealing with the Divine Attributes?

Since when have we included figurative expressions as "real" attributes of any described thing even in reference to the creation, much less the Creator?

Ash'aris have attempted to alter the rules of Arabic language as well as the apparent meaning of verses and narrations several hundred years after the revelation of the Quran and Sunnah.

Truly misguided are those who accept the misguidance of the Ash'ari approach to Aqidah, Arabic linguistics and their corrupted, inconsistent reasoning in general.

What scholars have said the above? Can you provide quotes? And what Arabic linguistic scholars are you using to determine which Asharis have changed the rules of the Arabic language?

[AbuNajm]

What scholars have said the above? Can you provide quotes? And what Arabic linguistic scholars are you using to determine which Asharis have changed the rules of the Arabic language?

No one would be Ash'ari if they demanded the same level of "proof" from themselves as they do from their "opponents" in creed.

Are you telling me that you are incapable of researching the issues I mentioned? Do you really need me to spoon-feed you the quotes? Are we discussing the issues or do I have to teach them to you as well?

If you had really studied as much as your posts suggest with what you copy & paste, then you would have already read what I've said in the works of the Imams of Aqidah. It's nothing new or rare what I said.

[Abu Sulayman]

I would like to add a condition for all those taking part in this discussion:

To be openly against the belief that the Creator can be a being with height / length, breadth / width and depth.

It's not fair when someone discusses inner-Islamic differences, while he himself is upon clear-cut disbelief according to the major scholars of Islam.

Let me remind everyone that real Jahmis (who believe that the Creator is literally everywhere) and real anthropomorphists (who believe that the Creator is a being with height / length, breadth / width and depth) are disbelievers and have no right to get into any inner-Islamic discussions!

We should not allow these disbelievers and idol-workshippers to take part in any such discussions just like we don't allow the Qadyanis to speak about any inner-Islamic differences!

[aMuslimForLife]

No one would be Ash'ari if they demanded the same level of "proof" from themselves as they do from their "opponents" in creed.

Are you telling me that you are incapable of researching the issues I mentioned? Do you really need me to spoon-feed you the quotes? Are we discussing the issues or do I have to teach them to you as well?

If you had really studied as much as your posts suggest with what you copy & paste, then you would have already read what I've said in the works of the Imams of Aqidah. It's nothing new or rare what I said.

All you had to say was, “I can’t provide the proof because I made it all up.” And I would have been like, ‘ok’ because that is what Salafis do. It seems like you made up the above explanation. It is like you mixed falsehood with truth.

You said,

IF the figurative explanation takes precedence, for whatever reason, then the verse or Hadith ceases to deal with the Divine Attributes. This is how the verses and narrations have been codified as either dealing with the Divine Attributes or not.

It is impossible to have a verse or narration have a figurative interpretation and still receive treatment as related to the Divine Attributes.

I have never heard of this rule before. This is why I asked if you could provide quotes supporting your theory. It seems like you made it up.

The falsehood in your theory becomes clear in the example you provided,

That's not to say that verses and narrations which mention Allah AWJ AND have figurative explanations do not describe Allah AWJ. For example, the verse in refutation of the statement of the Jews that "Allah's hand is chained-up" [5:64]. The response from Allah AWJ is: "Rather, both His Hands are outstretched."

Despite the fact that "Two Hands" is an attribute established for Allah AWJ, the mention of the extension of the "Hands" in this verse is not in reference to the Divine Attribute. The apparent meaning in the Arabic language is the figurative expression of stinginess or generosity using a description of "Hands" as the vehicle.

You said this verse is NOT in reference to the divine attributes. This theory of yours seems to be false and incorrect. The problem with this theory of yours, is that your conclusion is in disagreement with Imam Ibn Qudamah, Imam Abdul Ghani al Maqdisi who are two Atharis and Ibn Uthaymeen who is Salafi.

These scholars considered that verse , "Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched," to be among Allah’s Attributes.

Imam Abdul Ghani al Maqdisi al Hanbali said, “As has been mentioned in the Book of the almighty and established from the chosen and trustworthy Messenger, from the Attributes of the Glorified One is the Two Hands. Alah, Mighty and Majestic, has said, "Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched." (5:64) (Al Iqtisad fi al Itiqad)

Imam Ibn Qudamah al Hanbali said, "Among what has been revealed in the verses concerning Allah's Attributes, are: "And the Face of your Lord, full of Majesty and Honor, will remain forever." (55:27) And His saying, "Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched." (5:64)" (Lumat al Itiqad)

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen comments on this text (Lumat al Itiqad) saying, "The Hands are from the Attributes of Allah that affirmed for Him in the Quran, the Sunnah and the consensus of the Salaf. Allah says, "Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched." (5:64) And the Prophet (saw) said, "The right Hand of Allah is always full (with riches). It is not diminished by a disbursement made throughout the course of the day and night" up to where he said, "...And in His other hand lies death - He takes and leaves (whom He wills)." (Bukhari and Muslim)...." (The Explanation of Sufficiency in Creed by Ibn Qudamah and Ibn Uthaymeen)

That verse "Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched." (5:64)" are among the verses dealing with the Attributes of Allah according to two Athari scholars and a Salafi scholar.

And Allah knows best.

[AbuNajm]

All you had to say was, “I can’t provide the proof because I made it all up.” And I would have been like, ‘ok’ because that is what Salafis do. It seems like you made up the above explanation. It is like you mixed falsehood with truth.

You said,



I have never heard of this rule before. This is why I asked if you could provide quotes supporting your theory. It seems like you made it up.

The falsehood in your theory becomes clear in the example you provided,



You said this verse is NOT in reference to the divine attributes. This theory of yours seems to be false and incorrect. The problem with this theory of yours, is that your conclusion is in disagreement with Imam Ibn Qudamah, Imam Abdul Ghani al Maqdisi who are two Atharis and Ibn Uthaymeen who is Salafi.

These scholars considered that verse , "Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched," to be among Allah’s Attributes.

Imam Abdul Ghani al Maqdisi al Hanbali said, “As has been mentioned in the Book of the almighty and established from the chosen and trustworthy Messenger, from the Attributes of the Glorified One is the Two Hands. Alah, Mighty and Majestic, has said, "Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched." (5:64) (Al Iqtisad fi al Itiqad)

Imam Ibn Qudamah al Hanbali said, "Among what has been revealed in the verses concerning Allah's Attributes, are: "And the Face of your Lord, full of Majesty and Honor, will remain forever." (55:27) And His saying, "Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched." (5:64)" (Lumat al Itiqad)

Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen comments on this text (Lumat al Itiqad) saying, "The Hands are from the Attributes of Allah that affirmed for Him in the Quran, the Sunnah and the consensus of the Salaf. Allah says, "Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched." (5:64) And the Prophet (saw) said, "The right Hand of Allah is always full (with riches). It is not diminished by a disbursement made throughout the course of the day and night" up to where he said, "...And in His other hand lies death - He takes and leaves (whom He wills)." (Bukhari and Muslim)...." (The Explanation of Sufficiency in Creed by Ibn Qudamah and Ibn Uthaymeen)

That verse "Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched." (5:64)" are among the verses dealing with the Attributes of Allah according to two Athari scholars and a Salafi scholar.

And Allah knows best.

I'm sorry you don't understand the texts involved or the point of what I wrote, the former of which is most important.

As for "making up" rules in Aqidah and the Arabic language, then like I said before- if you could be bothered to do even the simplest of Google searches in Arabic, you would have found the answer to your own confusion. Instead you accuse me of something impossible.

والقرآن والسنة جاءا لتعريف العباد ما لمعبودهم من الصفات ، وهذا لا يتم إلا بحمل الكلام على حقيقته ، كما هو الأصل في الكلام

"The Quran and Sunnah came in order to inform slaves of who they worship from among the Divine Attributes; and this cannot be fulfilled except by considering the speech [involved] based on its Haqeeqah [real] meaning- just as is the foundation of speech itself..."

Source: https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/151794/

The circumstances under which the Quran and Sunnah can be diverted from the Haqeeqi to the Majaazi is well-understood and documented. And even under the circumstances when this happens, the Divine Attributes would not be diverted in the same way:

والذي نريد التنبيه عليه هنا هو: أن القول بوجود المجاز في القرآن لا يستلزم تأويل الصفات الثابتة لله تعالى

"And what we wish to warn about here is this: that the statement containing the figurative [Majaaz] in the Quran does not necessitate giving an interpretation for the established Divine Attributes for Allah, may He be exalted..."

Source: https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/306397/

I wish you could understand this without me having to explain this very basic information about the Divine Attributes and the Arabic language. There's really no point in all the posts you've made on the topic when it could occur to you that I simply "made this up".

For those readers who can understand the topic better than others:

The verse in questions affirms "Two Hands" for Allah AWJ. This is what the scholars quoted affirmed as well.

Despite the "Two Hands" being described as "outstretched", the characteristic of "outstretched" applies to the "figurative" element of the expression and thus, the figurative characteristic of "generosity" is also affirmed for Allah AWJ NOT for His "Two Hands" specifically.

If anyone can point out where Abd ul-Ghani, Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Uthaymeen, or others affirmed "outstretched" as an independent Divine Attribute of Allah AWJ, then there will be a valid counter-point.

To be clear-

"Two Hands" = affirmed Divine Attribute
"Outstretched" = figurative characteristic connected with "Two Hands" to form an expression common in Arabic referring to the opposite of "miserliness", i.e. "generosity".

When scholars quote the verse in question, they do so in order to affirm "Two Hands" as a Divine Attribute, not "Outstretched" specifically.

Using this unique example of the combination of both Haqeeqi [real] and Majaazi [figurative] expressions in reference to a Divine Attribute, my point was to demonstrate how the "real" is utilized to affirm the Divine Attribute whereas the "figurative" is relegated [by 99% of scholars] to a linguistic interpretation universally-accepted as referring to the common usage as an Arabic expression.

Real [Haqeeqi] meaning = Divine Attribute
Figurative [Majaazi] = linguistic interpretation

There is a distinct and separate handling of the figurative and real when dealing with Divine Attributes specifically and Arabic speech in general.

There are no other examples wherein a figurative expression is related to a Divine Attribute and part is accepted as "Haqeeqi" and part as "Majaazi", much less an example wherein the entire text is Majaazi and the figurative expression/term is understood as a Divine Attribute.

I challenge anyone to come up with a single example of a figurative term/expression being listed in the famous/well-accepted compilations of the Divine Attributes.

This is where the rule comes from that figurative expressions/terms cannot be Divine Attributes.

So, Ash'aris need to stop claiming that the verses and Hadith which have been utilized to affirm Divine Attributes are subject to "interpretation", "figurative expressions", or their meaning is somehow not the Haqeeqi or real meaning. This claim does not even hold up under the rules of the Arabic language and it is contrary to the purpose of revelation.

[Abu Sulayman]

AN - the one who venerates anthropomorphist idol worshippers like Ibn 'Uthaymin - thinks he can fool Muslims by quoting random "Salafi" websites as some sort of independent proofs and mixing up issues and not telling them what is actually disagreed upon between the people of Islam on one side and the people of Tashbih and Tajsim on the other side!

If you say that any text that can be categorized as being from the texts pertaining to the divine attributes can only be understood to be establishing an additional divine attribute, then this is indeed the position of the majority of the Hanabila.

But let me remind you that the majority of the the scholars of all other Madhahib (who played a much greater role in the preservation of Islamic sciences to the degree that the Hanabila were literally dependent on them!) disagree with them on this and the majority of expert linguists have never been Hanbali in the first place and the Hanbali understanding is not something necessitated by the Arabic language! You can not come up and deny this.

The problem however is not even here, because this "every description found in a text is an additional divine attribute" is an Ijtihadi issue and not Tajsim nor Tashbih, even if it's in reality something unnatural.

What the problem is that the disbelieving anthropomorphists are not really establishing attributes of absolute perfection, but rather body parts (that make up the Divine Self in their imagination) and changes (that occur to the Divine Self in their claim).
Both of this is rejected by the majority of the Hanabila - let alone the scholars of the other Madhahib - and regarded as Kufr!

When you say that Yad is a real attribute, then this is NOT our problem with you, but rather that you believe it to be possible for this description to be something 3-dimensional such that it has a length, breadth and depth!

THIS is where we differ with the disbelieving anthropomorphists! So don't try to mix up the subject and act as if Ibn 'Uthaymin's paganism is any way or form accepted in Islam!
Believing that the Creator is something with a height / length, breadth / width and depth is disbelief and the same as idol worship and satan worship! You can't expect that Muslims will tolerate such clear Kufr!

[Abu julaybeeb]

AN - the one who venerates anthropomorphist idol worshippers like Ibn 'Uthaymin - thinks he can fool Muslims by quoting random "Salafi" websites as some sort of independent proofs and mixing up issues and not telling them what is actually disagreed upon between the people of Islam on one side and the people of Tashbih and Tajsim on the other side!

If you say that any text that can be categorized as being from the texts pertaining to the divine attributes can only be understood to be establishing an additional divine attribute, then this is indeed the position of the majority of the Hanabila.

But let me remind you that the majority of the the scholars of all other Madhahib (who played a much greater role in the preservation of Islamic sciences to the degree that the Hanabila were literally dependent on them!) disagree with them on this and the majority of expert linguists have never been Hanbali in the first place and the Hanbali understanding is not something necessitated by the Arabic language! You can not come up and deny this.

The problem however is not even here, because this "every description found in a text is an additional divine attribute" is an Ijtihadi issue and not Tajsim nor Tashbih, even if it's in reality something unnatural.

What the problem is that the disbelieving anthropomorphists are not really establishing attributes of absolute perfection, but rather body parts (that make up the Divine Self in their imagination) and changes (that occur to the Divine Self in their claim).
Both of this is rejected by the majority of the Hanabila - let alone the scholars of the other Madhahib - and regarded as Kufr!

When you say that Yad is a real attribute, then this is NOT our problem with you, but rather that you believe it to be possible for this description to be something 3-dimensional such that it has a length, breadth and depth!

THIS is where we differ with the disbelieving anthropomorphists! So don't try to mix up the subject and act as if Ibn 'Uthaymin's paganism is any way or form accepted in Islam!
Believing that the Creator is something with a height / length, breadth / width and depth is disbelief and the same as idol worship and satan worship! You can't expect that Muslims will tolerate such clear Kufr!

Can you show the video where a scholar stated length, breadth and depth