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

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

"You don't know who your Lord is"

vs

We know our Lord. We don't know what any of the attributes of our Lord mean (but can translate them). We affirm and deny things our Lord didn't affirm or deny for Himself.

These amateur philosophers always tie themselves up in knots and then start crying and coming out with the most inane rants when they get called out.

[Abu Sulayman]

You seem to be quite desperate after your real creed has been exposed.

So can you tell us the size of that which you worship?

There are three options:
1) Smaller than the Throne
2) Greater than the Throne
3) The same size as the Throne

Whatever your answer maybe, let it be known to you that Allah ta'ala has created whatever has a size and given it its form and that's why the idol you worship is not worthy of worship.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

To anyone reading this ^drivel, this shaytan is trying to cause doubts among the Muslims. One of the end goals is to convince people to call on his dead saints.

Note how this shaytan uses one of his known tactics which is to sling mud in the hope some of it sticks instead of quoting me (i.e. evidence).

[Abu Sulayman]

To anyone reading this ^drivel, this shaytan is trying to cause doubts among the Muslims. One of the end goals is to convince people to call on his dead saints.

Note how this shaytan uses one of his known tactics which is to sling mud in the hope some of it sticks instead of quoting me (i.e. evidence).

And here I am quoting you! Now be a man and openly state what you believe! Don't be a hypocrite!

As for the people of Islam, then we believe that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is transcendent from size or being a 3-dimensional being and that He created whatever has a size and given it its form.

Do you agree with the people of Islam regarding this?


Or do you agree with AN, who does NOT know whether the being that he worships is transcendent above this or not.

Or do you agree with Ibn Taymiyya, who believed that it's necessary for every real existent being to have a size (meaning: to have at least 3 dimensions).

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

Look at the shaytan mixing truth with lies, another one of his known tricks he uses to deceive people.

This devil quoted a random post which doesn't contain any of the stuff he's on about.

When one lie or trick doesn't work he will simply and shamelessly move onto another one which is common among so-called pirs and saints.

[Abu Sulayman]

"You don't know who your Lord is"

vs

We know our Lord. We don't know what any of the attributes of our Lord mean (but can translate them). We affirm and deny things our Lord didn't affirm or deny for Himself.

These amateur philosophers always tie themselves up in knots and then start crying and coming out with the most inane rants when they get called out.

To anyone reading this ^drivel, this shaytan is trying to cause doubts among the Muslims. One of the end goals is to convince people to call on his dead saints.

Note how this shaytan uses one of his known tactics which is to sling mud in the hope some of it sticks instead of quoting me (i.e. evidence).

Look at the shaytan mixing truth with lies, another one of his known tricks he uses to deceive people.

This devil quoted a random post which doesn't contain any of the stuff he's on about.

When one lie or trick doesn't work he will simply and shamelessly move onto another one which is common among so-called pirs and saints.

Now look what you're worried about!!!
Do you want me to quote all your comments? (EDIT: I will be doing this now!)
Will you then be a man and openly show adherence to Islamic beliefs?

Again:
Do you believe that the Creator is transcendent above size?

Or do you say as AN stated that you neither affirm nor reject this.

Or do you say that having a size is necessary for whatever exists in reality.


Answer!

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

The devil frustrated his trick have failed.

He hasn't brought a single claim of mine to question.

[Abu Sulayman]

Do you want me to answer the same things that I have answered before several times to you?

Answer my question in a clear manner! It's one question!

And may Allah ta'ala punish you, if you are upon Kufr and hiding it.

[Abu Sulayman]

The claim that Allah ta'ala did not declare Himself transcendent above corporeality (Jismiyya) is a lie against Allah ta'ala.


As a reminder:

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.

[aMuslimForLife]

The Theology with respect to Tafwid and Taqi Ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah affirming the Generations standing upon it

Al-Musawwadah, an Usul ul-Fiqh text containing the rulings on the topic from Imams Majd ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.653), Shihab ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.682) and Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728), may Allah be pleased with all of them.

[تقي الدين يثبت أن الاستواء عند الحنابلة من الصفات الخبرية ]

Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah affirms that Istiwa’ according to the Hanbalis is from the Sifat Khabariyyah

وهننا يثبت أيضا أن الموفق مفوض بصريح العبارة .

And it is at this point it can be established that Muwaffaq ud-Din Ibn Qudamah, may Allah have mercy upon him, made tafwid according to the explicit statement of Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah.

قال :

Imam Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah[1] said the following:

ومن أثبت العلو بالعقل وجعله من الصفات العقلية: كأبي محمد بن كلاب وأبي الحسن بن الزاغوني ومن وافقه وكالقاضي أبي يعلى في آخر قوليه وأبي محمد: أثبتوا العلو وجعلوا الاستواء من الصفات الخبرية التي يقولون لا يعلم معناها إلا الله “.

المجموع ( 17 / 361).

“Abu Muhammad ibn Kullab, Abul Hasan ibn Az-Zaghuni and those who agree with him affirm with the intellect that loftiness and highness (Ar.`uluww) is an attribute and declare it from the sifat that are known by the intellect. And then there are Abu Ya`la Al-Baghdadi [2] in the last of his two statements and Abu Muhammad (Ibn Qudamah)[3] that affirm loftiness and highness as an attribute and declare istiwa to be from the sifat khabariyyah in which they say that none knows their meaning except Allah”.[4]

قلت : لذلك ننصح السلفية المعاصرة سابقًا ولاحقًا أن لا ينسبوا أنفسهم لمذهب الحنابلة وينسبون أنفسهم لتقي الدين فيكونوا بذلك تيمية .

I would like to mention at this point that we then advise people in the Salafi group – previously and those attaching themselves to it today – that they don’t attribute themselves to the madhhab of the Hanbalis but rather attribute themselves to Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah as in that area they indeed follow Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah.

كتبه الشيخ فارس بن فالح الخزرجي

As said by the Shaikh, Faaris ibn Faalih Al-Khazraji

---

[1] 661-728 (AD1263-1328). He is Abul `Abbas Taqi ud-Din Ahmad ibn `Abdul Halim ibn `Abdus-Salam ibn Taymiyyah. Born in Harran to a family of scholars, he learned from his father, Imam Shihab ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.682 (AD1283) and read the books of his grandfather, Imam Abul Barakat Majd ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d.653 (AD1256), who is the second highest authority in the school and was the chief judge in Iraq. At a young age, Imam Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah showed promise and studied with various scholars until he was given the title of Mujtahid Murajjih. A vast pillar of knowledge, he made restricted juridical reasoning in the creed and some areas of Consensus and was opposed by scholars from the schools. A quiet man who was known for his referencing, he was often pardoned due to his retraction of some of his positions that were divergent. Some of his more novel rulings include prophets committing sin, three pronouncements of divorce in one sitting being counted as one, the three categories of Tawhid as well as rulings he passed against scholars of the Ash`aris and Maturidis, two groups within Muslim Orthodoxy. Scholars of the school sifted through his works and corrected the things in them, i.e. in books such as Al-Ikhtiyarat ul-Fiqhiyyah, Kitab ul-Furu`, Tashih ul-Furu` and others. It is in the best interest of the wise man to read these documents first, to know what can be kept or discarded from the works of Imam Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah. Please see Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali’s Adh-Dhail, vol.3, pp.320-335;Al-Makki’s As-Suhub, vol.2, pp.675-680 (Bakr Abu Zaid interpolations)

[2] d.458 (AD1063). He is Abu Ya`la Muhammad ibn Al-Hussain ibn Muhammad ibn Khalaf ibn Ahmad ibn Al-Farra’ Al-Baghdadi. Grand marja` and spiritual father to 40 other grand maraji`, he was the first to catalogue the rise of the Ash`ari jama`ah. The Imam’s extensive teaching record and written legacy gave us a number of classics. Please see Abul Hussain’s Tabaqat ul-Hanabilah, vol.2, pp.166-198

[3] 541-620 (AD1146-1223). He is Muwaffaq ud-Din Abu Muhammad `Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Qudamah. One of the Revivers of Islam in his time, scholar of fiqh, hadith, ihsan, math and many other disciplines, he is one of the highest voices of authority in the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Please see Ibn Rajab’s Adh-Dhail, vol.4, pp.105-119

[4] Majmu`a Fatawa, vol.17, pp.360-361



https://jurjis.wordpress.com/2022/10...on-it/#respond

The Proof:
The translation below are by our noble brother Abu Sulayman....

The way of Imam Ahmad as understood by Ibn Qudamah, rejection of tashbih, and affirmation of tafwid.


Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH) said:

أحاديث الصفات تمركماجاءتمنغيربحثعنمعانيها، ونخالف ما خطر في الخاطر عند سماعها ، وننفي التشبيه عن الله تعالى عند ذكرها مع تصديق النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - والإيمان بها ، وكل ما يعقل ويتصور فهو تكييف وتشبيه وهو محال

The narrations (Ahadith) regarding the [divine] attributes (Sifat) are to be passed on as they have come without searching for their meanings, and we go against that which comes to the mind upon hearing them, and we reject attributing similarity (Tashbih) to Allah ta'ala when they're mentioned while confirming [the words of] the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and having belief in them; and whatever can be comprehended and imagined is from the attributing of modality (Takyif) and similarity (Tashbih) and that is impossible [regarding Allah ta'ala].
- end of quote -

This statement has been mentioned in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in [by Imam Ibn Hamdan] and Imam al-Saffarini mentioned this statement also in Lawami' al-Anwar and right after it he said:

وهذا مذهب السلف الأثرية فهو الحق ، وبالله التوفيق

And this is the way (Madhhab) of the Salaf [and] al-Athariyya, so it's the truth and with Allah is success.
- end of quote –


Imam Ahmad also said - as mentioned in Lum'at al-I'tiqad [by Imam Ibn Qudama] - regarding the narrations where the descending of Allah to the lowest heaven is mentioned and that He will be seen on the day of judgement and what is similar to that:

نؤمنبهاونصدقبهالاكيفولامعنى ولا نرد شيئا منها ونعلم أن ما جاء به الرسول حق ولا نرد على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا نصف الله بأكثر مما وصف به نفسه بلا حد ولا غاية: { ليسكمثلهشيءوهوالسميعالبصير

We believe in them and affirm them without a modality or meaning (la kayf wa la ma'na), and we do not reject anything from them, and we know that what the Messenger has came with is the truth and we do not confute upon the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -; and we do not describe Allah with more than what He described Himself, without a limit or a boundary (bila hadd wa la ghaya):
{ Nothing is like Him; and He only is the All Hearing, the All Seeing. } [42:11]
- end of quote -


Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) said in his Lum'at al-I'tiqad:


موصوف بما وصف به نفسه في كتابه العظيم وعلى لسان نبيه الكريم وكل ما جاء في القرآن أو صح عن المصطفى عليه السلام من صفات الرحمن وجب الإيمان به وتلقيه بالتسليم والقبول وترك التعرض له بالرد والتأويل والتشبيه والتمثيل
وماأشكلمنذلكوجبإثباتهلفظاوتركالتعرضلمعناهونردعلمهإلىقائله ونجعل عهدته على ناقله اتباعا لطريق الراسخين في العلم الذين أثنى الله عليهم في كتابه المبين بقوله سبحانه وتعالى: { والراسخون في العلم يقولون آمنا به كل من عند ربنا } وقال في ذم مبتغي التأويل لمتشابه تنزيله: { فأما الذين في قلوبهم زيغ فيتبعون ما تشابه منه ابتغاء الفتنة وابتغاء تأويله وما يعلم تأويله إلا الله

[Allah] is described with what He described Himself in his magnificent book and upon the tongue of his honorable Prophet. Whatever has been mentioned in the Qur`an or has been authentically reported from al-Mustafa - peace be upon him - regarding the attributes of the Most Gracious (al-Rahman): It is obilgatory to have belief in it and to welcome it with submission and acceptance and to abstain from going against it by rejection (Radd) or interpretation (Ta`wil) or attributing similarity (Tashbih) or likeness (Tamthil).
And whatever is ambiguous from these [verses and narrations]: It is obligatory to affirm its wording (Lafdh) and to abstain from seeking its meaning (Ma'na) while consigning its knowledge to the One who said it and we entrust it upon the one who transmitted it, following the way of those having sound knowledge, those whom Allah has praised in his manifest book by His - subhanahu wa ta'ala - statement: { And those having sound knowledge say, “We believe in it, all of it is from our Lord” } [3:7]
And He said censuring those seeking the interpretation of the Mutashabih (those verses which are indistinct in their meanings) of His revelation:
{ Those in whose hearts is deviation pursue the verses having indistinct meanings, in order to cause turmoil and seeking its (wrongful) interpretation; and only Allah knows its proper interpretation } [3:7]
- end of quote -


My (AMFL) thoughts: It is clear that Ibn Qudamah considered the verses and hadith pertaining to Allah’s Attributes to be from the Mutashabihat (unclear verses). Salafis like to quote Ibn Qudamah’s book siratul mustaqim (His book on the Speech of Allah), in which Ibn Qudama states the Speech of Allah is from the clear verses. According to the traditional Hanbali scholar (ie non-Salafi) that I’ve studied with, this is an exception to the rule. The verses and hadith pertaining to Allah’s Attributes are from the unclear verses, except the Speech of Allah, which is clear, in that the Speech of Allah is with letters and sound as this is established by the Quran and Sunnah. But the meaning of letters (harf) and sound (sound) as they pertain to Allah is unclear. Tafwid is applied to the letters (Harf) and sound (sawt), not the Speech of Allah.

Similarly, when Ibn Qudamah expounds on the Attribute of Uluw in Ithbah Sifat al Uluw, it is an exception to the rule of tafwid. However, the end result is still tafwid.


Imam Ibn Qudama said while explaining why one does not need to know the meaning of these verses and narrations in his Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam:

فإنه لاحاجةلناإلىعلممعنىماأراداللهتعالىمنصفاتهجلوعز فإنه لا يراد منها عمل ولا يتعلق بها تكليف سوىالإيمانبها. ويمكنالإيمانبهامنغيرعلممعناها. فإنالإيمانبالجهلصحيح. فإن الله تعالى أمر بالإيمان بملائكته وكتبه ورسله وما أنزل إليهم وإنكنالانعرفمنذلكإلاالتسمية. وقال سبحانه وتعالى: { قولوا آمنا بالله وما أنزل إلينا وما أنزل إلى إبراهيم } الآية

For indeed, there is no need for us to have knowledge of the meaning (!) (Ma'na) that Allah ta'ala intended from His attributes - jalla wa 'azz -, because there is no action intended by them and neither is any responsibility attached to them besides believing in them.
And having faith in them without having knowledge of their meanings is possible, because having faith with ignorance [of their meanings] is correct, for indeed Allah ta'ala has commanded [us] to have belief in his angels, his books, his messengers and that which was been sent down upon them even though we do not know from them except their names.
[Allah] - subhanahu wa ta'ala - says: { Say, "We believe in Allah and what is sent down to us and what was sent down to Ibrahim, ... } [2:136] until the end of the Aya.
- end of quote -
Imam Ibn Qudama says in the section regarding the Muhkam and the Mutashabih in the Qur`an al-karim in his famous Rawdhat al-Nadhir:

وفي كتاب الله -سبحانه- محكم ومتشابه، كما قال تعالى: {هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ

The book of Allah - praise be to Him - contains the Muhkam (verses with clear meanings) and the Mutashabih (verses with indistinct meanings) as He ta'ala says:
{ It is He Who has sent down to you this Book (the Qur’an) containing the verses that have a clear meaning - they are the core of the Book - and other verses the meanings of which are indistinct; ... } [3:7]
- end of quote -

Thereafter he mentions different scholarly statements until he says:

والصحيح: أن المتشابه: ما ورد في صفات الله -سبحانه- مما يجب الإيمان به، ويحرم التعرض لتأويله، كقوله -تعالى-: {الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى} ، {بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَان} ، {لِمَا خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَي} ، {وَيَبْقَى وَجْهُ رَبِّك} ، {تَجْرِي بِأَعْيُنِنَا} ، ونحوه. فهذا اتفق السلف -رحمهم الله- على الإقرار به، وإمراره على وجهه وترك تأويله. فإن الله -سبحانه- ذم المبتغين لتأويله، وقرنهم -في الذم- بالذين يبتغون الفتنة، وسماهم أهل زيغ

The correct position is that the Mutashabih (verses with indistinct meanings) is that which is revealed regarding the attributes of Allah - praise be to Him -, which is obligatory to have faith in and prohibited to seek its interpretation; like His ta'ala statement:
{ The Most Gracious Who (befitting His Majesty) established Himself upon the Throne (of control) } [20:5], { In fact, both His hands are free } [5:64], { before one whom I have created with My hands? } [38:75], { And eternal is the Entity of your Lord } [55:27], { Sailing in front of Our sight } [54:14] and whatever is similar to it.
Regarding these [verses and narrations] the Salaf - may Allah have mercy upon them - have agreed upon affirming them and passing them as they have come and abstaining from their interpretation, for indeed Allah - praise be to Him - has rebuked those seeking its interpretation and has included them - in censure - with those are seeking turmoil and has named them as people of deviation.
- end of quote -

Thereafter he explains the Aya 3:7 and that only Allah ta'ala knows the correct interpretation and that the correct stop is after { and only Allah knows its proper interpretation } until he says:

فلأنه ذم مبتغي التأويل، ولو كان ذلك للراسخين معلومًا: لكان مبتغيه ممدوحًا لا مذمومًا. ولأنقولهم {آمَنَّابِهِ} يدلعلىنوعتفويضوتسليملشيءلميقفواعلىمعناه. سيما إذا اتبعوه بقولهم: {كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا} فذكرهم ربهم -ههنا- يعطي الثقة به، والتسليم لأمره، وأنه صدر منه، وجاء من عنده كما جاء من عنده المحكم

Since He has rebuked those seeking interpretation: If this [proper] interpretation would be known to those sound in knowledge, then the one seeking [the interpretation] would have been praised and not censured and because their statement { We believe in it } indicates a type of consignment (!) (Tafwidh) and submission (Taslim) of something regarding which they have not come across its meaning (Ma'na), especially when they followed it with their statement { all of it is from our Lord }, so their mentioning of their Lord here shows their trust in Him and their submission to His command and that it emanated from Him and that it came from Him just like the Muhkam (verses with clear meanings) came from Him.
- end of quote -

So here we see that he explicitly mentioned the consignment (Tafwidh) of the meaning (Ma'na)!

He kept on explaining until he said:

فإن قيل: فكيف يخاطب الله الخلق بما لا يعقلونه، أم كيف ينزل على رسوله ما لا يطلع على تأويله؟ قلنا: يجوز أن يكلفهم الإيمان بما لا يطلعون على تأويله؛ ليختبر طاعتهم، كما قال -تعالي-: {وَلَنَبْلُوَنَّكُمْ حَتَّى نَعْلَمَ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ مِنْكُمْ وَالصَّابِرِين} ، {وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الْقِبْلَةَ الَّتِي كُنْتَ عَلَيْهَا إِلَّا لِنَعْلَم ... } الآية، {وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الرُّؤْيا الَّتِي أَرَيْنَاكَ إِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِلنَّاس} . وكمااختبرهمبالإيمانبالحروفالمقطعةمعأنهلايعلممعناها. والله أعلم

If it is said: "How then does Allah address the creation with something that they do not comprehend or how does He sent down something on his Messenger regarding which the interpretation is not disclosed?"
We say: It is possible that He tasks them with having faith in something regarding which they do not know its interpretation in order to test their obediance as [Allah] ta'ala says:
{ And We shall indeed test you until We make known the warriors and the steadfast among you } [47:31], { We had appointed the qiblah which you formerly observed only to see (test) ... } [2:143] until the end of the Aya, { and We did not create the spectacle which We showed you except to try mankind } [17:60].
Just like He has tested them with having faith in the disconnected letters (!) (al-Huruf al-Muqatta'a) even though their meaning is not known. And Allah knows best.
- end of quote –

[AbuNajm]

The Proof:

No one should accept the translations of this deviant partisan to the corrupt Ash'ari creed, especially when the translations are quotes from Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah.

That would be sensational news indeed, that an anonymous forumite without any credentials in Islamic knowledge discovered what no one else before has: proof that the great Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqidah were actually Ash'ari!

That would be something amazing.

The fact is: these extremists will stop at nothing to cast doubt upon the Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah until they convince unwitting laypeople among the Muslims that everyone else except them is blind to the "true" Aqidah and principles of Imam Ahmad, Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Taymiyyah, etc.

Meanwhile, their brothers in deviation are on other forums calling Ibn Taymiyyah a Kaafir for opposing their creed while utilizing the statements of Imam Ahmad in agreement with Ibn Qudamah.

I have gone through their alleged quotes and translations many times before. I caught them red-handed distorting the meaning of the quotes. That is why no one else except extremist Ash'aris claim what they claim. Even early Ash'aris who were 100 times more knowledgeable than these amateurs did not go to the extent they have in distorting texts- that's why they didn't dare claim what these charlatans claim.

Don't be fooled by over-stylized forum posts. The only thing they have to teach Muslims is how to change the color and font of posts...

[AbuNajm]

I've already debunked this distortion in the translation of Abu Sulayman that Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed that Istawa' was from the Sifat al-Khabariyyah and its meaning is "unknown" except to Allah AWJ.

Ibn Taymiyyah was criticizing this view and arguing the opposite from the beginning of this chapter:

وَثُمَّ طَائِفَةٌ ثَالِثَةٌ كَثُرَتْ فِي الْمُتَأَخِّرِينَ الْمُنْتَسِبِينَ إلَى السُّنَّةِ يَقُولُونَ: مَا يَتَضَمَّنُ أَنَّ الرَّسُولَ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَمْ يَكُنْ يَعْرِفُ مَعَانِيَ مَا أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ كَآيَاتِ الصِّفَاتِ؛ بَلْ لَازِمُ قَوْلِهِمْ أَيْضًا أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَتَكَلَّمُ بِأَحَادِيثِ الصِّفَاتِ وَلَا يَعْرِفُ مَعَانِيَهَا وَهَؤُلَاءِ مَسَاكِينُ لَمَّا رَأَوْا الْمَشْهُورَ عَنْ جُمْهُورِ السَّلَفِ مِنْ الصَّحَابَةِ
وَالتَّابِعِينَ لَهُمْ بِإِحْسَانٍ أَنَّ الْوَقْفَ التَّامَّ عِنْدَ قَوْلِهِ. {وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إلَّا اللَّهُ} وَافَقُوا السَّلَفَ وَأَحْسَنُوا فِي هَذِهِ الْمُوَافَقَةِ؛ لَكِنْ ظَنُّوا أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالتَّأْوِيلِ هُوَ مَعْنَى اللَّفْظِ وَتَفْسِيرِهِ أَوْ هُوَ التَّأْوِيلُ الِاصْطِلَاحِيُّ الَّذِي يَجْرِي فِي كَلَامِ كَثِيرٍ مِنْ مُتَأَخِّرِي أَهْلِ الْفِقْهِ وَالْأُصُولِ وَهُوَ صَرْفُ اللَّفْظِ عَنْ الِاحْتِمَالِ الرَّاجِحِ إلَى الِاحْتِمَالِ الْمَرْجُوحِ لِدَلِيلٍ يَقْتَرِنُ بِهِ فَهُمْ قَدْ سَمِعُوا كَلَامَ هَؤُلَاءِ وَهَؤُلَاءِ فَصَارَ لَفْظُ التَّأْوِيلِ عِنْدَهُمْ هَذَا مَعْنَاهُ

"Then a third group increased in number among the latecomers who attributed themselves to the Sunnah- they say what implies that the Messenger of Allah SAWS was not aware of the meaning of what was revealed to him of the Quran, like the verses of the Divine Attributes. Rather, their view requires also that he SAWS would utter narrations of the Attributes while he SAWS did not know their meaning. These are [intellectually] impoverished people, when they see what is famously reported on authority of the majority of the Salaf, from the Sahabah and those who succeeded them in goodness, that there is a complete stop upon His statement: {And none knows its interpretation except Allah}, they agree with the Salaf and they do well in this agreement. HOWEVER, they speculate that the intended meaning of "interpretation" is the meaning of the words and its explanation or it is a technical interpretation which is common among the discourse of the majority of latecomers of the people of Fiqh and Usul- and it is a diversion of the wording away from the preponderant interpretation to the unconventional interpretation due to an "evidence" coupled with it. Thus, they heard the discourse of these and those, then the wording of the interpretation became its meaning, according to them..."

وَلَمَّا سَمِعُوا قَوْلَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى: {وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إلَّا اللَّهُ} ظَنُّوا أَنَّ لَفْظَ التَّأْوِيلِ فِي الْقُرْآنِ مَعْنَاهُ هُوَ مَعْنَى لَفْظِ التَّأْوِيلِ فِي كَلَامِ هَؤُلَاءِ فَلَزِمَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ لَا يَعْلَمُ أَحَدٌ مَعْنَى هَذِهِ النُّصُوصِ إلَّا اللَّهُ لَا جِبْرِيلُ وَلَا مُحَمَّدٌ وَلَا غَيْرُهُمَا؛ بَلْ كُلٌّ مِنْ الرَّسُولَيْنِ عَلَى قَوْلِهِمْ يَتْلُو أَشْرَفَ مَا فِي الْقُرْآنِ مِنْ الْأَخْبَارِ عَنْ اللَّهِ بِأَسْمَائِهِ وَصِفَاتِهِ وَهُوَ لَا يَعْرِفُ مَعْنَى ذَلِكَ أَصْلًا ثُمَّ كَثِيرٌ مِنْهُمْ يَذُمُّونَ وَيُبْطِلُونَ تَأْوِيلَاتِ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ مِنْ الْجَهْمِيَّة وَالْمُعْتَزِلَةِ وَغَيْرِهَا وَهَذَا جَيِّدٌ؛ لَكِنْ قَدْ يَقُولُونَ تَجْرِي عَلَى ظَوَاهِرِهَا وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهَا إلَّا اللَّهُ فَإِنَّ عَنَوْا بِظَوَاهِرِهَا مَا يَظْهَرُ مِنْهَا مِنْ الْمَعَانِي كَانَ هَذَا مُنَاقِضًا لِقَوْلِهِمْ إنَّ لَهَا تَأْوِيلًا يُخَالِفُ ظَاهِرَهَا لَا يَعْلَمُهُ إلَّا اللَّهُ وَإِنْ عَنَوْا بِظَوَاهِرِهَا مُجَرَّدَ الْأَلْفَاظِ: كَانَ مَعْنَى كَلَامِهِمْ أَنَّهُ يَتَكَلَّمُ بِهَذِهِ الْأَلْفَاظِ وَلَهَا بَاطِنٌ يُخَالِفُ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَهُوَ التَّأْوِيلُ وَذَلِكَ لَا يَعْلَمُهُ إلَّا اللَّهُ

"And when they heard the statement of Allah, the Exalted: {None knows its interpretation except Allah}, they speculated that the wording of the interpretation in the Quran- there is a meaning for the words of the interpretation [found] in the discourse [Kalaam] of these people. Thus, from that it is required that no one knows the meaning of these texts except Allah- not Jibreel, Muhammad, or other than the two. Rather, each of the two Messengers [Jibreel AS and Muhammad SAWS] are upon their view- they recite the most noble of what is in the Quran of the information about Allah in His Names and Divine Attributes, while not aware of the meaning of that at all. Then, a majority of them censured and invalidated the interpretations of Ahl al-Bid'ah from the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and others; and this is good. HOWEVER, they say [things which are] applicable to the apparent meanings [of the verses of the Names & Divine Attributes] and [at the same time say] none knows its interpretation except Allah; thus, 1) they intended by "apparent meanings" whatever manifests from [the words] in terms of the meaning- this is contradictory to their statement 2) that surely there is an interpretation for them that opposes their apparent meaning which none knows except Allah. And 3) if they intend by "apparent meanings" the wording alone: the meaning of their discourse is that he SAWS would utter these words and that [the words] have an inner meaning contrary to what is apparent from them and it is an interpretation that none knows except Allah..."

وَفِيهِمْ مَنْ يُرِيدُ بِإِجْرَائِهَا عَلَى ظَوَاهِرِهَا هَذَا الْمَعْنَى وَفِيهِمْ مِنْ
يُرِيدُ الْأَوَّلَ وَعَامَّتُهُمْ يُرِيدُونَ بِالتَّأْوِيلِ الْمَعْنَى الثَّالِثَ وَقَدْ يُرِيدُونَ بِهِ الثَّانِيَ فَإِنَّهُ أَحْيَانًا قَدْ يُفَسَّرُ النَّصُّ بِمَا يُوَافِقُ ظَاهِرَهُ وَتَبَيَّنَ مِنْ هَذَا أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ مِنْ التَّأْوِيلِ الثَّالِثِ فَيَأْبَوْنَ ذَلِكَ وَيَكْرَهُونَ تَدَبُّرَ النُّصُوصِ وَالنَّظَرَ فِي مَعَانِيهَا أَعْنِي النُّصُوصَ الَّتِي يَقُولُونَ إنَّهُ لَمْ يَعْلَمْ تَأْوِيلَهَا إلَّا اللَّهُ. ثُمَّ هُمْ فِي هَذِهِ النُّصُوصِ بِحَسَبِ عَقَائِدِهِمْ فَإِنْ كَانُوا مِنْ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ قَالُوا: النُّصُوصُ الْمُثْبِتَةُ لِكَوْنِ الْعَبْدِ فَاعِلًا مُحْكَمَةٌ وَالنُّصُوصُ الْمُثْبِتَةُ لِكَوْنِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى خَالِقَ أَفْعَالِ الْعِبَادِ أَوْ مُرِيدًا لِكُلِّ مَا وَقَعَ نُصُوصٌ مُتَشَابِهَةٌ لَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهَا إلَّا اللَّهُ إذَا كَانُوا مِمَّنْ لَا يَتَأَوَّلُهَا فَإِنَّ عَامَّةَ الطَّوَائِفِ مِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَتَأَوَّلُ مَا يُخَالِفُ قَوْلَهُ وَمِنْهُمْ مِنْ لَا يَتَأَوَّلُهُ وَإِنْ كَانُوا مِنْ الصفاتية الْمُثْبِتِينَ لِلصِّفَاتِ الَّتِي زَعَمُوا أَنَّهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَهَا بِالْعَقْلِ دُونَ الصِّفَاتِ الْخَبَرِيَّةِ مِثْلَ كَثِيرٍ مِنْ مُتَأَخَّرِي الْكُلَّابِيَة كَأَبِي الْمَعَالِي فِي آخِرِ عُمْرِهِ وَابْنِ عَقِيلٍ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِنْ كَلَامِهِ قَالُوا عَنْ النُّصُوصِ الْمُتَضَمِّنَةِ لِلصِّفَاتِ الَّتِي لَا تُعْلَمُ عِنْدَهُمْ بِالْعَقْلِ هَذِهِ نُصُوصٌ مُتَشَابِهَةٌ لَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهَا إلَّا اللَّهُ وَكَثِيرٌ مِنْهُمْ يَكُونُ لَهُ قَوْلَانِ وَحَالَانِ: تَارَةً يَتَأَوَّلُ وَيُوجِبُ التَّأْوِيلَ أَوْ يُجَوِّزُهُ وَتَارَةً يُحَرِّمُهُ كَمَا يُوجَدُ لِأَبِي الْمَعَالِي وَلِابْنِ عَقِيلٍ وَلِأَمْثَالِهِمَا مِنْ اخْتِلَافِ الْأَقْوَالِ.
وَمَنْ أَثْبَتَ الْعُلُوَّ بِالْعَقْلِ وَجَعَلَهُ مِنْ الصِّفَاتِ الْعَقْلِيَّةِ: كَأَبِي مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كُلَّابٍ وَأَبِي الْحَسَنِ بْن الزَّاغُونِي وَمَنْ وَافَقَهُ وَكَالْقَاضِي أَبِي
يَعْلَى فِي آخِرِ قَوْلَيْهِ وَأَبِي مُحَمَّدٍ: أَثْبَتُوا الْعُلُوَّ وَجَعَلُوا الِاسْتِوَاءَ مِنْ الصِّفَاتِ الْخَبَرِيَّةِ الَّتِي يَقُولُونَ لَا يَعْلَمُ مَعْنَاهَا إلَّا اللَّهُ " وَإِنْ كَانُوا مِمَّنْ يَرَى أَنَّ الْفَوْقِيَّةَ وَالْعُلُوَّ أَيْضًا مِنْ الصِّفَاتِ الْخَبَرِيَّةِ كَقَوْلِ الْقَاضِي أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَأَكْثَرِ الْأَشْعَرِيَّةِ وَقَوْلِ الْقَاضِي أَبِي يَعْلَى فِي أَوَّلِ قَوْلَيْهِ وَابْنِ عَقِيلٍ فِي كَثِيرٍ مِنْ كَلَامِهِ وَأَبِي بَكْرٍ البيهقي وَأَبِي الْمَعَالِي وَغَيْرِهِمْ وَمَنْ سَلَكَ مَسْلَكَ أُولَئِكَ. وَهَذِهِ الْأُمُورُ مَبْسُوطَةٌ فِي مَوْضِعِهَا

"And among them is the one who intends by their application to the apparent meanings, this meaning [#3]; among them is the one who intends the first [#1]; while the majority of them intend by "interpretation" the third meaning [#3] while they really meant by it the second [#2]. At times, the text would be explained with what is in accordance with its apparent meaning and it is clear from this that it is not from the third type of interpretation [of theirs] [#3]. [These] would deny that and dislike reflecting on the texts and looking into their meaning, I mean, the texts which they say that surely none knows their interpretation except Allah. Then, their [standing] in these texts is in proportion to their beliefs [Aqa'id]. For if they were from the Qadariyyah, they would say: "The texts affirming that the slave is the actor [not Allah] are "clear" [Muhkamah]; and the texts affirming that Allah, the Exalted is the Creator of the actions of the slaves; or wishing that anything which consists of "unclear" texts- none knows their interpretation except Allah; since they were among those who would not interpret them. For surely the majority of the groups had among them those who would interpret whatever contradicted their view; and among them were those who did not interpret it, even if they were from the affirmed Divine Attributes on account of the Divine Attributes which they would allege that they knew their meaning by means of "reason" [Aql] aside from the Divine Attributes not known except by way of transmission and Allah's informing His creation of them [as-Sifat al-Khabariyyah]; for example, the majority of the latecomers of the Kullabiyyah, like Abu Ma'alee, at the end of his life; and Ibn Aqeel, in the majority of his discourse- they say about the texts which involve the Divine Attributes which are not known by means of "reason" according to them- "these texts are unclear; none knows their interpretation except Allah". And a majority of them had two view and two states: at times he would interpret and oblige interpretation or he would permit it; and at times he would prohibit [interpretation]; just as is found with Abu Ma'alee, Ibn Aqeel and their likes from the contradictory statements..."

AND NOW COMES THE QUOTE WHEREIN IBN TAYMIYYAH IS ALLEGEDLY AGREEING WITH WHAT HE JUST MENTIONED:

"And he who affirms "Elevation" by means of "reason" and makes it from the Divine Attributes known by reasoning, like Abu Muhammad bin Kullab, Abul-Hasan bin az-Zaghuni and whoever agrees with him, like al-Qadi Abu Ya'laa, in the last of his two views, and Abu Muhammad: they affirmed "elevation" and made "Istawa" among the Divine Attributes known only through transmission and Allah's informing us [as-Sifat al-Khabariyyah] which they say "none knows their meaning except Allah"; even if they were among those who held the view that "aboveness" [Fawqiyyah] and "elevation" also were from the Divine Attributes known only through transmission; like the view of al-Qadi Abu Bakr and the majority of the Ash'aris. And the view of al-Qadi Abu Ya'laa in the first of this two views, Ibn Aqeel in the majority of his discourse, Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi, Abu Ma'alee and others who traversed the path of these. And these matters are expanded upon in their appropriate place..."

^Does this seem like a co-sign from Ibn Taymiyyah? He even refers to a fellow Hanbali scholar as a Kullabi leading up to what he says about Ibn Qudamah.

Ibn Taymiyyah is clearly not in support of what he mentions here, rather he is pointing out the details of the beliefs regarding the Divine Attributes from "latecomers who attributed themselves to the Sunnah". He criticizes each of them based on the proportion of their adherence to their stated belief of stopping at the end of the part of the verse: {none knows their interpretation except Allah} as well as their inconsistency in applying this stoppage.

Is it impossible that Ibn Taymiyyah criticized Ibn Qudamah for his belief that "Istawa" and "Fawqiyyah" are from as-Sifat al-Khabariyyah? Why? Ibn Taymiyyah held the belief that "al-Istawa" was "known" [Ma'luum] [See vol. 3, page 25 of al-Majmu']. So, how could he agree with Ibn Qudamah and others that al-Istawa is from the Divine Attributes known only by transmission?

Ibn Taymiyyah clearly states about this approach of "Tafweed" and "Ta'weel":

وَلِهَذَا لَا يُوجَدُ لنفاة بَعْضِ الصِّفَاتِ دُونَ بَعْضٍ - الَّذِينَ يُوجِبُونَ فِيمَا نَفَوْهُ: إمَّا التَّفْوِيضَ؛ وَإِمَّا التَّأْوِيلَ الْمُخَالِفَ لِمُقْتَضَى اللَّفْظِ - قَانُونٌ مُسْتَقِيمٌ. فَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ: لِمَ تَأَوَّلْتُمْ هَذَا وَأَقْرَرْتُمْ هَذَا وَالسُّؤَالُ فِيهِمَا وَاحِدٌ؟ لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُمْ جَوَابٌ صَحِيحٌ

"And due to this, a proper rule cannot be found for the denial of some of the Divine Attributes and not others- from those who obligate in what they deny either consignment of the meaning [Tafweed] or an interpretation [Ta'weel] contradictory to what the words dictate. Thus, when it is said to them: Why do you interpret this and you affirm that? And the question in regards to both is the same- they do not have a sound response..." [See al-Majmu', 3/26]

So how is Ibn Taymiyyah saying what is the "Hanbali Aqidah" in the midst of criticizing some Hanbali for their beliefs?

These people are deceptive and liars who are promoting this nonsense by distorting and selectively clipping the words of Ibn Taymiyyah.

They want to see Hanbalis arguing with one another and they want to create fissures between Hanbalis where none exist- not historically nor currently.

I will continue saying it- these Ash'aris will always seek after the quotes of scholars and distort them in order to give false impressions. They are just as inconsistent in their reliance on scholars as they are in their own creed. They deride and insult the same scholars they attempt to use as evidence to support their nonsense.

These Ash'aris are copycats. They go after the same Hanbali Fuqahaa'- Ibn Aqeel, Ibn al-Jawzi, Abu Ya'laa- and they claim that cherry-picked quotes of these scholars of Fiqh and Usul represent the Aqidah of all Hanbalis.

Even after you find Ibn Taymiyyah calling Ibn Aqeel a "Kullabi"?! You still want to claim that Ibn Taymiyyah was following the same Aqidah as him?

[Abu Sulayman]

I've already debunked this distortion in the translation of Abu Sulayman that Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed that Istawa' was from the Sifat al-Khabariyyah and its meaning is "unknown" except to Allah AWJ.

What kind of joke is this? Where did I state this?

I regard Ibn Taymiyya as one of the biggest Mujassima to have ever existed and he most likely died upon other than Islam. I even refered to him as Shaykh al-Tajsim.

I mean his statements in al-Radd 'ala man qala bi Fana` al-Jannati wal Nar can hardly be that of a Muslim.

[aMuslimForLife]

^Does this seem like a co-sign from Ibn Taymiyyah? He even refers to a fellow Hanbali scholar as a Kullabi leading up to what he says about Ibn Qudamah.

Ok Mr. Qualified, Who said Ibn Taymiyyah made tafwid?

[AbuNajm]

Ok Mr. Qualified, Who said Ibn Taymiyyah made tafwid?

Did you really think I was going to respond the content of your question while you choose to address me with an insult at the beginning?

I'm not a toy. Go play with someone else...