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

[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.

[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 'Abdullaah]

The devil frustrated his trick have failed.

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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

AN, know first who you worship and who not and then you can lecture others.

You said that you neither affirm nor deny height / breadth / depth (or to make it simple: size) for that which you worship, which means that you don't know who your Lord is and don't know whether to worship an idol or Allah ta'ala.

Go and recheck what your Ibn Taymiyya says and you will see that he argues again and again that's it's impossible for something to exist in reality without having a size (or the three dimensions mentioned above).
So according to him affirming this in meaning is necessary and this means that according to him idol worship is the correct way.
This is also the creed of your Ibn 'Uthaymin.

[AbuNajm]

So are you saying Abdul al Ghani, Ibn Qudamah, and Ibn Uthaymeen are negating the dhahir of the verse in order to affirm the two hands of Allah as an Attribute??? Since according to you, it is impossible to do both.

You consistently draw incorrect conclusions from the quotes of scholars as well as from the statements of the people in this discussion.

Why would you follow a deviant creed intentionally? Your problem and the problem of others like you is that you sincerely believe that you understand things when the actual reality is the opposite.

What I am saying, for the last time, is this: what you think the above scholars are saying regarding the verse: "the Two Hands of Allah are outstretched" is not what they are actually saying.

Here is the "Thaahir" of the statement:

"Two Hands" = Separately Confirmed Divine Attribute, supported by this verse in the Quran
"Outstretched" = figurative expression linked to actual Attribute denoting "generosity"

I never said it was impossible for the same statement to contain both Haqeeqi and Majaazi elements. In fact, I pointed to this statement as an example [perhaps the only one] in which a text regarding the Divine Attributes contains both "real" and "figurative" expressions. However, the "real" part of the expression confirms the Divine Attribute of "Two Hands" and the figurative part of it simply refutes the slander/accusation by the Jews that Allah AWJ is "miserly", and we seek refuge in Allah from such things.

Abd ul-Ghani, Ibn Qudamah and Ibn Uthaymeen- along with most other scholars- all affirm the "Thaahir" element of this verse, i.e., "the Two Hands" as a Divine Attribute.

And at the same time, they acknowledge the figurative element of the expression, i.e. the characteristic of "outstretched" not being Haqeeqi but Majaazi and meaning, "generous and possessing infinite abundance".

Please point to me an instance where the aforementioned scholars claimed that the characteristic of "outstretched" is also a Divine Attribute taken upon its Haqeeqi/real meaning.

Or, point out an instance where "Two Hands" is said to be "Majaazi/figurative" and THAT FIGURATIVE MEANING is also held as a Divine Attribute.

If you can do either of the two things listed above, then you can prove that a text that is predominantly held to be related to the Divine Attribute of "Two Hands" is 1) exclusively figurative in meaning and still considered to be a Divine Attribute, or 2) a normally figurative expression in Arabic is restricted to a Haqeeqi meaning DUE TO being related to a Divine Attribute.

Either way, you will have proved the most recent points I've made and hopefully you will have understood the entire point of bringing this example of a text dealing with Divine Attributes.

NO SCHOLAR HAS INSISTED THAT A TEXT PREDOMINANTLY VIEWED AS DEALING WITH A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS ACTUALLY FIGURATIVE IN MEANING BUT STILL A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE.

If a statement is figurative in meaning, how can it be take to be a Divine Attribute?

For example, there are Ash'aris who say that "Saaq/Shin" is an exclusively figurative expression in all the texts which mention this term in the context of Allah AWJ, and they DO NOT accept "Saaq/Shin" as a Divine Attribute.

While there are Atharis who say that "Saaq/Shin" is a Divine Attribute based on the Hadith of Ibn Mas'ud in Sahih Muslim and this Hadith confirms the Haqeeqi meaning for the verse containing the term "Saaq".

[aMuslimForLife]

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.

.

So are you saying Abdul al Ghani, Ibn Qudamah, and Ibn Uthaymeen are negating the dhahir of the verse in order to affirm the two hands of Allah as an Attribute??? Since according to you, it is impossible to do both.

[Abu Sulayman]

As a reminder:

Here is a prime example for OPEN Tajsim:


Pseudo-Salafis say God has a ‘Size’

On the Multaqa Ahl al Hadeeth forum the Salafi shaykh Haitham Hamdan reaffirms the statement of sh Ibn Taymiyyah: ‘That something existing should not be increasing, or decreasing, or neither increasing nor decreasing, and yet exist and not have a size – this is impossible‘ (Bayan Talbis Al-Jahmiyyah, 3/146)


Question from Abu Fadl:

How do Salafi’s view the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah:
فأما كون الشيء غير موصوف بالزيادة والنقصان ولا بعدم ذلك وهو موجود وليس بذي قدر فهذا لا يعقل (Talbîs al-Jahmiyyah)
It seems he find it impossible that a being (whether necessary or possible) could exist without having a size. If this interpretation is wrong, what is the Salafi interpretation?

Salafi shaykh Haitham Hamdan the Administrator says:

Yes this is what this great scholar is saying. And “Salafis” agree with him.
It is impossible for a creature to be present outside the human mind (not to be a mere mental being); and not have a size.
A mere mental being does not have a size or place. Example: numbers. They are mere mental beings with no existence outside the human mind. It is OK for them not to have a size.

- end of quote -

Note how that pagan anthropomorphist Haitham Hamdan wrote "creature", so he subconsciously knew that his statement is nonsense and can NOT apply to Allah ta'ala, but still went on to affirm the Kufr of Ibn Taymiyya as the correct creed.

[Abu Sulayman]

An important post:

Since the issue of this thread is Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), I think we should concentrate on the above.


The importance of denying corporeality regarding the Creator

In the time of our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - the people used to worship idols, statues, angels, jinn, stars and other bodies and believed that these things were somehow divine and had some attributes of Lordship and therefore deserved worship.

The Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - explained to the people that these things that they were regarding as Gods besides Allah ta'ala or alongside Him were themselves created slaves of Allah or just names that their forefathers had invented without any reality and therefore not worthy of worship, but rather the One who has created all things in the heavens and the earth deserved and deserves all worship.
He - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - clarified to them that Allah ta'ala is One without any partners and described with absolute perfection and completely dissimilar to the creation and that based on this He's the one and only true God without those whom they claimed instead of Him or alongside Him.

This means that the aim of the pure Prophetic call was that the people leave paganism and realize the greatness of their Creator, submit to Him completely and worship Him alone without any partners and NOT that people just leave the worship of their idols for the worship of an idol that is just greater in size (because this is what the call of the corporealists means in reality).

Know that the corporealists are therefore nothing but revivers of paganism and do not know Allah ta'ala and are callers to idol worship!

Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) said in his Iljam al-'Awam (translation taken from HERE):

أعني بالجسم عبارة عن مقدار له طول وعرض وعمق يمنع غيره من أن يوجد بحيث هو ... فإن خطر بباله أن اللّه جسم مركب من أعضائه فهو عابد صنم فإن كل جسم فهو مخلوق، وعبادة المخلوق كفر، وعبادة الصنم كانت كفرا لأنه مخلوق، وكان مخلوقا لأنه جسم فمن عبد جسما فهو كافر بإجماع الأئمة السلف منهم والخلف

I mean by “body” something with length, width and depth that prevents something else to exist where it exists…. So if it came to someone’s mind that Aļļaah is a body composed of limbs, then this person is an idol worshiper. The reason is that all bodies are created, and to worship something created is kufr. After all, idol worship is kufr because the idol is created, and the idol is created because it is a body. Hence, the one who worships a body is a kaafir by the consensus of the Muslim Nation, both the salaf and those later.
- end of quote -

After the above statement he directly says that it does not make any difference whether this body is dense (Kathif) like the mountains or subtle (Latif) like the air and the water and gives more examples of bodies ("سواء كان ذلك الجسم كثيفا كالجبال الصم الصلاب، أو لطيفا كالهواء والماء").

It should be noted here that the rejection of limits, parts, organs, limbs, place, etc. are in reality all meant as the rejection of the same meaning: The rejection of corporeality!
So let us concentrate on this issue.


Ibn Taymiyya's refutation of a work that is against the Karramiyya!

Ibn Taymiyya's (d. 728 AH) Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya is a response against Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi's (d. 606 AH) work Asas al-Taqdis.

Asas al-Taqdis (also known as Ta`sis al-Taqdis) was written in 596 AH in Herat as a response against the Karramiyya - who were corporealists (Mujassima) and arch-enemies of Imam al-Razi and could be found in big numbers in Herat at that time! - in order to prove that Allah ta’ala is transcendent from corporeality (Jismiyya).

Ibn Taymiyya responding to this work is strange in itself and puts him under suspicion. The work was written 65 years before he was even born and it was against the Karramiyya!
He left these corporealists - the supporters of paganism! - alone and instead started attacking Imam al-Razi accusing him of being a Jahmi and even of worse than that!


It should be noted here that he exactly knew what the Ash'aris intended by corporeality (Jismiyya) as is clear from his statement from the same work:

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

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

Note how he clearly knows what is intended by Jismiyya (corporeality) and what all bodies have in common (which he calls as the Qadar Mushtarak, while everyone else regards this is part of the reality of something and this is an indication that there is some problem in his thought) and even the things that he mentions as examples are the same as mentioned by Imam al-Ghazali above.

He knows very well that none of the scholars of Islam - who deny corporeality (Jismiyya) regarding Allah ta'ala - denies God's existence (Wujud) or Him being established by Himself (Qa'im bi Nafsih) - and both is NOT even indicated in the Arabic language by the term Jism, rather was only claimed as meanings by the likes of the Rafidhi Mujassim Hisham bin al-Hakam (d. 179 AH) and the worthless Karramiyya in order to hide their Kufr and Tajsim! -, yet he thinks it's appropriate to discuss in the "what do you intend by Jism? If you want to deny His existance or Him being established by Himself..."-manner with the scholars of Islam.
This way of argumentation adds another suspicion against him, because one only asks clarification for something, when one does not know the position of the opponent, but when someone does this again and again while FULLY knowing what his opponents is intending, then this is very suspicious.

What would you know expect him to say after the above statement? He should now say that this meaning (i.e. having a volume/size or having the three dimensions, i.e. length, width and depth) does not apply to Allah ta'ala (thereby silencing anyone who claims him to be a Mujassim!), but this is not what he did.
Let us see what he said.


Ibn Taymiyya's problematic statements in his Bayan Talbis

He said a little bit after the above statement after clarifying that human beings are basically unable to imagine anything except that it's body with its attributes the following:

بل هذا القول الذي اتفق عليه العقلاء من أهل الإثبات والنفي اتفقوا على أن الوهم والخيال لا يتصور موجودا إلا متحيزا أو قائما وهو الجسم وصفاته ثم المثبتة قالوا وهذا حق معلوم أيضا بالأدلة العقلية والشرعية بل بالضرورة وقالت النفاة إنه قد يعلم بنوع من دقيق النظر أن هذا باطل فالفريقان اتفقوا على أن الوهم والخيال يقبل قول المثبتة الذين ذكرت أنهم يصفونه بالأجزاء والأبعاض وتسميهم المجسمة

Rather this statement is the one upon which all intelligent ones from the people of affirmation [of the divine attributes] and the people of negation agreed. They agreed that fantasy and imagination can not imagine something existent except that it is spatially confined or established and THAT IS THE BODY AND ITS ATTRIBUTES.
Then the affirmers [of the divine attributes] said [that] this is also true (!) (regarding the Creator is intended here!!!) and also known by rational and religious proofs and by necessity.
The negators [of the divine attributes] said [that] it can be known through a kind of precise investigation that this [imagination] is wrong (regarding the Creator is intended).
So the two groups agreed that fantasy and imagination accepts the statement of the affirmers, whom you have mentioned as those who who describe [Allah] with parts (Ajza`) and organs (Ab'adh) and called them as corporealists (Mujassima).
- end of quote -

The above is quite clear and quite bad, but he has even worse statements.

He said in his Bayan Talbis:

وإن قال أريد بالغير ما هو أعم من هذا وهو ما جاز العلم بأحدهما دون الآخر أو ما أمكن الاشارة الحسية إلى أحدهما دون الآخر أو ما أمكن رؤية أحدهما دون الآخر كما قال من قال من السلف لمن سأله عن قوله تعالى لا تدركه الأبصار ألست ترى السماء قال بلى قال فكلها ترى قال لا قال فالله أعظم فيقال له وإذا كان يمين الرب غير يساره بهذا التفسير فقولك تكون ذات الله مركبة من الأجزاء أتعنى به ورود المركب عليها بمعنى أن مركبا ركبها كما قال في أي صورة ما شاء ركبك أو أنها كانت متفرقة فتركبت أم تعنى أن اليمين متميزة عن اليسار وهو التركيب في الاصطلاح الخاص كما تقدم بيانه
فإن أراد الأول لم يلزم ذلك وهو ظاهر فإن الأجسام المخلوقة أكثرها ليس بمركب بهذا الاعتبار فكيف يجب أن يقال إن الخالق مركب بهذا الاعتبار وهذا مما لا نزاع فيه وهو يسلم أنه لا يلزم من التصريح بأنه جسم هذا التركيب إذ هو عدم لزومه ظاهرا
وأما إن أراد بالتركيب الامتياز مثل امتياز اليمين عن شماله قيل له هذا التركيب لا نسلم أنه يستلزم الأجزاء فإنه هذا مبني على إثبات الجزء الذي لا ينقسم والنزاع فيه مشهور وقد قرر أن الأذكياء توقفوا في ذلك وإذا لم يثبت أن الأجسام المخلوقة فيها أجزاء بالفعل امتنع أن يجب ذلك في الخالق

If he says that by al-Ghayr (the other) I intend that which is broader [in meaning] than this and that is regarding which it is possible to have knowledge of one [thing] from it without the other [thing / part from it] OR that regarding which it is possible to physically point (Isharah Hissiyya) at (!) one [thing] from it without the other [thing / part from it] (!) OR that regarding which it is possible to see (!) one [thing] from it without the other [thing / part from it].
JUST LIKE WHEN someone from the Salaf said, when he was asked regarding the statement of [Allah] ta'ala { Eyes do not encompass Him } [6:103], "Do you not see the heavens?". [The questioner] said "Yes". He said "Do you see all of it?". [The questioner] said "No". [Then] he said "And Allah is greater!".
Then it is said to him: If the right [side] of the Lord is other than His left [side] with this (!!!) explanation [mentioned above] (which includes being able to physically point at one part of it without the other part!!!), then your statement that the Self (Dhat) of Allah would be composed (Murakkab) of parts (Ajza`) then (and that this would therefore be impossible to be applied to Allah ta'ala):
Then do you intend by this that a composer applies to Him meaning that a composer has composed Him just like He said { He moulded you into whatever shape He willed } [82:8] or that [these parts] were separated from eachother and then they were composed together or do you intend that the right [side] is different from the [left] side and that is [the term] "composition" (Tarkib) in the specific terminology as explained before.
If you intend the first (i.e. that a composer composed God's right side and left side after they were seperated!), then this is not necessitates from this (i.e. from believing that one is able to point physically at the right side of God without the left side and vice versa) and this is apparent, because [even] the created bodies are not composed [of parts] with this understanding. How is then necessary to say that the Creator is composed [of parts] with this understanding and there is no dispute regarding this (he knows that this is not intended, yet mentions it!). He accepts that saying that He (Allah) is a body (Jism) does not necessitate this [type of understanding of] composition, because it not being necessary is obvious.
If he however intends being different like the difference of His right [side] from his left [side] (i.e. such that one is able to point physically at one of them with the other as mentioned above!), then it said to him that [regarding] this [understanding of] composition we don't accept that it necessitates parts (Ajza`), because this is based upon affirming the part that can not be divided further and the dispute regarding it is famous and it has been verified that the intelligent ones have stopped regarding this issue. If it is not proven that the created bodies have parts in reality (i.e. one can not divide them into their smallest parts), then it becomes impossible that this becomes necessary regarding the Creator.
- end of quote -

The above quote is one big catastrophe (and he's even trying to claim that this is what the Salaf also believed!). He's basically saying that God is composed of inseparable and indivisible parts such that one is able to physically point at one part without the other and see one part without the other, but that one cannot separate them in reality (as if that is the issue!) and that they have not been composed after being separated (again: as if that is even the issue!).
Note that he could have stated so in one sentence (especially when he exactly knows what his opponent - Imam al-Razi - intends!), but he chooses this weird way of discussing things.

Another quote from his Bayan Talbis:

وإن قال أريد بالمنقسم إن ما في هذه الجهة غير ما في هذه الجهة كما يقول إن الشمس منقسمة بمعنى إن حاجبها الأيمن غير حاجبها الأيسر والفلك منقسم بمعنى أن ناحية القطب الشمالي غير ناحية القطب الجنوبي وهذا هو الذي أراده فهذا مما تنازع الناس فيه فيقال له قولك إن كان منقسما كان مركبا وتقدم إبطاله تقدم الجواب عن هذا الذي سميته مركبا وتبين أنه لا حجة أصلا على امتناع ذلك بل بين أن إحالة ذلك تقتضي إبطال كل موجود ولولا أنه أحال على ما تقدم لما أحلنا عليه وتقدم بيان ما في لفظ التركيب والتحيز والغير والافتقار من الاحتمال وإن المعنى الذي يقصد منه بذلك يجب أن يتصف به كل موجود سواء كان واجبا أو ممكنا وإن القول بامتناع ذلك يستلزم السفسطة المحضة ويبين أن كل واحد يلزمه أن يقول بمثل هذا المعنى الذي سماه تركيبا

If he says that by al-Munqasim (the thing that is divisible) (i.e. this being impossible regarding the Creator) I intend that that which is in this direction is different from that which is in the other direction (while both parts belong to the same being or thing!) just like it is said that the sun is divisible with the meaning that the right end [of the sun] is different from the left end and that planets are divisible with the meaning that their north pole is different than their south pole - AND THAT IS WHAT HE INTENDED -, then this that regarding which the people disputed (reminder: He's speaking about the Creator now!) and it is said to him:
Your statement if He (Allah) would be divisible, He would have been composed [of parts], then the refutation of this has already been answered regarding that which you called as "composed" and it has been clarified that there is no impossibility regarding this at all (i.e. that God being composed from inseparable and indivsible parts as clarified in the earlier quote for example), but it has become clear that the impossibility of this leads to the non-existence of every existent thing (i.e. all existing things - no matter Creator or creation - must be composed!).
If it would not be impossible as mentioned before, then we would have not regarded it impossible here and it has has already been clarified what [different] possibilities [to understand] the terms of Tarkib (composition), Tahayyuz (spatial confinement), al-Ghayr (the other) and al-Iftiqar (need) there are and that the meaning that he intends with them is a necessary description of every existing thing [or being] - NO MATTER whether it is essential (i.e. the Creator!) or possible (i.e. the creation) - and that the claim of this being impossible (regarding the creator) makes [only] pure sophistry necessary and it has to be clear that everyone is obliged to say with the meaning that he has called as composition.
- end of quote -

Another catastrophic statement! Note how he knows exactly what his opponent intends and note how we tries to argue that every exist being - even the Creator! - must be necessarily described with the meaning of composition and that of being divisible!
Just look at the example that is given in the beginning! The right end of the sun is different than the left and the north pole of the planets is different from their south and that it can be called divisible with this meaning! This meaning applies to Allah ta'ala also according to him and otherwise He could not exist.

It should be noted here that there are many statements like the above in his Bayan Talbis.


So the question here is: How should we understand these statements? If my understanding above is correct, then this is outright Tajsim (because it would mean that he's establishing God to be something with a Miqdar (volume or size) and that is what every body has in common according to himself too as quoted above!).
I'm open for correction of my understanding of the above words (but with proofs please).

(Note that I'm still neutral towards him in the above post, because I thought that the Hanabila - who do believe in Tanzih - didn't just defend him out of partisanship, but it became clear to me that they don't have any proofs in his defense.)

[Abu Sulayman]

This is one of the most ridiculous misinterpretations of a scholar's words that I have ever seen.

If this example of distortion doesn't put off every reader of this forum from Abu Sulaiman and people like him, then nothing will...

Ibn Uthaymeen is not describing Allah AWJ with "length", "width", "weight", etc. He is simply making a point in refutation of the Mu'tazilah about the concept of "Dhaat" or "Self" in general. The point is that every "Self" that exists must have attributes and he gives examples for attributes which describe things that exist. There is no direct reference to Allah AWJ as having "length", "width", "weight", etc. The only thing that is referenced to Allah AWJ is that He does in fact have Attributes because He exists. That is all.

This is so ridiculous that I can't believe someone who understands Arabic would make such an accusation against another Muslim, much less a scholar of the caliber of Ibn Uthaymeen, based on a misinterpretation of a statement like this...

Please stop entertaining the fantasies of these people...

Here is a link to the quote of Ibn Uthaymeen without all the stupid blinking animations in the video posted. It's actually a Sharh of Ibn Uthaymeen for Ibn Qayyim's an-Nuniyyah poem...

https://alathar.net/home/esound/inde...vi&coid=131132

AN, don't even try to play these games with me! You know very well that these types of diversionary tactics don't work and that I know your way too well!

If you would have cared to read my next post, you would see that I posted the very link that you posted and even quoted the context FULLY!
It's obvious what he meant and you should not be denying the obvious.

Ibn 'Uthaymin's statement means that he believes that the Creator also has a height and breadth and a size (and High Exalted is He above that). And this is not his only statement!
His lessons are full with such Kufriyyat, where he argues that the Creator consists of eternal inseparable parts!


Let me tell you something else: You are ignorant regarding your own creed!
If you would have properly read Ibn Taymiyya's Bayan [of his own] Talbis and listened to the lessons of Ibn 'Uthaymin, you would know that while they may not affirm things like height / breadth / depth and size in WORDING, they clearly do so in MEANING!
In fact Ibn Taymiyya argues throughout the whole book from many directions that this MEANING is NECESSARY upon whatever exists in reality! This is something that he repeats maybe hundred times!

So while you are neither affirming nor denying height / breadth / depth or a size in wording and meaning, both Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn 'Uthaymin affirm it in meaning (while usually avoiding the wording) and even regard this to be necessary for whatever exists including the Creator!


To make it even clearer:
You don't know whether you worship an idol or Allah ta'ala, while your Ibn 'Uthaymin and his Ibn Taymiyya are sure that idol worship is the correct religion!

May Allah ta'ala protect us from such disbelief and humiliation!