The Intra-Sunni Divide: A history of the schools of Aqeedah wrt Sifat

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

It can be translated, if there is no fear of misunderstandings (as in the above case)...

You interpret/translate some attributes and not others... so which ones and why?

...On a different note:
The time to edit posts is really very short. The death date of the above mentioned Hanbali scholar is 1181 AH and not 1184 AH as accidentally written.

sajid

[Muhammad Hasan]

So you don't 'believe in' interpreting/translating things like 'رضي الله عنه' to 'May Allah be pleased with him' as you you don''t know the real meaning?

With respect brother, if you have no idea what he or any of us are talking about, do not try and join the discussion.


May Allah bless you, these discussions aren't for you, earlier on you seemed to leave the sect you are defending when you perhaps mistakenly replied:

"Depends on what is meant by tawassul - there are permissible and impermissible forms." to my saying that "Tawassul of the dead is not shirk."

Your reply actually doesn't contradict what I am saying - even if you say there are impermissible forms of Tawassul (which is a position held by some Sunni scholars), this doesn't negate that Tawassul of the dead is not shirk. I am surprised those who are defending Ibn Abdul Wahhab have not noticed what would be a blunder you made from their point of view.

Stick to the following:

When you find a verse in the Quran where Allah mentions his Yad and Yad is a word that when applied to humans we translate as Hand, just say, "Allah knows it's interpretation" and accept the verse (as you accept the whole Quran) - this is the advice given by Allah Azza Wa Jal in the Quran:

It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.

(Sahih International's Interpretation of al-Quran, Surah ali-'Imran, verse 7)

[Abu Sulayman]

so your beliefs haven't changed since the time of the sahabah radiallaho anhum. Does that mean the sahabah held the asharriyah position

The Ash’aris, Maturidis and Atharis are agreed upon all the major issues of creed and only disagree in detailed issues (which are subject to valid Ijtihad), which you have most likely not comprehended well.

I'm not here to defend the Ash’aris alone or the Atharis alone, but rather classical Sunni Islam - which both are part of! - in general.

These classical Sunni scholars were obviously upon the same creed as the Sahabat al-kiram - radhiallahu 'anhum -, because their chain of knowledge is connected to them.

[eesa the kiwi]

The Ash’aris, Maturidis and Atharis are agreed upon all the major issues of creed and only disagree in detailed issues (which are subject to valid Ijtihad), which you have most likely not comprehended well.

I'm not here to defend the Ash’aris alone or the Atharis alone, but rather classical Sunni Islam - which both are part of! - in general.

These classical Sunni scholars were obviously upon the same creed as the Sahabat al-kiram - radhiallahu 'anhum -, because their chain of knowledge is connected to them.

All that post really confirms is that you have no integrity

Anyway I've no interest in a mudslinging match with you. I shouldn't have even dignified your convert comment with a response may Allah forgive me

Enjoy your kalam. Asalamu alaikum

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

With respect brother, if you have no idea what he or any of us are talking about, do not try and join the discussion.


May Allah bless you, these discussions aren't for you, earlier on you seemed to leave the sect you are defending when you perhaps mistakenly replied:

"Depends on what is meant by tawassul - there are permissible and impermissible forms." to my saying that "Tawassul of the dead is not shirk."

Your reply actually doesn't contradict what I am saying - even if you say there are impermissible forms of Tawassul (which is a position held by some Sunni scholars), this doesn't negate that Tawassul of the dead is not shirk. I am surprised those who are defending Ibn Abdul Wahhab have not noticed what would be a blunder you made from their point of view....

Tawassul of the dead can be shirk - it depends on what it is and how it's done. Some people may claim or believe they are seeking tawassul in a permissible way but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

I do know what the discussion is about so your attempt to trick me hasn't worked on this occasion.

...Stick to the following:

When you find a verse in the Quran where Allah mentions his Yad and Yad is a word that when applied to humans we translate as Hand, just say, "Allah knows it's interpretation" and accept the verse (as you accept the whole Quran) - this is the advice given by Allah Azza Wa Jal in the Quran:

Which verse in the Qur'an says that? Do you do this with every attribute of Allah such as saying 'رضي الله عنه'... do you not know the interpretation of these words?

[Abu Sulayman]

All that post really confirms is that you have no integrity

Anyway I've no interest in a mudslinging match with you. I shouldn't have even dignified your convert comment with a response may Allah forgive me

Enjoy your kalam. Asalamu alaikum

May Allah ta'ala forgive both of us and bless us with understanding and wisdom.
Wa 'alaykum al-Salam.

[Muhammad Hasan]

All that post really confirms is that you have no integrity

Anyway I've no interest in a mudslinging match with you. I shouldn't have even dignified your convert comment with a response may Allah forgive me

Enjoy your kalam. Asalamu alaikum

Kalam

The Athari school who are also part of Ahlus Sunnah prohibit Kalam to my knowledge, so if you don't want to do it and think its a greek innovation then that's fine. The scholars of Ahlus Sunnah from the other two schools only ever used it to defend Sunni beliefs from the Mutazilites anyway. In the modern era it can be used to refute atheists.

See here for an example use of Kalam:

https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/is...9#post12700519

Proofs for the existance of God come under Kalam.

Disproofs of western intellectual epistemology (i.e. the logic the underlies most of their philosophy) come from Kalam.

Leaving the Argument

Subhanallah, a good choice, reminds me of the hadith of the Prophet Alayhis Salam:

Abu Umamah Al-Bahili (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:

Messenger of Allah (ï·º) said, "I guarantee a house in Jannah for one who gives up arguing, even if he is in the right; and I guarantee a home in the middle of Jannah for one who abandons lying even for the sake of fun; and I guarantee a house in the highest part of Jannah for one who has good manners."

- Riyad as-Saliheen, Hadith

[Abu Sulayman]

You interpret/translate some attributes and not others... so which ones and why?

Like I said:
If there is no risk for misunderstandings, one can translate it.
The translation here is only a POSSIBLE interpretation. It’s not like I’m saying "it definitely means this".
The real meaning is still consigned, because it’s connected to the reality of the divine Self, which is beyond comprehension.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Tawassul of the dead can be shirk - it depends on what it is and how it's done. Some people may claim or believe they are seeking tawassul in a permissible way but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Please demonstrate an example of when it isn't shirk and please demonstrate an example of when it is.

By the way you have left the position of the defenders of Ibn Abdul Wahhab with your statement, whether you realise it or not.

Which verse in the Qur'an says that? Do you do this with every attribute of Allah such as saying 'رضي الله عنه'... do you not know the interpretation of these words?

The verse of the Quran I quoted right after, al-Quran 3:7, I apologise if my quoting style is a bit confusing.

Here is the verse again:

It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.

(Sahih International's Interpretation of al-Quran, Surah ali-'Imran, verse 7)

The verse applies to other verses of the Quran.

We understand Allah Subhana Wa Tala is stating it applies to the unspecific verses.

We understand Allah Azza Wa Jal is saying no one knows the true interpretation apart from him.

E.g. Quran 5:64

And the Jews say, "The [Yad] of Allah is chained." Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His [Yadahu] are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it. And they strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters.

(Sahih International's Interpretation of al-Quran, Surah al-Ma'idah, verse 64, with my changing of the interpretation of some words to english transliteration of the Arabic in blue.)

[Muhammad Hasan]

Tawassul of the dead can be shirk - it depends on what it is and how it's done. Some people may claim or believe they are seeking tawassul in a permissible way but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Actually, you know what?

I agree with you. You are correct.

No need to give me examples. I think Abu Sulayman will concur.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

Like I said:
If there is no risk for misunderstandings, one can translate it.
The translation here is only a POSSIBLE interpretation. It’s not like I’m saying "it definitely means this".
The real meaning is still consigned, because it’s connected to the reality of the divine Self, which is beyond comprehension.

If you don't know the 'real' meaning then isn't any and every translation a risk? It means that none of Allah's attributes are known which is highly problematic.

[Muhammad Hasan]

It means that none of Allah's attributes are known which is highly problematic.

The Mutazilah/Jahmiyyah held that position, which is outside Ahlus Sunnah.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

Please demonstrate an example of when it isn't shirk and please demonstrate an example of when it is...

Calling out to the dead from a random place believing they can hear and fulfill your request - shirk

Calling on Allah alone but invoking someone e.g. "I ask you, Allah, by way of so-and-so" - not shirk but invalid because it doesn't make sense

By the way you have left the position of the defenders of Ibn Abdul Wahhab with your statement, whether you realise it or not.

Not sure what that means but I feel you want to project something on to me.

The verse of the Quran I quoted right after, al-Quran 3:7, I apologise if my quoting style is a bit confusing.

Here is the verse again:

Ah, right. Maybe you are right and it refers to people like me, whose hearts are deviated, or maybe it refers to those seeking interpretations that suit certain scientific theories such as evolution. It's just too hard to tell.

Do you do this with every attribute of Allah such as saying 'رضي الله عنه'... do you not know the interpretation of these words?

The verse applies to other verses of the Quran.

We understand Allah Subhana Wa Tala is stating it applies to the unspecific verses.

We understand Allah Azza Wa Jal is saying no one knows the true interpretation apart from him.

E.g. Quran 5:64


And the Jews say, "The [Yad] of Allah is chained." Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His [Yadayn] are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it. And they strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters.

(Sahih International's Interpretation of al-Quran, Surah al-Ma'idah, verse 64, with my changing of the interpretation of some words to english transliteration of the Arabic in blue.)

Please explain how you interpreted/translated the words highlighted in red.

[Abu Sulayman]

If you don't know the 'real' meaning then isn't any and every translation a risk? It means that none of Allah's attributes are known which is highly problematic.

The meaning of the Ayat are understood as already shown through the Tafsir of Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH).
What is not known is the real meaning of the divine attributes themselves, because it's connected to the reality (Haqiqa or Kunh) of the divine Self, which is beyond comprehension.

The Mutazilah/Jahmiyyah held that position, which is outside Ahlus Sunnah.

What they actually believed is that God can not be described with attributes that are additionally to the divine Self in the first place.
This is something that the opponents here do not even know.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

The Mutazilah/Jahmiyyah held that position, which is outside Ahlus Sunnah.

Allah is 'al-Ahad.'

Oh no, what does 'al-Ahad' mean... does it really mean Allah is ONE? Perhaps we shouldn't interpret this attribute because we can't say for sure that we definitely know that Allah is ONE. It's best to just say we believe Allah is ''al-Ahad' without delving into the meaning.

/sarcasm