Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A defence and criticism of Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah and his followers.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A defence and criticism of Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah and his followers.

    Following on from my discussion on another thread, I decided to listen to John Starling (an Athari who read under Ibn Uthaymeen Rahimullah) give a reading of Qala'id al-Iqyan by al-Balbani Rahimullah - what I have understood (from John Starling) to be an abridgement of one of Ibn Hamdan Rahimullah's Aqeedah work. After this, I found a translated copy of Ibn Taymiyyah's Aqeedah al-Wasitiyyah (for which he was initially ostricised), and read most of the beginning and then skimmed through the rest looking for objectionable content. I then looked up what some of the specific criticisms of Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah were. I had already been made aware from a Salafi Q&A site that they do not hold certain views, and after all this I feel confident enough to make a conclusion on what's happening here.

    John Starling's Reading of Qala'id al-Iqyan

    I had an idea of what to expect from what I consider to be a Sunni Athari aqeedah work and... surprisingly I found what I expected. The only issues I had with John Starling's reading was his slight intolerance of the Asharis, commenting wrongly that they only affirm 7 attributes. Later when he quotes Ibn Balbani Rahimullah quote the author saying how they are not to follow the position of the Mutazilites/Jahmiyyah who do Ta'til and then seperately state that nor do they do not do Tawil like the Asharis, John Starling again broke off and talked about the deviancy of the Asharis.

    To my mind what I was witnessing here was someone from a Salafi mindset accepting an Athari aqeedah, albeit sometimes he would subtly differ with what Ibn Balbani Rahimullah would state. For example, Ibn Balbani Rahimullah would state Allah is not in a Maqam, and John Starling would agree but would state this is because he rejects the philosophical word Maqam and then he would state Hanbalis have said.

    When it comes to the Sifat, Allah being above the heavens (throne), I found nothing objectionable. After stating a proof for Allah being Ba'in (seperate from his creation), and Allah not being in a place, the author states we answer the question of where is Allah by saying he is above the heavens (throne) as is stated in Hadith and as is Ijma. I have no problem with this and this is what I understand to be Athari Aqeedah (and the Asharis and Maturidis also affirm this, though they do it in the other order, stating that Allah is above the throne and that this means he is Ba'in from his creation without place and direction).

    The only real problem I seemed to have with John Starling's reading is his intolerance for the Asharis and an ignorance of what the Asharis actually believe. Other than that, the Aqeedah he expressed is a Sunni aqeedah and not anthropomorphic. And this is from a man who studied under Ibn Uthaymeen.

    Aqeedah al-Wasitiyyah
    From a Hanafi fiqh site, I learnt that Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah was ostricised for his Aqeedah al-Wasitiyyah.
    Now I've gone through Aqeedah al-Wasitiyyah and in my reading of it drew a blank as to what these criticisms actually were. Let me make it clear: From a Sunni (Ashari/Maturidi/Athari) perspective, there is nothing objectionable in Aqeedah al-Wasitiyyah. I invite Abu Sulayman to go confirm this as he is more knowledgeable than me on these matters.
    So now what I wish to ask is, what exactly happened to Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah and why was he ostricised? A little research into this and I have the following conclusions:
    • Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah did make certain mistakes e.g. saying that hell will end. His followers and the Salafi movement do not hold this belief and deny its attribution to Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah - practically there is no reason we should contest them - since they recognise it as a wrong belief they are not in danger of falling into it.
    • With regards to the Sifat, Istiwa etc. Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah held orthodox Athari creed throughout his life, but...
    • Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah hated the Asharis and was extremely intolerant of them - the controversy over al-Wasitiyyah has nothing to do with the content of the book - the content is acceptable - the problem is that Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah viewed Tawil as unacceptable and wanted the Ashari school to completely abandon it and he defined Ahlus Sunnah as only his own Athari school. This is something the modern Salafis still do and this in reality is the main difference between them and the rest of Ahlus Sunnah.
    • There are some forgeries/ lies attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah that are very anthropomorphic which is where the confusion over his Aqeedah starts. e.g. The Hadith of the Prophet Alayhis Salam sitting next to Allah on the throne (exalted is he above sitting and having anyone next to him). This is not found in the books of Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah.
    • Other anthropomorphisms attributed to him have no verifiable evidence e.g. his walking down from the minbar and saying Allah descends like this (which is Tasbih).
    • Even if Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah stated these anthropomorphisms, there's no point arguing over this - the Salafis do not hold anthropomorphic views with regards to Sifat, Istawa etc.
    • Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah was very rough and harsh with anyone he disagreed with, and this led to a backlash from those people (and they likely doctored reports against him).
    • Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah quotes from a forged book al-Ibana as evidence that Abu Hasan al-Ashari became an Athari. Even if for sake of argument we were to accept this, what is the point? That al-Ashari Rahimullah went from one acceptable opinion to another? Who cares?
    • Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah held Tawassul of the dead to be Shirk in name, breaking from consensus. This is problematic and needs to be resolved - otherwise it leads to one side (the Salafis) making Takfir of the other or it leads to them holding the strange belief that you can be a Muslim and a Mushrik at the same time. Salafis should affirm that they do not think that a person who goes to a grave (e.g. of Rasulallah Alayhis Salam) and asks the person in the grave to make dua for them as if they were alive - that this is not Shirk. They are free to hold this is Haram, biddah etc. But they cannot hold the position that this is Shirk. They should accept that the majority of Ulama throughout history held this to be Mustahab (recommended) and their are hadith to support this, even if the grading of the hadith is not agreed upon.
    • Salafi and Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah's beliefs with regards to Kalam are normal for Atharis if a bit impractical in an era filled with atheism. Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah seems to use Kalam himself to prove the existance of Allah... Regardless, Atharis are welcomed in their view - do not force it on the rest of the Ummah.
    • Salafis (not Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah), generally translate the attributes of the Mutashabihat into English - this is fine though technically an innovation as I am not aware of anyone before the 19 century CE allowing this. Even Ashari and Maturidi scholars do this sometimes. We will class it as a Biddah Hasanah (my little joke).
    • Some of the Salafis (less so Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah) have a Zahiri mindset when it comes to fiqh and are intolerant of the Madahib - there should be no reason for this - and end up prohibiting what is permitted, whereas the lax, heretical Sufis end up permitting what is prohibited. Both groups could learn from each other.
    • The main problem of the Salafi movement is not any heretical doctrines they necessarily hold, it is a problem of intolerance for difference of opinion. This harshness of intolerance seems to be warned against by the Salaf who warned against Fiqh without Tasawwuf - saying this leads a person out of Islam. The religous analogue for the Salafi movement is the Jews who are mentioned in the Quran who became hard-hearted. Salafis need to focus on spirituality, whilst Sufis need to focus on fiqh and legalism.
    Summary

    With perhaps the exception of one belief (I.e. viewing Tawassul of the dead as Shirk which the rest of Ahlus Sunnah hold as permitted - which is a confirmed belief of the Salafis, not something I am inventing against them), there seems to be no particular doctrines the Salafi movement hold that should make them be regarded as outside of Ahlus Sunnah as a whole. Some are more extreme, and some are less extreme. Some are ignorant/dangerous, opening up the books of Quran and Hadith and deriving DIY Aqeedah and Fiqh on their own and some are well educated as to the differences in the Ummah.

    If we can solve the one issue of Tawassul of the dead and a general air of intolerance, we can solve the differences between these groups. It should be Salafis within their movement who make this push, those outside the movement cannot do much. Also they should follow the advice of Ibn Uthaymeen Rahimullah and drop the label "Salafi" - it is devisive - they should refer to themselves as Atharis. And I don't understand why almost none of the Salafis wear Imamah - a beautiful Sunnah that even Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah followed.

    They are our brothers who transgress against us.

    I am welcomed to be questioned/criticised as to what I have said. If anyone wants to discuss the formation of the schools of Aqeedah they can do so.

    In the end both groups are referred to in Surah Fatihah.

    Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 29-05-20, 08:48 PM.
    Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
    "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
    Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

    Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
    1/116

  • #2
    Actually I retract most of the above, seeing the Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah's followers (and perhaps him himself) do not accept Allah is beyond Maqam. That is a serious innovation. The Atharis the likes of al-Balbani Rahimullah and Ibn Hamdan Rahimullah and Ibn Qudamah Rahimullah would never accept the nonsensical position that Allah is restricted to Maqam. Do you affirm for Allah Jism (a body)? Did the Salaf ever mention this word? So now out of ignorance will you affirm it for they did not mention it? Either it is affirmed or denied, same with Maqam.

    Ask yourself, do you agree that everything that is not Allah is his creation? Is Maqam Allah? If no, then it must be his creation. Otherwise you believe there are things apart from Allah that are uncreated (which you can argue is a form of shirk).

    So isn't Maqam (place) his creation?

    I will explain it like how Ahmed Bin Hanbal Rahimullah explained it:

    Ask yourself was there anything but Allah before he created the creation? Of course not, as per the Hadith in Bukhari (3191) there was nothing before Allah created the creation. It is not understood that there was Allah floating (exalted is he above that) in empty space, rather there was just Allah.

    Now ask yourself where did Allah create the creation.

    Did he create it in himself? That is a deviant belief.

    Did he create it seperate from himself? This is the correct belief.

    Is there any alternative? No so he created it seperate from himself.

    After he created it did he go and encompass the creation, surrounding it so it in-dwelt in him? Then he is not seperate from it and you say he entered every ugly place.

    Did the creation encompass him, did he go into the creation, dwelling in it? Then he is not seperate from it and you say every ugly place was in him.

    So if he created the creation seperate from himself, and he didn't encompass it not did it encompass him, then what place is he in?

    Place is that which has a boundary in which something is encompassed or a place is encompassed by something.

    If Allah is not encompassed (he does not in-dwell) nor encompasses (he does not have the creation dwell in him), then what place is he in? He is not in any place. Rather that which can encompass and be encompassed is his creation. If you travel in any direction for eternity you will never reach him but if he undoes the veil you will see him wherever you are, not just with your eyes but with your entire body. He can undo the veil for some and others he can keep veiled.

    Maqam is not one of his names.

    Place can be perceived and Allah is the unperceivable Perceiver - al-Waajid.

    You say Allah is free from his creation, but do you say he is not free from that which is perceived?

    How can Allah not be in any place?

    You say that does not make any sense - you cannot imagine that.

    Exactly. You cannot imagine it for you are a pathetic and limited creation, why did you assume you could comprehend how Allah is in the first instance?

    Allah is not in one place.

    Allah is not in every place.

    Allah is in no place for place is his slave and creation that worships him. The directions submit themselves to him. Exalted is above having partners and Exalted is he above place and direction.
    Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
    "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
    Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

    Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
    1/116

    Comment


    • #3
      Stop talking without knowledge before you destroy your aakhirah

      You keep flip flopping your opinion

      If I start liking your posts will you be quiet and go away

      Each person has inside a basic decency and goodness. If he listens to it and acts on it, he is giving a great deal of what it is the world needs most. It is not complicated but it takes courage. It takes courage for a person to listen to his own goodness and act on it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by eesa the kiwi View Post
        Stop talking without knowledge before you destroy your aakhirah

        You keep flip flopping your opinion

        If I start liking your posts will you be quiet and go away
        His posts are pretty well-balanced. I don't see the need to be so rude?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Stoic Believer View Post

          His posts are pretty well-balanced. I don't see the need to be so rude?
          You are right I shouldn't have been so rude

          He keeps changing his mind and interpreting the attributes of Allah according to whatever crosses his mind. At least the other ashairah on here refer to their ulema

          The attributes of Allah aren't a game to just speak and philosophise about. This post wasnt so much a reflection on this thread rather his posts over the last couple of weeks

          This is why I spoke harshly in the hope he will take heed and stop just posting about aqeedah whatever assumptions he comes to only to change his mind twenty minutes later

          Each person has inside a basic decency and goodness. If he listens to it and acts on it, he is giving a great deal of what it is the world needs most. It is not complicated but it takes courage. It takes courage for a person to listen to his own goodness and act on it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
            Actually I retract most of the above...
            The human yo-yo.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by eesa the kiwi View Post

              You keep flip flopping your opinion
              ʿUmar b. ʿAbd Al-‘Azīz said, ‘Whoever makes his religion the object of argumentation will frequently change it.’ Al-Ājurrī, Ktāb Al-Sharī’ah Vol.1 p128.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post

                ʿUmar b. ʿAbd Al-‘Azīz said, ‘Whoever makes his religion the object of argumentation will frequently change it.’ Al-Ājurrī, Ktāb Al-Sharī’ah Vol.1 p128.
                This may be true however, you will also change your view, if you are a seeker of truth.

                Imam Shafi'i said, "And I never debated with anyone but that I did not mind whether Allah clarified the truth on my tongue or his tongue.” (Ḥilyat al-Awliyā’)

                Allah says, "So ascribe not purity to yourselves. He knows best him who fears Allah." (53:32)

                No one is protected from mistakes. It is possible that anyone of us may adhere to a position that may be incorrect. Scholars too, make mistakes. The only thing that is 100% accurate is the Quran and Sunnah. Scholars make mistakes. If it is possible for us to make mistakes than one has to be willing to weigh and test what is brought to us, against the Quran and Sunnah. We have to do this even if we consider them a sinner.

                Allah says, "O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful." (49:6)

                Let us not forget the story of Musa and al Khidr. Sometimes it may appear very wrong, however with deep reflection the truth is revealed. The truth isn't always obvious, but it is there if you actively seek it, and it may require one to look at things from a different perspective.

                And Allah knows best.
                My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
                  This may be true however, you will also change your view, if you are a seeker of truth.

                  Imam Shafi'i said, "And I never debated with anyone but that I did not mind whether Allah clarified the truth on my tongue or his tongue.” (Ḥilyat al-Awliyā’)

                  Allah says, "So ascribe not purity to yourselves. He knows best him who fears Allah." (53:32)

                  No one is protected from mistakes. It is possible that anyone of us may adhere to a position that may be incorrect. Scholars too, make mistakes. The only thing that is 100% accurate is the Quran and Sunnah. Scholars make mistakes. If it is possible for us to make mistakes than one has to be willing to weigh and test what is brought to us, against the Quran and Sunnah. We have to do this even if we consider them a sinner.

                  Allah says, "O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful." (49:6)

                  Let us not forget the story of Musa and al Khidr. Sometimes it may appear very wrong, however with deep reflection the truth is revealed. The truth isn't always obvious, but it is there if you actively seek it, and it may require one to look at things from a different perspective.

                  And Allah knows best.
                  Sure, the seeker of truth might change his opinion by time.

                  I do think it's important to note something on the narration you shared of Imam Shafi'i rahimahullaah. I think people should not misunderstand. The Salaf didn't use to put their religion up for discussion/debate. When they did debate, that's when you can apply what Imam Shafi'i said. And of course every believer should be like that. Because when you debate for the sake of Allaah, then the truth should be more dear to you than winning the argument. But in general though, the Salaf didn't put their religion up for debate.

                  Ibn Rajab comments on this:
                  فما سكت من سكت من كثرة الخصام والجدال من سلف الأمة جهلا ولا عجزا ولكن سكتوا عن علم وخشية لله وما تكلم من تكلم وتوسع من توسع بعدهم لاختصاصه بعلم دونهم ولكن حبا للكلام وقلة ورع

                  The refrain of the righteous predecessors and Imams from engaging in excessive disputes and arguments was not due to ignorance or inability, but rather they remained silent due to their knowledge and fear of Allah. Those after them who spoke much and delved deeply into issues did not do so because they had more knowledge than them, but rather due to their love of speaking and lack of scrupulousness.
                  Fadl al-‘Ilm 1/4

                  And I'm afraid that the narration I shared which you replied to is applicable to what we're seeing now. I don't like to say too much on it since I really don't like to talk about the brother at all. I'm sure he has nothing but good intentions and is indeed trying to seek the truth, but he needs to protect himself. He's falling in to mistakes that can easily be avoided had he just kept his new findings to himself. And the problem is that when you open threads and post your new findings as the truth, you will be held accountable for that. All the things we say and post we'll be held accountable for. That's why we should treat everything we say and claim with great care, especially when we're talking about Islaam and other Muslims.

                  Malik ibn Anas, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
                  الْمِرَاءُ وَالْجِدَالُ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَذْهَبُ بِنُورِ الْعِلْمِ مِنْ قَلْبِ الرَّجُلِ
                  Disputation and arguments about sacred knowledge cause the light of knowledge to extinguish in a man’s heart.

                  And he said:
                  الْمِرَاءُ فِي الْعِلْمِ يُقَسِّي الْقَلْبَ وَيُؤَثِّرُ الضَّغْنَ
                  Disputation about sacred knowledge causes the heart to harden and breeds hatred.

                  Source: Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūm wal-Ḥikam 1/248

                  Al-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
                  الْمِرَاءُ فِي الْعِلْمِ يُقَسِّي الْقَلْبَ وَيُوَرِّثُ الضَّغائِنَ
                  Arguing about sacred knowledge hardens the heart and produces resentment.

                  Source: al-Madkhal ilá al-Sunan al-Kubrá 178

                  ​​​​​​Read that, and then see what the brother says about Salafis in his original post: ..."The religious analogue for the Salafi movement is the Jews who are mentioned in the Quran who became hard-hearted." I'm not saying this to claim that the brother is hard-hearted instead, I'm only showing this to say that the brother claims this for the Salafis while falling in to behaviour that causes it himself. And he does this more often. It might not be obvious if you just read through his posts without reflecting on it, and I don't think he notices it himself due to lack of knowledge. Which is again a reason why he should protect himself more and refrain from posting his personal findings all the time. Good manners and conduct is not merely being soft spoken. This a misunderstanding these days. Someone now might be seen as harsh or rude while in reality they refrain from transgressing and are merely straightforward in their approach. While someone else might be perceived as well mannered due to superficial soft speech while in reality he does transgress against his fellow Muslims and thus himself. So I urge myself and others to seek beneficial knowledge, our cure lies in that. And to be clear, I'm not ascribing knowledge to myself. Contrary, I'm very ignorant which is another reason why I try to refrain from discussing the religion. And Allaah knows best.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TazkiyyatunNafs View Post

                    Sure, the seeker of truth might change his opinion by time.
                    .
                    This is what “by time” looks like in real time. The brother is weighing and testing the pros and cons of both sides.

                    And Allah knows best.

                    My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
                      This is what “by time” looks like in real time. The brother is weighing and testing the pros and cons of both sides.

                      And Allah knows best.
                      There's a difference between doing that here and in private though. The problem is that he continuously asks for discussions about his new findings and that he posts them as truth. The Salaf didn't treat such topics about the religion like that, they didn't put their religion up for debate. Even if he's a seeker of truth, as both you and me assume, then this is not the way!

                      Other than that, as I've mentioned is that he posts his new findings as truth and by doing so that he makes a lot of mistakes and claims about others. If you think that while publicly weighing the pros and cons you can freely say and claim about your brothers what comes to your mind at that moment is ok, then I understand why we don't see eye to eye. Because I don't view that the same. I wish the brother well and that's why I hope for his own sake that he stops. This is just a careless way of treating his religion. But then again, I'm a Salafi and perhaps my condition is like that of the Jews who's hearts have become hardened. Maybe transgressing against my brothers and sisters has seriously affected my ability to see and think about things clearly.. There's no khayr in this so let's just leave it at that in shaa Allaah.

                      And Allaah knows best.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        • Ibn Kathir’s Regard for the Aqidatu-Wasitiya of ibn Taymiyya

                        Ibn Kathir mentions:

                        فتناظرا في ذلك وشكر الناس من فضائل الشيخ كمال الدين بن الزملكاني وجودة ذهنه وحسن بحثه حيث قاوم ابن تيمية في البحث وتكلم معه ثم انفصل الحال على قبول العقيدة وعاد الشيخ إلى منزله معظما مكرما

                        “Then they (Ibn Taymiyyah and Kamal ud din bin Zamalkani) engaged in a debate and people commended the merits of Shaykh Kamaal Al-Deen ibn Az-Zamalkaani, his wittiness, and careful researching as he debated Ibn Taymiyyah and talked with him. Finally, he accepted Al-‘Aqidah (Al-Wasitiyyah) and Ibn Taymiyyah went home honored and revered.”

                        [Source: Al-Bidaya wan Nihaya 14/52]

                        Ibn Kathir constantly praises, commemorates, and gives high regard for the content within al-Wasitiya authored by his master Ibn Taymiyya. How is the Wasitiya viewed by the Ash’aris of his time and the pseudo Ash’aris of today? It is almost an ijm’a by Ash’aris that the contents that are relayed in the Wasitiya represent heresy, kufr, the misguidance tajsim (describing Allah with bodily features), tashbih (anthropomorphism), and basically a book of complete heresy and misguidance. Heck, that is the very reason the medieval Ash’ari scholars debated ibn Taymiyya about the Wasitiya in the first place. Because they found it problematic. Yet Ibn Kathir does not…

                        As a slight side bar note, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali mentions in his Dhayl that after the three majalis (meetings) on the Aqida of Ibn Taymiyyah:

                        وقع الإتفاق بعد ذلك على أن هذه عقيدة سنية سلفية

                        They [all the scholars present in the majlis] agreed after commencing the discource, that this [the contents of the Wasitiya and thus the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah] is the SUNNI, SALAFI creed.

                        [Source: Dhayl Tabaqat al-Hanabilah of Ibn Rajab al-hanbalee 4/396]

                        Allahu Akbar. Hafidh Ibn Rajab is not the only one who relays this. This is relayed by both salafi and Ash’ari commentators as well. Ibn Kathir, adh-Dhahabi, and many others cited that the ending of the Islamic court tribunal held in front of the Sultan ended with the emancipation of Ibn Taymiyyah being the proponent of Islamic orthodoxy (salafism) and rendering the prosecution among the Ash’ari heretics AS the heretics they were always known to be. Not only that, but it was an emancipation of the very contents of al-Wasitiya itself, that it correctly relays the creed of the sunni Muslim orthodoxy, the creed of the salaf” [/quote]

                        https://theboriqeenotes.com/2018/08/...-ashari-kalam/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
                          Actually I retract most of the above, seeing the Ibn Taymiyyah Rahimullah's followers (and perhaps him himself) do not accept Allah is beyond Maqam. That is a serious innovation. The Atharis the likes of al-Balbani Rahimullah and Ibn Hamdan Rahimullah and Ibn Qudamah Rahimullah would never accept the nonsensical position that Allah is restricted to Maqam. Do you affirm for Allah Jism (a body)? Did the Salaf ever mention this word? So now out of ignorance will you affirm it for they did not mention it? Either it is affirmed or denied, same with Maqam.

                          Ask yourself, do you agree that everything that is not Allah is his creation? Is Maqam Allah? If no, then it must be his creation. Otherwise you believe there are things apart from Allah that are uncreated (which you can argue is a form of shirk).

                          So isn't Maqam (place) his creation?

                          I will explain it like how Ahmed Bin Hanbal Rahimullah explained it:

                          Ask yourself was there anything but Allah before he created the creation? Of course not, as per the Hadith in Bukhari (3191) there was nothing before Allah created the creation. It is not understood that there was Allah floating (exalted is he above that) in empty space, rather there was just Allah.

                          Now ask yourself where did Allah create the creation.

                          Did he create it in himself? That is a deviant belief.

                          Did he create it seperate from himself? This is the correct belief.

                          Is there any alternative? No so he created it seperate from himself.

                          After he created it did he go and encompass the creation, surrounding it so it in-dwelt in him? Then he is not seperate from it and you say he entered every ugly place.

                          Did the creation encompass him, did he go into the creation, dwelling in it? Then he is not seperate from it and you say every ugly place was in him.

                          So if he created the creation seperate from himself, and he didn't encompass it not did it encompass him, then what place is he in?

                          Place is that which has a boundary in which something is encompassed or a place is encompassed by something.

                          If Allah is not encompassed (he does not in-dwell) nor encompasses (he does not have the creation dwell in him), then what place is he in? He is not in any place. Rather that which can encompass and be encompassed is his creation. If you travel in any direction for eternity you will never reach him but if he undoes the veil you will see him wherever you are, not just with your eyes but with your entire body. He can undo the veil for some and others he can keep veiled.

                          Maqam is not one of his names.

                          Place can be perceived and Allah is the unperceivable Perceiver - al-Waajid.

                          You say Allah is free from his creation, but do you say he is not free from that which is perceived?

                          How can Allah not be in any place?

                          You say that does not make any sense - you cannot imagine that.

                          Exactly. You cannot imagine it for you are a pathetic and limited creation, why did you assume you could comprehend how Allah is in the first instance?

                          Allah is not in one place.

                          Allah is not in every place.

                          Allah is in no place for place is his slave and creation that worships him. The directions submit themselves to him. Exalted is above having partners and Exalted is he above place and direction.
                          The predominate view among the Hanbalis and the general consensus of the Salaf is that Allah(swt) is Above the Throne separate from His creation. I'm not aware of any Salafis actively claiming that Allah is restricted by anything or exists inside a place. The issue here is that Salafis refrain from using loaded terms like 'body' and 'place' because they were not explicitly legislated by the Quran/Sunnah and require further specification. If what is meant by 'without a place' is the Ash'ari belief that Allah is essentially nowhere, then this is rejected and inconsistent with the Hanbalis and the Ahl al-Hadeeth. However, if what is meant is that Allah is Above the throne and outside the creation doesn't constitute as a 'place', then this would be correct and authentic.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            "He then quotes Ibn Taymiyya extensively on the issue of ambiguous terms introduced by the Jahmites to describe Allah, and in particular, in this quote, Ibn Taymiyya discusses the usage of the term ‘direction’, arguing that it is a newly invented term, and therefore, it is not accepted, nor rejected, unless after enquiring what one actually means by this term. Therefore: ‘It is said to the one who negates direction, do you mean by the word ‘direction’ that it is a created existence? If so, then Allah is not inside his creation. Or do you mean by the term ‘direction’, whatever is beyond the universe? For then, there is no doubt that Allah is above the universe, separate from His creation…’

                            Al-Saffarini also quotes Sheikh al-Islam from his Tadmurriyya (a classical Hanbali manual on creed): ‘As for Allah’s Elevation, and His separation from His creation, then that is known from the intellect (‘aql). And as for His Rising over the Throne, then the way to have knowledge of this is the texts. Whereas there is no description in the Quran and the Sunnah, saying that Allah is not inside the world, nor outside thereof…’

                            Al-Saffarini then quotes al-Jalal al-Dawani (an Ash’ari) who implies that Ibn Taymiyya is the first one to call the negators of direction (jiha), ‘the negators’ (mu’attila), and then responds to him saying:

                            ‘I say (al-Saffarini): Sheikh al-Islam is not the first one to call the negators (of Allah’s elevation) ‘the negators’ (mu’attila), for here is Abu Muhammad ‘Abdullah b. Sa’id b. Kullab, whose doctrine was followed by Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari, although he differed with him in a few issues, nevertheless, he is still on his method of affirming the Attributes, Elevation (al-Fawqiyya), and Highness (al-‘Uluw) of Allah above His Throne…’

                            He further quotes Ibn Kullab saying: If they say, He is not above (fawq), nor below (taht), they have negated him from existence! For that which is neither above, nor below is non-existence."

                            https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...and-direction/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Ibn Taymiyyah said:

                              "The people fall into three groups over the convention of the use of the word jiha. A group that negates it, another that affirms it, and a third that explains the issue. This difference is present amongst the followers of the Four Imams who affirmed the Attributes of Allah and the difference of the Ahlul-Hadith and Sunnah, specifically, over this is a difference in wording, not in meaning. This is why a group from the Companions of Ahmad - like the Tamimiyyin and Al-Qadhi in one of his two sayings - negated it yet another, larger group, affirmed it - and this is the last saying of Al-Qadhi. This is because the word jiha could be used to refer to that which is subject to time and space (wujud) or that which is not (ma'dum) and it is known that there is nothing present except for the Creator and creation.

                              So if the word jiha is used to refer to something that exists other than Allah then it refers to something created by Allah and Allah is not encompassed or confined by any of his creation. If the word is used to refer to something outside time and space, i.e. above the creation, then there is nothing there except Allah." ['Minhaj as-Sunnah' (1/216) of Ibn Taymiyyah]

                              https://sunnahonline.com/library/bio...irection-jihha

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X