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

  • #16
    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

    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.
    Where is it explicitly legislated by the Quran and Sunnah that the Hand of Allah is a Sifat (Attribute of Allah), when linguistically the word "hand" is categorized as a na't (trait) and not a sifat (characteristic)?

    Remember Allah says, Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand. 12:2


    NOTE: Imam al Bukhari in Sahih Bukhari, uses the word "nu'oot" (plural of na't) instead of sifat (plural of sifa) to refers to those narrations the mention Allah's foot, hand, face etc etc.
    Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 02-06-20, 08:33 AM.
    My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

      Where is it explicitly legislated by the Quran and Sunnah that the Hand of Allah is a Sifat (Attribute of Allah), when linguistically the word "hand" is categorized as a na't (trait) and not a sifat (characteristic)?

      Remember Allah says, Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand. 12:2


      NOTE: Imam al Bukhari in Sahih Bukhari, uses the word "nu'oot" (plural of na't) instead of sifat (plural of sifa) to refers to those narrations the mention Allah's foot, hand, face etc etc.
      I don't see a contradiction between labeling these qualities traits or characteristics. What's important is affirming them for Allah as descriptions. There is consensus from the Salaf that Allah is to be described as possessing Yadayn. The one who makes Ta'weel or understands them to be other than Allah is a Jahmi.

      This verse is a decisive text which proves that the Yadayn are Haqeeqi (real) and non-metaphorical:

      [ Allah ] said, "O Iblees, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My hands? Were you arrogant [then], or were you [already] among the haughty?" [38:75]

      Refer to early Kullabi/Ash'ari works like Fiqh al-Akbar and al-Baqillani's Tamheed where they explicitly affirm Yad as a Sifat.

      Wa Allahu Alam

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

        I don't see a contradiction between labeling these qualities traits or characteristics. What's important is affirming them for Allah as descriptions. There is consensus from the Salaf that Allah is to be described as possessing Yadayn. The one who makes Ta'weel or understands them to be other than Allah is a Jahmi.

        This verse is a decisive text which proves that the Yadayn are Haqeeqi (real) and non-metaphorical:

        [ Allah ] said, "O Iblees, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My hands? Were you arrogant [then], or were you [already] among the haughty?" [38:75]

        Refer to early Kullabi/Ash'ari works like Fiqh al-Akbar and al-Baqillani's Tamheed where they explicitly affirm Yad as a Sifat.

        Wa Allahu Alam


        The Salaf referring to Hand of Allah is a sifat and not nat (trait) is a proof that they negated the literal meaning of hand for Allah. Because only the literal meaning of hand “ie limb” is categorized as a nat. While all the other meanings of hand such as power, favor, etc are categorized as sifat.

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

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
          • 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”
          https://theboriqeenotes.com/2018/08/...-ashari-kalam/
          [/QUOTE]

          Ibn Kathir endorsing Ibn Taymiyyah's Aqida Wasatiyyah isn't the same thing as Ibn Kathir endorsing the Salafi explanation of Aqida Wasatiyyah, they are entirely two different things. If only we could have Ibn Kathir's commentary of Aqida Wasatiyyah. Traditional Sunni Muslims (Asharis, Maturidis and Atharis) endorse Tafsir Ibn Kathir, and find no anthropomorphism in it.

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

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

            I don't see a contradiction between labeling these qualities traits or characteristics. What's important is affirming them for Allah as descriptions. There is consensus from the Salaf that Allah is to be described as possessing Yadayn. The one who makes Ta'weel or understands them to be other than Allah is a Jahmi.

            This verse is a decisive text which proves that the Yadayn are Haqeeqi (real) and non-metaphorical:

            [ Allah ] said, "O Iblees, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My hands? Were you arrogant [then], or were you [already] among the haughty?" [38:75]

            Refer to early Kullabi/Ash'ari works like Fiqh al-Akbar and al-Baqillani's Tamheed where they explicitly affirm Yad as a Sifat.

            Wa Allahu Alam
            The Salaf referring to Hand of Allah is a sifa (attribute and not na't (trait) is a proof that they negated the literal meaning of hand for Allah. Because only the literal meaning of hand “ie limb (jariha)” is categorized as a na't (trait). While all the other meanings of hand such as power (qudra), favor (nima), etc are categorized as sifat (attributes).

            Since, it isn't explicitly legislated by the lawgiver (Quran and Sunnah), one has to come to that conclusion, that this is based on the language.

            Allah says, "Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand." (12:2)

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

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
              "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/
              Ibn Kullab must not have been aware of the Hadith in Sahih Muslim, where the Prophet, sallahu alayhi wa salam said in a dua, “… You are the Outwardly Manifest (dhahir) so there is nothing above You, and You are the Inwardly Hidden (batin) so there is nothing below You. [Sahih Muslim]

              This is one of the authentic Hadiths used to proved that Allah is NOT Literally above anything, as Allah is described as nothing being below Him.

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

              Comment


              • #22
                Last thing I will post on this forum for I have found it makes me arrogant and destroy myself.

                Evidence Allah is not in a place - A Hadith and Imam Tirmidhi Rahimullah Alay's comment on it

                حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مَنِيعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ، أَخْبَرَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ، عَنْ يَعْلَى بْنِ عَطَاءٍ، عَنْ وَكِيعِ بْنِ حُدُسٍ، عَنْ عَمِّهِ أَبِي رَزِينٍ، قَالَ قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَيْنَ كَانَ رَبُّنَا قَبْلَ أَنْ يَخْلُقَ خَلْقَهُ قَالَ ‏ "‏ كَانَ فِي عَمَاءٍ مَا تَحْتَهُ هَوَاءٌ وَمَا فَوْقَهُ هَوَاءٌ وَخَلَقَ عَرْشَهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ

                قَالَ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مَنِيعٍ قَالَ يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ الْعَمَاءُ أَىْ لَيْسَ مَعَهُ شَيْءٌ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَكَذَا رَوَى حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ وَكِيعُ بْنُ حُدُسٍ وَيَقُولُ شُعْبَةُ وَأَبُو عَوَانَةَ وَهُشَيْمٌ وَكِيعُ بْنُ عُدُسٍ وَهُوَ أَصَحُّ وَأَبُو رَزِينٍ اسْمُهُ لَقِيطُ بْنُ عَامِرٍ قَالَ وَهَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ ‏.‏

                - Jami'at Tirmidhi, Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3109
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

                  The Salaf referring to Hand of Allah is a sifa (attribute and not na't (trait) is a proof that they negated the literal meaning of hand for Allah. Because only the literal meaning of hand “ie limb (jariha)” is categorized as a na't (trait). While all the other meanings of hand such as power (qudra), favor (nima), etc are categorized as sifat (attributes).

                  Since, it isn't explicitly legislated by the lawgiver (Quran and Sunnah), one has to come to that conclusion, that this is based on the language.

                  Allah says, "Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand." (12:2)

                  And Allah knows best.
                  From what I understand the Salaf adopted the term Sifat as the conventional way to classify all of Allah's intrinsic characteristics. The scholars categorized the Sifat in various subgroups like Sifat Khabariyya, Fi'liyya, etc. The point you seem to be making would only make sense if qualities like Yadayn could not linguistically be referred to as attributes.

                  It's important to understand the Salafi-Athari method in affirming the Dhahir. Often times their opponents caricature their beliefs and debate strawmen or misrepresent them to others. The Salafis do not view themselves as radical literalists. This gross literalism was acknowledged and dismissed as being false in Sharh Aqeedah al-Hamawiyya. I would prefer translating Dhahir as "apparent meanings" and Haqeeqa as "real" in order to prevent misconceptions. It's not that the term literal is incorrect, but it could easily be misunderstood and abused.

                  The Dhahir of the text will indicate who the subject is and whether the descriptions are Haqeeqa (real Attributes) or Majaz (metaphorical). Considering how these descriptions are in relation to Allah(swt) the Dhahir of the passage would be to contextualize the adjectives that are familiar to us through the creation in a mnner that is befitting the nature and Essence of Allah. Failing to acknowledge the disction between the modalities of our existence contradicts the Dhahir and falls under gross-literalism.

                  With regrds to Yad/Yadayn the Dhahir of certain evidences clearly indicate that they are Haqeeqa and not metaphorical. Again, being a qualitative description of Allah it is impossible for there to be similiarities in the actuality of the Attributes. Our claim to understand the meaning of the Attributes is only in the general descriptive manner and never with regards to its hidden reality.

                  Our understanding of the term Yad linguistically is restricted by the modalities of our human existence. Yad in our context means a created limb which serves a fundamental role in enabling us to perform physical tasks. It is not correct to apply this 'literal definition' to Allah(swt) because it is conflating the specific modalities of 2 distinct entities. However, it wouldn't be correct to therefore conclude that their meanings are completely unknown. Allah described His Yadayn through the means of revelation in a manner which conforms with our general understanding of the term (1) They are Attributes of the Essence (2) Two in number (3) He uses them to create/fashion certain objects (4) They were used to write the Torah (5) As well as grasping/holding things.

                  Wa Allah Alam
                  Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 04-06-20, 02:01 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post

                    Ibn Kullab must not have been aware of the Hadith in Sahih Muslim, where the Prophet, sallahu alayhi wa salam said in a dua, “… You are the Outwardly Manifest (dhahir) so there is nothing above You, and You are the Inwardly Hidden (batin) so there is nothing below You. [Sahih Muslim]

                    This is one of the authentic Hadiths used to proved that Allah is NOT Literally above anything, as Allah is described as nothing being below Him.

                    And Allah knows best.
                    According to the scholars this Hadith could also be interpreted as "You are Ad-Dhahir, there is nothing Above You. And you are al-Batin, there is nothing closer than you".

                    The general concensus of the Salaf and predominate view of the Hanbalis/Atharis/Salafis is that Allah(swt) is Above the throne and separate from His creation. The Hanbalis persist that the Salaf had Ijmaa over this issue and others have stated that there are over 1000 proofs from the Quran, Sunnah and statements from the Salaf. How is it possible from an Imaan perspective to give preference to an odd Hadith here and there in response to all of this?

                    I'm genuinely curious what is so wrong about believing in Allah's Uluw? Like why are you even on that side of the fence in the first place? Most people on Earth would agree that belief in Uluw conforms with human Fitra, so what makes you people so repulsed by it? Are your objections rational, scriptural, historical or all 3? I'm genuinely curious.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
                      Last thing I will post on this forum for I have found it makes me arrogant and destroy myself.

                      Evidence Allah is not in a place - A Hadith and Imam Tirmidhi Rahimullah Alay's comment on it

                      Why do people reference this Hadith as if it's a conclusive proof? Hypothetically speaking one could argue that Allah created the creation and then entered inside a place. I mean the Hadith doesn't say what Allah did after completing the creation. Do you think the believers in Allah's Istawa and Uluw deny that Allah existed prior to creating the creation? The Quran says that Allah created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, then He Rose over the Throne. Belief in the Istawa doesn't contradict this Hadith.

                      Also, the Hadith doesn't explicit say "Allah exists without a place". It only indicates that Allah existed prior to the creation. Interestingly, the Sahabi used the term "Where" for Allah which further validates the plausibility of the question and refutes the Ash'ari notion that Allah is "no where". This actually proves the Salafi-Athari view that Allah's Essence is outside of His creation and He rose over the Throne (that's where He's located) without that constituting as a place.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                        .
                        It's important to understand the Salafi-Athari method in affirming the Dhahir. Often times their opponents caricature their beliefs and debate strawmen or misrepresent them to others. The Salafis do not view themselves as radical literalists. This gross literalism was acknowledged and dismissed as being false in Sharh Aqeedah al-Hamawiyya. I would prefer translating Dhahir as "apparent meanings" and Haqeeqa as "real" in order to prevent misconceptions. It's not that the term literal is incorrect, but it could easily be misunderstood and abused.
                        What some of the later people quote as the position of the Salaf:
                        "The way of the Salaf regarings Allah's Attributes is to leave the texts as reported, while believing that the most apparent meaning is not the indended meaning"
                        **This statement hinges on what is meant by most apparent.**

                        "If what is meant by this is the most apprent meaning, befitting His majesty, without making any resembles, then this is what is meant"

                        **Hence the above statement (i.e. the accusation) is a lie against the Salaf**

                        "If what is meant by this - as is thought by some - is to resemble Allah to His creation, then this is not what is meant"

                        **Hence with this meaning the above statement is correct.
                        But this possibility is an impossible because resembling Allah to His creation is prohibited so how can the most apparent meaning be impossible?**


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                          Our understanding of the term Yad linguistically is restricted by the modalities of our human existence. Yad in our context means a created limb which serves a fundamental role in enabling us to perform physical tasks. It is not correct to apply this 'literal definition' to Allah(swt) because it is conflating the specific modalities of 2 distinct entities.
                          Very good, but do "Salafi" Mashayikh agree with what you said above?
                          Or do they rather say "we don’t know whether Allah is described with limbs or not", "we don‘t know whether Allah’s Yadayn are corporeal or not", "we don't know..."?!

                          However, it wouldn't be correct to therefore conclude that their meanings are completely unknown. Allah described His Yadayn through the means of revelation in a manner which conforms with our general understanding of the term (1) They are Attributes of the Essence (2) Two in number (3) He uses them to create/fashion certain objects (4) They were used to write the Torah (5) As well as grasping/holding things.
                          Agreed, and this means that the difference here (between those who perform Tafwidh of the Ma'na and those who perform it only of the Kayf) is semantic only AS LONG as we agree to deny those meanings that clearly constitute Tashbih.

                          Hypothetically speaking one could argue that Allah created the creation and then entered inside a place.
                          No, rather this is impossible just like the existence of a square circle is impossible.

                          The one who has understood that the reality of the divine Self is completely different from the creation, will also understand the impossibility of God being inside the creation or mixed up with it or united with it or being incarnated in his creation.
                          Saying otherwise is to support the religion of christians and other polytheists and one of the foundations for polytheism.

                          **Hence the above statement (i.e. the accusation) is a lie against the Salaf**
                          Instead of accusing major scholars - who were themselves connected to the Salaf al-salih and through whom Allah ta'ala has preserved the religion - of lying, why don’t you just say it’s a difference in semantics?
                          These scholars were obviously not lying, because the Salaf al-salih would not believe in the meanings that comes to the mind of the Mushabbiha.
                          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 04-06-20, 09:15 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                            Very good, but do "Salafi" Mashayikh agree with what you said above?
                            Or do they rather say "we don’t know whether Allah is described with limbs or not", "we don‘t know whether Allah’s Yadayn are corporeal or not", "we don't know..."?! .
                            They would agree with what I said. Salafis do not affirm limb when making Ithbat of Yadayn. Their disapproval of the one who negates limb is mainly for the purpose of remaining methodologically consistent in how they approach "modality" in general.

                            At the end of the day they do not view limb as being in the same category of modality as direction, body, place, etc. In fact, you will find instances where they openly negate limb or refute the one who affirms it. This isn't becauae they're completely negating modality for Allah, but rather limb is a specific modality with regards to "how" Allah created us. If you affirm it for Allah linguistically, then you are indirectly suggesting that Allah shares the same Essence as humans and is composed of parts.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                              They would agree with what I said. Salafis do not affirm limb when making Ithbat of Yadayn. Their disapproval of the one who negates limb is mainly for the purpose of remaining methodologically consistent in how they approach "modality" in general.

                              At the end of the day they do not view limb as being in the same category of modality as direction, body, place, etc. In fact, you will find instances where they openly negate limb or refute the one who affirms it. This isn't becauae they're completely negating modality for Allah, but rather limb is a specific modality with regards to "how" Allah created us. If you affirm it for Allah linguistically, then you are indirectly suggesting that Allah shares the same Essence as humans and is composed of parts.
                              From what I understand from the above is that you are basically rejecting the MEANING of limbs regarding Allah ta'ala, which is good.

                              I still can not say the same regarding "Salafi" Mashayikh, because there is nothing that suggests that they deny this meaning (note I'm not interested in the wording, but rather the meaning).

                              The problem is however that this methodology of not affirming or denying something like a limb is almost exclusive to the Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), yet you generalize and claim it to be the Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih.

                              The Hanabila did not see any problem with denying something like a limb in meaning and wording.
                              In fact they openly denied composition of parts, corporeality and being in a place (whether some or all), so this methodology that you ascribe to is not supported by them.

                              Add to this: This Umma is more than just the Hanabila (no matter how much I respect them), so acting as if the rest are just a bunch of innovators is not acceptable.

                              The great Hanafi Imam al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH) said in his famous 'Aqida, which is representative of the 'Aqida of Imam Abu Hanifa (d.150 AH), Imam Abu Yusuf (d. 181 AH) and Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani (d. 189 AH) (who were Tabi'in and Atba' al-Tabi'in):

                              وتعالى عن الحدود والغايات، والأركان والأعضاء والأدوات، لا تحويه الجهات الست كسائر المبتدعات

                              Exalted is [Allah] above [being described] with limits (Hudud), boundaries (Ghayat), corners (Arkan), parts (A'dha`) and instruments (Adawat). The six directions (Jihat) do not encompass him, unlike the created things.
                              - end of quote -

                              The above is in open opposition to the methodology that you ascribe to (which is not to negate or affirm such wordings).

                              You’re free to follow the methodology you want, but to claim it for all of the Salaf al-salih, while the opposite is explicitly found in their words is not acceptable.
                              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 04-06-20, 03:41 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                                From what I understand from the above is that you are basically rejecting the MEANING of limbs regarding Allah ta'ala, which is good.

                                I still can not say the same regarding "Salafi" Mashayikh, because there is nothing that suggests that they deny this meaning (note I'm not interested in the wording, but rather the meaning).

                                The problem is however that this methodology of not affirming or denying something like a limb is almost exclusive to the Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), yet you generalize and claim it to be the Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih.

                                The Hanabila did not see any problem with denying something like a limb in meaning and wording.
                                In fact they openly denied composition of parts, corporeality and being in a place (whether some or all), so this methodology that you ascribe to is not supported by them.

                                Add to this: This Umma is more than just the Hanabila (no matter how much I respect them), so acting as if the rest are just a bunch of innovators is not acceptable.

                                The great Hanafi Imam al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH) said in his famous 'Aqida, which is representative of the 'Aqida of Imam Abu Hanifa (d.150 AH), Imam Abu Yusuf (d. 181 AH) and Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani (d. 189 AH) (who were Tabi'in and Atba' al-Tabi'in):

                                وتعالى عن الحدود والغايات، والأركان والأعضاء والأدوات، لا تحويه الجهات الست كسائر المبتدعات

                                Exalted is [Allah] above [being described] with limits (Hudud), boundaries (Ghayat), corners (Arkan), parts (A'dha`) and instruments (Adawat). The six directions (Jihat) do not encompass him, unlike the created things.
                                - end of quote -

                                The above is in open opposition to the methodology that you ascribe to (which is not to negate or affirm such wordings).

                                You’re free to follow the methodology you want, but to claim it for all of the Salaf al-salih, while the opposite is explicitly found in their words is not acceptable.

                                Limbs are associated with the genetic make-up of human beings. This is "how" Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala created us. So if someone affirms Hands and negates limbs it is equal to them affirming the Dhahir and negating Tashbih in the Kayfiyya.

                                The reason why I sympathize with Ibn Taymiyya's methodology other than the fact that it is repreresents the general consensus of the Salaf and Imam Ahmad is because the negators of Yadayn use limbs as a means to nullify the Divine Attributes. They would argue that the mere affirmation of Yadayn necessarily implies limbs which could only exist in a body that is composed of parts. So by leaving the doors open you could potentially give limbs a variety of different meanings and one that corresponds with Sifat al-Dhat.

                                Wa Allahu Alam

                                The Salafi brother in this video refuses to define Hands as limbs at 04:20:

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X