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

  • #46
    aMuslimForLife

    You might be interested in these articles:

    "The Arabic word “dhahir” has been commonly translated since what I like to call “the Englishization of Islamic dawah” in the western hemisphere as “literal”. I do not know if the Arabs of that time understood the implications of this mistake, but nonetheless, it is a mistake by which we seek forgiveness on all those who came before us. The reason why this is a mistake is due to several reasons...

    According to Ahlu-Sunnah, the meaning of dhahir is what is most obvious of the meaning of any phrase or construction of words i.e. what comes first to mind. This is essential to understand because in this definition, this can include a literal interpretation OR, and here is the myth breaker, a metaphorical interpretation. Which type of interpretation it can carry DEPENDS on the entire construct of the phrasal clause being used in the Arabic conveyance."

    https://theboriqeenotes.com/2019/08/...nni-discourse/

    "He then asserts that ibn taymiyyah has in-fact made t’awil in his explanation of the hadith of the slave girl asked by the Messenger ﷺ asking Allah’s whereabouts in which she responded with her finger pointing at the heavens, the linguistic portrayal being “fi sama” i.e. in the heavens. He asserts ibn taymiyyah’s explanation that “fi sama” means either

    -ala sama (above the heavens)

    -fil-‘uluw (in a position of highness)

    He assert this is the t’awil. We say, this is a faulty induction on your part because linguistically, the preposition “في” can mean “above, beyond, in, over”. Whichever meaning it takes depends on two factors

    -the construction of other words that locks in its meaning to a specific understanding

    -the subject being addressed.

    When it is asked “where is God”, right then and there the subject has already been defined. The subject is “Allah”. This then defacto would negate any meanings that contravene Qur’anic descriptives. Hence the default meaning is “ala” i.e. “above” or “beyond”.

    https://theboriqeenotes.com/2020/05/...bin-hamid-ali/

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
      Bayan Tablis is a refutation of Ar-Razi who according to Ibn Taymiyyah was abusing terminologies to arrive at his conclusions. When the Hanbalis like Ibn Qudama and Ibn Taymiyyah refuted how the Ash'aris conceived divisibility/anthropomorphism it doesn't mean that they affirmed what they considered to be blameworthy from the terms themselves. The Ash'aris deviated in the belief of the Quran being KalamAllah and Allah's Attributes as a result of misunderstanding this issue. The point I was trying to get at is that Ash'aris and Atharis do not see eye to eye on what entails composition of parts.
      Actually one can accuse the Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) of playing with words while knowing exactly what his opponent is saying (as it's clear from his own words when he says again and again "and this is what he intended..."), because Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 AH) is very accurate and clear on what he intends and what not and does not leave any doubt for his intention (unlike Ibn Taymiyya).

      As for Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH): He is clearly not in the category of Ibn Taymiyya and is also very clear in his words and I don't have a problem with his way whatsoever (except maybe his exaggeration in attacking Ash'aris, but this is something that some major Ash'ari A`imma are also guilty of against the Hanabila). He's completely a classical Hanbali.

      As for the issue of the speech of Allah and the divine attributes: The Ash'aris believe in Tafwidh while including those meanings that one reaches through Ta`wil, while Imam Ibn Qudama believes in Tafwidh and excludes those meanings that one reaches through Ta`wil. From the point of view of the Arabic language, the Ash'ari broad Tafwidh makes more sense to me and includes the Hanbali Tafwidh as a possible option.
      According to both Ash'aris and Hanbalis the Qur`an al-karim is the speech of Allah ta'ala, uncreated. But they differed on the issue of the Lafdh (wording). The Hanabila said Allah ta'ala speaks with letters, while Ash'aris denied this. But the Hanabila at the same time deny Ta'aqub (following eachother) of these letters (I can quote Imam Ibn Qudama and others on this) (and in every human language letters necessarily follow eachother!) and say that with sound they only intend that it can heard and not sound waves or the likes (again: I can quote Imam Ibn Qudama and others on this!), so their position is actually very near to that of Ash'aris no matter how much both groups attacked eachother because of this issue.

      As for "Salafi" Mashayikh then they reject Tafwidh and insist on affirming the meaning that comes to the mind of the Mushabbbiha (claiming Istiwa` to be Istiqrar is among the greatest proofs against them!) while trying to hide themselves behind playing with words. They claim the Qur`an al-karim is Muhdath (emergent) and Ghayr Makhluq (uncreated) at the same time (a great mistake!!!), while the classical Hanabila like Imam Ibn Qudama and Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) and other before and after them highlight the fact that the Qur`an is neither Makhluq, nor Muhdath nor Hadith!

      Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
      What is wrong with Istiqrar if one doesn't intend touching or being limited by anything? There is a Salaf for this interpretation if I'm not mistaken and Ibn Abdul Barr had no issue affirming it.
      Did Allah ta'ala describe Himself with Istiqrar (settlement) in the book of Allah ta'ala? Or did He rather say Istawa 'ala al-'Arsh?
      Yes, the Salaf for this is Muqatil bin Sulayman (d. 150 AH), who has mentioned this in his Tafsir of the Aya 20:5 ("يعني استقر"). This is the same Muqatil whom Imam Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) - a Tabi'i and one of the leading scholars of this Umma! - regarded as a MUSHABBIH!
      Imam Abu Hanifa explicitly denies Istiqrar in his Wasiyya.

      As for Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (d. 463 AH): He's not our Prophet and not ma'sum. He made a mistake in wording (read this: Issues Related to the ‘Aqida of Imam Ibn ‘Abdal-Barr (d. 463 AH)).
      It seems that according to "Salafis" the number of infallibles is quite great. This is worse than Rawafidh, who only claim 14 infallibles.

      Then: Do you even understand what Istiqrar means? Who gave Ibn 'Uthaymin the right for this wrong Ta`wil? Yet, this man dares to attack whosoever rejects corporeality (Jismiyya) regarding the Creator!
      As for touching: Who told you that "Salafi" Mashayikh reject this or regard this as impossible?!
      As for being limited: Who told you that having a size and being limited is impossible according "Salafi" Mashyikh?!

      Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
      Is a negation of sensory perception a negation of Allah being Above the throne with His Dhat? Your position is a little ambiguous. Do you believe Allah is actually Above the throne or does the negation of Kayf and direction render it Majaz?
      My position is actually much more Athari than yours and not ambigous. I believe in the Istiwa` of Allah ta'ala upon the throne - as it is found in His book mentioned - without modality and in the manner befitting His majesty and I also believe that there is nothing whatsoever like Allah ta'ala (also found in His book mentioned). That's it!

      What "Salafis" however do is to claim that it means settlement (Istiqrar, which is a meaning that applies to human beings!) and they affirm a physical direction (and not a Highness that is befitting of Allah's majesty!) and think that His Istiwa` is something that one can imagine and comprehend and that it happened through change in the state of the divine Self. None of these claims and imaginations are befitting of Allah ta'ala! Wallahul musta'an!

      Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
      There is a distinction between the early Ash'aris and later Ash'aris on what they actually believed concerning Allah's Uluw and Sifat Khabariyya. Reading the quotes from the early Ash'aris and how they responded to their opponents one can easily identify what they believed. You could read many of them through the various articles on this page:

      http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...-with-his-.cfm

      Fast forward to the era of al Juwayni and you have a contradictory Madhhab espoused by his protégés:

      "If Allaah was above the Throne, He would be occupying space (hayyiz), [and therefore] a body (jism) subject to divisibility (inqisaam), [and therefore] composed (murakkab) and also subject to need (iftiqaar) and as such, on this basis, it is impossible for Allaah to be above the Throne."

      http://www.asharis.com/creed/article...le-and-com.cfm

      The early scholars had a concensus regarding the affirmation of Hands, Face, etc, while the later Ash'aris contradicted them and consider it a composition of parts (i.e. Tajsim). How is it that this approach is even respected when you have documented evidence about what the earlier view was? Most Sufi/Ash'aris in modern times are under the impression that Allah is not Above the throne or attributed with 2 Hands because this somehow contradicts Laysa ki Mithlihi Shay. How much stronger would your Da'wah be if you publicly affirmed Uluw, Istawa and Sifat like Hands while claiming to follow the correct interpretation of the Salaf.
      The problem is that you haven't properly understood the Madhhab of the Ash'aris. whether the early ones or the later ones. Even when it is said "if Allah was above the Throne, He would be occupying space..." the Qura`nic description of Istiwa` upon the throne is not meant, but rather to imagine God like a physical being with three dimensions - I mean length [or height], width [or breadth] and depth - settling on the throne (and this is EXACTLY what Ibn 'Uthaymin believes!).
      Likewise when it is said "if God would have a hand, then this would mean Him to be a body", then the Qur`anic description of Yad is not meant, but rather to imagine God as having tangible attributes such that one is able to physically point at the hand and then physically point at another part (which is in another location) and so on.

      The only difference between early and later Ash'aris is that the later ones engages more in Ta`wil in order to prevent misunderstanding (such as those of Ibn 'Uthaymin!), but their and actual default positon is to believe in all that which is mentioned in the book of Allah ta'ala while relegating its reality to Allah ta'ala.

      Anyways, I would like to post some statements by Ibn Taymiyya and then ask you how you understand his statements insha`Allah.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
        aMuslimForLife

        You might be interested in these articles:

        "The Arabic word “dhahir” has been commonly translated since what I like to call “the Englishization of Islamic dawah” in the western hemisphere as “literal”. I do not know if the Arabs of that time understood the implications of this mistake, but nonetheless, it is a mistake by which we seek forgiveness on all those who came before us. The reason why this is a mistake is due to several reasons...

        According to Ahlu-Sunnah, the meaning of dhahir is what is most obvious of the meaning of any phrase or construction of words i.e. what comes first to mind. This is essential to understand because in this definition, this can include a literal interpretation OR, and here is the myth breaker, a metaphorical interpretation. Which type of interpretation it can carry DEPENDS on the entire construct of the phrasal clause being used in the Arabic conveyance."

        https://theboriqeenotes.com/2019/08/...nni-discourse/

        "He then asserts that ibn taymiyyah has in-fact made t’awil in his explanation of the hadith of the slave girl asked by the Messenger ﷺ asking Allah’s whereabouts in which she responded with her finger pointing at the heavens, the linguistic portrayal being “fi sama” i.e. in the heavens. He asserts ibn taymiyyah’s explanation that “fi sama” means either

        -ala sama (above the heavens)

        -fil-‘uluw (in a position of highness)

        He assert this is the t’awil. We say, this is a faulty induction on your part because linguistically, the preposition “في” can mean “above, beyond, in, over”. Whichever meaning it takes depends on two factors

        -the construction of other words that locks in its meaning to a specific understanding

        -the subject being addressed.

        When it is asked “where is God”, right then and there the subject has already been defined. The subject is “Allah”. This then defacto would negate any meanings that contravene Qur’anic descriptives. Hence the default meaning is “ala” i.e. “above” or “beyond”.

        https://theboriqeenotes.com/2020/05/...bin-hamid-ali/
        What could have been excellent articles was distorted by his ignorance and misunderstanding of the Ashari approach.
        My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
          Anyways, I would like to post some statements by Ibn Taymiyya and then ask you how you understand his statements insha`Allah.
          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).
          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 07-06-20, 11:03 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
            aMuslimForLife

            You might be interested in these articles:

            "The Arabic word “dhahir” has been commonly translated since what I like to call “the Englishization of Islamic dawah” in the western hemisphere as “literal”. I do not know if the Arabs of that time understood the implications of this mistake, but nonetheless, it is a mistake by which we seek forgiveness on all those who came before us. The reason why this is a mistake is due to several reasons...

            According to Ahlu-Sunnah, the meaning of dhahir is what is most obvious of the meaning of any phrase or construction of words i.e. what comes first to mind. This is essential to understand because in this definition, this can include a literal interpretation OR, and here is the myth breaker, a metaphorical interpretation. Which type of interpretation it can carry DEPENDS on the entire construct of the phrasal clause being used in the Arabic conveyance."

            https://theboriqeenotes.com/2019/08/...nni-discourse/
            The problem I have with this particular blog is that he just rants about how Salafis understand dhahir like this or like that, blah blah blah, and how Asharis falsely accuse Salafis of this or that blah blah blah. It would have been a better blog if he would came to the realizations that madhabs, even scholars within madhabs, have their own terminology and sometimes different definitions of terms, and instead of bashing Asharis, and says, Asharis and Salafis agree on these things but use different terminology, which is where much of the confusion between Salafis and Asharis lies. Now that we understanding what we have in common, this is where Asharis and Salafis actually differ, and then the article would have shined had he brought clarity to where we actually differ, instead of further increasing the fitna between the Asharis and Salafis.

            In light of the article, I understand what Salafis mean when they say the take the Attributes ala dhahiri.

            This is what I posted on my blog some 7 years ago. This was part of an actual debate I was having with Salafi.

            BLOG

            (post has been slightly edited to bring clarity to its intent I added haqiqi and majaz.)

            Someone said, “My point was that you don’t have to insert the word ‘literal’ when you mean literal if the meaning is apparent. There is no difference between a hand and a literal hand because it depends on the apparent meaning or context. Likewise, you don’t have to explain a metaphorical hand if the metaphor is apparent (like you used).”So Allah doesn’t say ‘literal hand’ or ‘metaphorical hand’ but that doesn’t matter. The question is what is the apparent meaning when Allah said it?


            My Response:

            If we knew what was apparent, it wouldn’t be among the ambiguous verses. It is because we don’t know, that we have to remain silent concerning its meaning.

            Let’s take for example:

            “O Prophet! say to those who are captives in your hands:” (8:70)

            Are hands to be taken literal (haqiqi) or (majaz) metaphorically? What is apparent is that it refers to the (majaz) metaphorical meaning, ie power, control, possession etc, but it does NOT refer to the (haqiqi) literal meaning, ie the limb, the body part, part etc. because we know certain things about the Prophet, sallahu alayhi wa salam. One he is a man, a human being. So we know the true nature and reality of what is a man. It is impossible that the captives would be in the literal hands of the Prophet, sallahu alayhi wa salam.

            You take that same verse and change the words to this,

            “O Jibriel! say to those who are captives in your hands:”

            Are hands to be taken literal or metaphorically? If one is honest, we don’t know, why because, we don’t know the true nature and reality of an angel. It could be literal (haqiqi) or metaphorically (majaz) . So what is apparent isn’t clear, this would be ambiguous. If we liken angels to men, what is apparent is that we would say it is metaphorical.

            So with Allah, we cannot really determine what is apparent when dealing with those verses and hadith, because we don’t know the true nature and reality of Allah.

            This why tafwid is the safest position with regard to Allah, because Allah says, Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are….and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge. (7:33)

            And Allah knows best.


            END OF BLOG POST.

            https://baraka.wordpress.com/2013/05...aning-of-hand/

            I hope that makes sense.




            "He then asserts that ibn taymiyyah has in-fact made t’awil in his explanation of the hadith of the slave girl asked by the Messenger ﷺ asking Allah’s whereabouts in which she responded with her finger pointing at the heavens, the linguistic portrayal being “fi sama” i.e. in the heavens. He asserts ibn taymiyyah’s explanation that “fi sama” means either

            -ala sama (above the heavens)

            -fil-‘uluw (in a position of highness)

            He assert this is the t’awil. We say, this is a faulty induction on your part because linguistically, the preposition “في” can mean “above, beyond, in, over”. Whichever meaning it takes depends on two factors

            -the construction of other words that locks in its meaning to a specific understanding

            -the subject being addressed.

            When it is asked “where is God”, right then and there the subject has already been defined. The subject is “Allah”. This then defacto would negate any meanings that contravene Qur’anic descriptives. Hence the default meaning is “ala” i.e. “above” or “beyond”.

            https://theboriqeenotes.com/2020/05/...bin-hamid-ali/
            In Ashari terminology, taking the majaz meaning is typically termed tawil. Taking the haqiqi meaning is typically termed dhahir.

            However, in some text on Aqida, dhahir can also refer to as making tafwid or affirming the text or wording. In other books, dhahir can also be referred to as Salafis use it, contextual meaning or as Ali boreeqi translates as apparent meaning or obvious meaning..

            This is why it is important to study a text with a Shaykh who has an unbroken chain of transmitters back to the original author, so one can known the intent of the author.

            And Allah knows best.



            CONCLUSION: Ashari scholars are not ignorant of the Arabic language as Ali Borqeeri suggest. Asharis just have different terminology than Salafis.
            My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              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).
              None of us are able to comment on these statements without having read the entirety of Bayan Tablis and Dar at-Taa'rud in order to understand the philosophy of Ibn Taymiyyah. If your intention behind all of this is "shock value", then we already believe that Allah is literally Above the throne with His Being and can be perceived by the senses (i.e. our eyes) without our vision encompassing the entirety of His Essence. Allah will be seen in the direction "above" when the believers look at him just like the authentic reports from the Prophet(saws) indicate.
              Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 08-06-20, 02:37 PM. Reason: typo

              Comment


              • #52
                Abu Sulayman

                Can you provide any refernces of Salafi scholars affirming Yad as limb or claiming that limb is a possible meaning of Yad?

                Comment


                • #53
                  From Ibn Rajab's Fath al-Bari:

                  "Furthermore, the Salaf used to attribute the practice of making ta’wil of these verses and authentic hadiths to the Jahmiyyah, because Jahm and his disciples were the first ones to be well known for saying that Allah is absolved of the meanings indicated by these texts based on evidences from the intellects (of men) which they referred to as decisive evidences (adillah qat’iyyah). These they deemed to be muhkamaat, while they deemed the words of the Book and the Sunnah to be mutashabihat. Consequently, they subjected their contents to those fancies (of theirs). They accepted what they claim their evidences affirmed while they rejected what they claim their evidences negate. Then the remaining groups of Ahlul-Kalam, the Mu’tazilah and others, agreed with them in that.
                  They claimed that the apparent meanings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah are Tashbih, Tajsim, and misguidance (dhalal). From this, they derived names for those who believe in what Allah revealed to His Messenger for which Allah has revealed no authority. In fact, they are lies fabricated against Allah by which they drive people away from having faith in Allah and His Messenger.
                  They claimed that what has been mentioned of that in the Book and the Sunnah – as plentiful and widespread as (such texts) are – are just examples of approximate, allegorical speech (al-tawassu’ wal-tajawwuz). They are to be understood according to farfetched metaphorical explanations. This is one of the gravest forms of attack on the precise, pure Shari’ah. It is similar to the Batiniyyah’s interpretations of the texts concerning unseen matters such as Resurrection, Paradise, Hellfire as being allegorical and metaphorical rather than literal. They also interpret the texts of commands and prohibitions in a similar manner, and all of this constitutes renegading from the religion of Islam.
                  The scholars of the Salaf al-Salih and the Imams of Islam such as al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and others only prohibited al-Kalam and warned against it out of fear of falling into the likes of this. Furthermore, if these Imams had realized that understanding these texts according to their apparent meaning constitutes kufr, it would have been obligatory upon them to clarify that and warn the Ummah, as that is a necessary part of sincerity (nasiha) to the Muslims. Does it make sense that they would sincerely advise the Ummah concerning the laws governing deeds and yet neglect to sincerely advise them concerning fundamental beliefs. This is the worst sort of falsehood."
                  https://theboriqeenotes.com/2020/05/...ating-tashbih/

                  (It's not possible to organize the post into paragraphs. Read the article)
                  Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 08-06-20, 02:57 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    "The Attributes of Allah are real and not metaphorical. It’s not appropriate that the fundamentals of faith such as Attributes of Allah be revealed in vague language. But rather it is essential that these fundamentals of faith be revealed in clear and explicit manner since the Quran is the book of guidance and in clear Arabic.

                    The claim that atomism plays no role in making ta`wil of the Attributes is simply false; perhaps theone who made this claim is not aware of the intricacies of Ash`arite or Mutazilte theology. The very reason why the Ash`arites denied, for example, Allah’s nuzool (descent), or istiwa (rising over the throne), is because it clashed with their basic philosophical proof for the existence of God, which is wholly based upon the belief in atomism. For them, motion is an ‘accident’, and an ‘accident’ bydefinition must subside in a ‘body’ (which is composed of multiple atoms), and a ‘body’ has been proven to be created. Hence, to ascribe ‘motion’ to God would necessitate, based upon Ash`arite theology, that God was created. For the Ahl al-Sunnah, firstly ‘motion’ is a term that they do notdelve into with respect to God’s attributes –neither affirming it nor denying it, as this word or itsArabic equivalents are not used in the Divine Texts. Secondly, the philosophical premises that the Ash`arites use to arbitrarily deny what Allah and His Prophet have quite explicitly affirmed are notpremises that the Quran itself calls to. Rather, the Ahl al-Sunnah give greater precedence to the Divine Texts and take what Allah says about Himself without questioning ‘how can this be so?’ forindeed Allah is the One who said, ‘There is nothing like Him’. If there is nothing like Him, we should not compare Him to ‘accidents’ or ‘bodies’ but rather simply accept what He says about Himself."

                    https://www.academia.edu/9896840/Attribues_of_Allah

                    The Role of Atomism in the Groups of Kalam - Yasir Qadhi:

                    https://muslimmatters.org/2008/04/09...oups-of-kalam/

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                      [INDENT]From Ibn Rajab's Fath al-Bari:
                      The scholars of the Salaf al-Salih and the Imams of Islam such as al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and others only prohibited al-Kalam and warned against it out of fear of falling into the likes of this. Furthermore, if these Imams had realized that understanding these texts according to their apparent meaning constitutes kufr, it would have been obligatory upon them to clarify that and warn the Ummah, as that is a necessary part of sincerity (nasiha) to the Muslims. Does it make sense that they would sincerely advise the Ummah concerning the laws governing deeds and yet neglect to sincerely advise them concerning fundamental beliefs. This is the worst sort of falsehood."
                      https://theboriqeenotes.com/2020/05/...ating-tashbih/

                      (It's not possible to organize the post into paragraphs. Read the article)

                      the only problem with this translation is knowing what Ibn Rajab intended by Dhahir. Is it Dhahir (Apparent meaning - Salafi understanding) or Dhahir (affirm the text or wording - tradition Hanbali understanding)?

                      We will only know if we study with a shaykh with an unbroken of transmission of this text back to its author.

                      or we may never know, as this book was never finished, so there may not be a chain of transmission for this book...

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

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        aMuslimForLife

                        This article written by a Salafi confirms what I said earlier about general meanings" as opposed to "literal definitions":

                        ​"Often times the mufawwidah will try to legitimize tafwid of the meaning of an Attribute by asking for the definition of “Yadd” or “Wajh” or “Saaq,” for example, trying to get a person to make an anthropomorphic definition.

                        A person who does this has shown that they are not really trying to understand, but rather reflects the questioner’s motive for asking a yes/no type question and not allowing one to respond with any kind of explanation.

                        Imam al-Saffarini said,
                        ‘rather, we assent, submit, comply and believe in all of that and affirm it (i.e. Allah’s Eye), thereby affirming its existence (wujud) without affirming the nature (takyif) or a universal definition (tahdid)’




                        This quote shows that when we affirm a Hand for Allah, our affirmation only involves believing that Allah’s Hands exist. We do not affirm for Allah, any sort of takyif – howness, or any sort of tahdid – a universal definition.

                        We make tafweedh of the definition, but affirm the meaning, just as we make tafweedh of the definition of Life, Will, Hearing and Seeing for Allah, while literally affirming their meanings.

                        If a person asks for the ‘meaning’ of the word “Yadd” for example, then that is made tafwid of. If they ask for the linguistic meaning, then this is something known to anyone who speaks Arabic. If it did not have a meaning, then Allah’s statement about Adam, “whom I created with yaday (2 Hands)” would not be kalam grammatically, for kalam is only that which gives a meaning.

                        If they are trying to imply that ‘yad’ in Arabic only refers to jariha, i.e. a corporeal bodily limb, then that is only with reference to the ‘yad’ of a human being.

                        For the ‘yad’ of an angel or a jinn cannot be described as corporeal bodily limb. Rather, their ‘yad’, corresponds to their nature of existence, which we simply do not know.

                        If this is the case with the ‘yad’ of a jinn or an angel, then how about the ‘yad’ of the Creator of these Jinns and angels?

                        The conclusive principle that we consistently adhere to is this:

                        al-Kalamu fi al-sifat kal-kalami fi al-dhat.

                        Our approach to the divine Attributes, is consistent with our approach to the divine essence. Meaning, just as we affirm Allah’s essence (dhat) and existence, without knowing the kayf, we also affirm the existence of His Attributes, without knowing the kayf.

                        Thus we remain consistent through out our doctrine, being 100% faithful to the authentic legal texts, and completely confirming with the established rational truths.

                        The Ash’aris, on the other hand, who demand the meaning of ‘yad’ in Arabic, trying to force out ‘jariha’, or a ‘corporeal bodily limb’ from our mouths, we ask them exactly the same question about the Attributes they literally affirm for Allah.

                        They say that Allah has a Will.

                        We ask them: give us the meaning of a ‘Will’ in Arabic.

                        For ‘Will’, only refers to ‘inclination of one’s heart to either do or leave something’.

                        This is why the Mu’tazila accused the Ash’aris of anthropomorphism, because to them, the Ash’aris believed that Allah’s heart is inclined to do or leave something.

                        Hence, the Mu’tazila remained consistent with their rational thought.

                        The Ash’aris, on the other hand, in their attempt to fuse between the rationalist and the traditionalist thought, ended up affirming some Attributes, and denying others, and by time, their list of Allah’s Attributes became smaller, and smaller…

                        Ahlus Sunnah says Allah has two Hands.

                        The Ash’aris say: Hands are nothing but bodily limbs, if not, then please define to us ‘Hands’

                        We say, Hands are only bodily limbs with respect to human hands, for Jinns’ hands, or angels’ hands are of a different nature, and likewise, Allah’s Hands suite the nature of His existence."

                        https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...hs-attributes/

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          "Rather, we constantly state that our affirmation of Allah’s Attributes like Face and Hands is the affirmation of existence (wujud), and not affirmation of any definition (tahdid). Just as we literally believe that Allah exists, without giving his existence any definition. Hence, Allah’s Hands are no different to His existence.

                          It shuold be pointed out though, that the reason why the latter Ash’aris negated Wajh, ‘Ayn, etc and made ta’wil thereof, is due to Kalami principles that negating composition, divisiblity and multiplicity of eternal.

                          A Maturidi scholar (Zabidi al-Hanafi, d.~1200AH) mentioned,
                          Your saying, ‘we take it by its literal meaning, and it is incomprehensible’ is contradictory in itself. If you take by its literal meaning, then ‘as-saq’ mentioned in Suratal-Qalam (ayah 42), is a ‘shin’ which is a part made up of flesh, bones, muscle, and nerves. If you take by that the literal meaning, then you have committed blasphemy, and if you deny it, then how do you claim to take by the literal meaning?





                          The great Shafi’i traditionist al-Khattabi (d. 388AH) said about the texts pertaining to Allah’s Shin,
                          This Hadeeth is one where our scholars dreaded saying something, so they passed it on in accordance with the literal meaning of the wording (fa ajrawhu ‘ala dhahiri lafdhihi). They did not explore the depths of its meaning, in accordance with their Madhab of ceasing to give tafseer to anything the essence of which is not encompassed with knowledge (al-Asma wal-Sifat, al-Bayhaqi)





                          Again, to emphasize, the proper principle is to accept the literal meaning (dhahir) and to negate the modality (kayf)."

                          https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...​​​​

                          I'm still not convinced of the idea that the early Ash'aris and later Ash'aris held identical beliefs. The Ash'ari school is a polemical Madhhab which considers Taqlid in Aqeedah to be Haram. The later Ash'aris had to change their stances on Allah's Uluw and Sifat Khabariyya because they became aware of thebincompatibility of these beliefs with their metaphysics. It is not sufficient from a philosophical standpoint to simply say "God is attributed with such and such qualities without being a body". The Atheist philosophers aren't interested in what you believe. They want to know if what you believe rationally corresponds with the argument your using against them to prove that the universe is created.

                          The later Ash'aris parted ways with their predecessors on the affirmation of Two Hands because they were convinced these Sifat compromised Allah's indivisibility. They also changed their stance on Uluw bi-Dhatihi because of the intellectual complications they faced as a result of that. The later Ash'aris started to make explicit statements about how Allah's Uluw is only in relation to His status (Majaz) and not the reality of His Essence (Haqeeqi). It is not a mere difference in wording, because the fundamental implications of the belief no longer apply.

                          I'm willing to accept that the early Ash'aris were aware of some of the difficulties surrounding Allah's Istawa and Uluw. However, due to their marginalization and the consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah (Ahl al-Hadith/Atharis) on this issue they had no choice but to affirm it literally (bi-Dhatihi) in order to maintain a sense of legitimacy. If Fakhr al-Din ar-Razi(rah) lived during the time of the Salaf he would be condemned as heretic alongside Jahm Ibn Safwan. You simply could not challenge certain tenantslike Allah being Above the throne, the Sifat like Hands, or the Arabic Quran being the literal Speech of Allah without facing severe condemnation and being labeled a Jahmi.
                          Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 10-06-20, 11:41 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post


                            the only problem with this translation is knowing what Ibn Rajab intended by Dhahir. Is it Dhahir (Apparent meaning - Salafi understanding) or Dhahir (affirm the text or wording - tradition Hanbali understanding)?

                            We will only know if we study with a shaykh with an unbroken of transmission of this text back to its author.

                            or we may never know, as this book was never finished, so there may not be a chain of transmission for this book...

                            And Allah knows best.
                            The traditional Hanbali understanding of the Dhahir refers to the apparent meanings of the texts. Limiting the Dhahir to the outward letters of the texts without any meanings is from the methodology of Ahlul Kalam. The quote from Ibn Rajab is clearly referring to the apparent meanings because he claimed that the Salaf would have clarified this issue in detail had the Dhahir of the text implied Kufr and Tajsim. This idea could only make sense if he believed that the verses regarding Allah's Attributes had meanings that could be understood in the first place. Otherwise he should have said "the Dhahir is restricted to merely affirming the wordings in the texts without any meanings, so there is no potential for there to be Kufr or Tajsim and disputing this is matter pointless".

                            Ibn Qudamah explains the Hanbali understanding of Dhahir:

                            "​The second type: al-Dhahir (literal), and that is the meaning that comes first to the mind when uttered, while other meanings might also be possible. If you wish, you may say: That which has two possible meanings, one of them more obvious than the other"​​​​​​
                            He also said:

                            "If it is said: ‘You made ta’wil of verses and reports, for instance, you said with respect to Allah’s statement: ‘He is with you wherever you are’, meaning: with His knowledge, and the like of these verses and reports, and therefore, your arguments are as much applicable to you as us.
                            We say: We did not make ta’wil of anything, for to hold such texts in these meanings is not at all ta’wil, because ta’wil is to change the meaning of a word from its dhahir, and what we say here is the dhahir of the wording, that is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it is haqiqa or majaz."
                            I don't deny the existence of differences between Hanbalis and Salafis (be they semantic or Usooli). However, I don't think it's correct to describe their approach as merely affirming the letters of the narrations. Had that been the case then they wouldn't have reached a concensus on Allah's literal Uluw bi-Dhatihi or contradicted their principle by affirming the Istawa (Mutashabih Ayat) bi-Dhatihi. Rather, they would have cited 3:7/42:11 and claimed that the meanings are completely unknown and Haram for us to explain. Their responses to theological question wouldn't have exceeded the verbatim quoting of scriputre. However, contrary to this we found them not only affirming the Sifat but expounding upon their beliefs with terms not found in the Quran & Sunnah (bi Dhatihi, bi Haddin, Ba'in, Jiha, varitions of Fawq, Haqiqatan, etc).

                            The Salafi claim is that the meanings are known (understandable) and the kayf (how) are unknown. This position conforms with both Imam Malik's famous statement as well as the Ulama who said "without explanation/meaning/definition" in certain contexts. According to the Salafi-Atharis understanding there is a fundamental distinction between 'meaning' and 'modality' in the discussion of Allah's Attributes. The statement "we believe in Allah the way He described Himself without understanding their true meanings or ultimate reality" conforms with our beliefs in light of this methodology. It is not necessary for someone to articulate themselves exactly like how a Salafi in order to share exact beliefs. Just because you don't come across any Salafis using the phrase "without explanation or meaning" when teaching Aqeedah doesn't mean they would categorically disagree with the terms or the scholars who used them. The question of course becomes "what do they intend by those statements?"
                            Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 11-06-20, 09:36 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                              What is your view on people who say that making Khuruj againat the legitamate Muslim leader automatically makes you a Kharijee even if you don't hold the Aqeedah of the Khawarij (i.e. Make Takfir of major sins)? Do you guys have Sufi "Madkhalis" as well?
                              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                              Should have replaced this with "oppressive Muslim ruler" to avoid technicalities. I don't think those who make Khuruj consider the tyrant to be legitimate, despite not making Takfir of him.
                              I'm not a Sufi nor part of any Tariqa, so please don't try to force this label upon me. I do respect real Tasawwuf and real Sufiyya (like al-Harith al-Muhasibi (d. 243 AH), al-Junayd al-Baghdadi (d. 298 AH), 'Abd al-Qadir al-Geylani (d. 561 AH), etc.) but in our time there are many cultist groups with weird beliefs and practices claiming to be Sufis and I don't want to be associated with them.

                              Add to this: The "Salafis" have painted such a false and wrong picture of the Sufiyya such that people directly accuse them of Shirk (!) and Kufr (!), when they just hear the word "Sufi".
                              The ironic thing here is that the majority of the Hanabila - even their early ones! - were Sufiyya, yet "Salafis" have all this hate for them! Just shows to you that "Salafis" are far away from the Hanabila from every aspect!


                              As for the issue of Khuruj:

                              If the ruler is a legitimate [Muslim] ruler, then rebelling against him is forbidden and obeying him - as long as it's not a sinful action - is obligatory as it is famous from the Madhhab of the people of the Sunna.
                              If someone rebels against such a ruler, he does however not become automatically a Khariji.
                              Khawarij have specific descriptions in the Hadith and if these descriptions apply to a group, then they are labelled as Khawarij. The Najdis for example were Khawarij according to A`imma like Ibn 'Abidin ( 1252 AH), who was from al-Sham al-sharif - may Allah ta'ala help its people against all this oppression from all sides - and was attacked by the Najdis during his lifetime.
                              A person who rebels against the legitimate ruler - while the descriptions of the Khawarij do not apply to him - is regarded to be from the Bughat (rebels) and is to be faught until he stops. The best example for this is the battle of Siffin, where a group of people faught against the forces of our Master 'Ali bin Abi Talib - karramallahu wajhahu - and he applied the rulings of Bughat upon them. There is also a famous authentic Hadith (which are among the proofs of prophethood!), where it says that 'Ammar bin Yasir - radhiallahu 'anhu - will be killed by the rebellious group ('Ammar was martyred during the battle of Siffin).

                              As for the rulers today: Then they are not legitimate rulers in the first place and this does not necessitate that we're making Takfir upon them. The systems that are implemented in our countries today are not Islamic ones. I'm not saying here that they must be perfect and completely free of oppression in order to be regarded as legitimate, but the least one can expect is that the foundations for all laws in the state and its implementation is based upon the Shari'a (divine law) and its Maqasid (objectives).
                              As for Khuruj against these rulers: Since they're not legitimate from a Shar'i point of view, then Khuruj against them cannot be disallowed in itself. But the reason why our scholars disallow it anyways is that rebellion will most probably lead to more corruption in our countries and even anarchy, civil war and complete chaos (and the so called "Arab spring" is front everyone as an example for this!).

                              As for Madkhalis: Even though no group is free from government scholars, but I haven't seen that any group other than "Salafis" has a specific subgroup (i.e. Madhkhalis), which has turned the whole religion into defending these corrupt governments to the degree that some of these evil people even defend a criminal like Yazid and say that al-Hussayn - radhiallahu 'anhu - was wrong. Wallahu ta'ala al-musta'an.
                              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 11-06-20, 12:06 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                I'm not a Sufi nor part of any Tariqa, so please don't try to force this label upon me. I do respect real Tasawwuf and real Sufiyya (like al-Harith al-Muhasibi (d. 243 AH), al-Junayd al-Baghdadi (d. 298 AH), 'Abd al-Qadir al-Geylani (d. 561 AH), etc.) but in our time there are many cultist groups with weird beliefs and practices claiming to be Sufis and I don't want to be associated with them.

                                Add to this: The "Salafis" have painted such a false and wrong picture of the Sufiyya such that people directly accuse them of Shirk (!) and Kufr (!), when they just hear the word "Sufi".
                                The ironic thing here is that the majority of the Hanabila - even their early ones! - were Sufiyya, yet "Salafis" have all this hate for them! Just shows to you that "Salafis" are far away from the Hanabila from every aspect!
                                It wasn't my intention to slander or misrepresent you. I know you aren't part of a Tariqah or identify yourself as a Sufi. I only used the term for convenience sake with the intention of non-Salafi.

                                There are 2 general categories of Sunni Muslims: Sufis and Salafis. Obviously the reality on ground is more nuanced than that, but I have to refer to your faction as something and I refuse to grant you the honour of Sunni.

                                As for the issue of Khuruj:

                                If the ruler is a legitimate [Muslim] ruler, then rebelling against him is forbidden and obeying him - as long as it's not a sinful action - is obligatory as it is famous from the Madhhab of the people of the Sunna.
                                If someone rebels against such a ruler, he does however not become automatically a Khariji.
                                Khawarij have specific descriptions in the Hadith and if these descriptions apply to a group, then they are labelled as Khawarij. The Najdis for example were Khawarij according to A`imma like Ibn 'Abidin ( 1252 AH), who was from al-Sham al-sharif - may Allah ta'ala help its people against all this oppression from all sides - and was attacked by the Najdis during his lifetime.
                                A person who rebels against the legitimate ruler - while the descriptions of the Khawarij do not apply to him - is regarded to be from the Bughat (rebels) and is to be faught until he stops. The best example for this is the battle of Siffin, where a group of people faught against the forces of our Master 'Ali bin Abi Talib - karramallahu wajhahu - and he applied the rulings of Bughat upon them. There is also a famous authentic Hadith (which are among the proofs of prophethood!), where it says that 'Ammar bin Yasir - radhiallahu 'anhu - will be killed by the rebellious group ('Ammar was martyred during the battle of Siffin).
                                Tayyib.

                                As for Madkhalis: Even though no group is free from government scholars, but I haven't seen that any group other than "Salafis" has a specific subgroup (i.e. Madhkhalis), which has turned the whole religion into defending these corrupt governments to the degree that some of these evil people even defend a criminal like Yazid and say that al-Hussayn - radhiallahu 'anhu - was wrong. Wallahu ta'ala al-musta'an.
                                So there's not a "Sufi" or non-Salafi equivalent of the Madkhalis? How embarrassing. I wonder what makes these people so confident in following such an unpopular views. Perhaps what attracts them about it is the ammunition it provides for declaring others as deviants and Ahl al-Bid'ah. What is ironic is that their misapplication of Tabdee on what the dominant view classifies as Bughat is a clear cut error in Manhaj and renders them a Hizb. The problem with this group is not only that it holds nonsensical views but it obligates the same from its followers.

                                The reason why I brought this up is because it explains what the brother meant when you quoted him saying "The Sahabah made mistakes because the Hadiths didn't spread and the books of Aqa'id were not written yet". This statement is in reference to the phenomenon of Khuruj during the time of the Salaf and not regarding Allah's Names & Attributes.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X