Ads by Muslim Ad Network

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    Abu Sulayman
    Can you provide any refernces of Salafi scholars affirming Yad as limb or claiming that limb is a possible meaning of Yad?
    If you want "limb" (Jariha) as a term or word, then the way of the "Salafi" Mashayikh is quite obvious regarding this: They don't affirm or reject it.
    But if you intend the affirmation of a limb or part in meaning (!), then I've already quoted Ibn 'Uthaymin in Arabic (without translation) were he does argue that God has inseparable [and eternal] parts.


    Ibn 'Uthaymin himself does not see anything wrong in believing that God is a 3-dimensional being - i.e. with length, width and breadth - and that is why he said while arguing that Istiwa` means [sensory] (!) highness and settlement (!!!) ("وأهل السنة والجماعة يؤمنون بأن الله تعالى مستوى على عرشه استواء يليق بجلاله ولا يماثل استواء المخلوقين.فإن سألت: ما معنى الاستواء عندهم؟ فمعناه العلو والاستقرار") the following:

    وأما قولكم: إنه يلزم من تفسير الاستواء بالعلو أن يكون الله جسماً. فجوابه: كل شيء يلزم من كتاب الله وسنة رسوله - صلى الله عليه وسلم -، فهوحق، ويجب علينا أن نلتزم به، ولكن الشأن كل الشأن أن يكون هذا من لازم كلام الله ورسوله، لأنه قد يمنع أن يكون لازماً، فإذا ثبت أنه لازم، فليكن، ولا حرج علينا إذا قلنا به

    As for your statement: It becomes necessary from your explanation of the [divine] Istiwa` to mean [sensory] highness that Allah is a body (and this is wrong).
    Then the response is: Everything that is necessitated from the book of Allah and the Sunna of His Messenger - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, then it is the truth that we have to accept. But the issue - all the issue - is that this has to be from what is necessitated from the speech of Allah and His Messenger, because it is possible that it is not necessitated. So if it is established that it's necessitated, so be it (!) and there is no embarrassment if we say it.

    - end of quote -

    After the above statement he starts the typical "what do you intend by denying body? Do you intend that He has a Self and is described with attributes (which he accepts) or do you intend that He's composed from bones, flesh and blood (which he rejects)?"-argumentation, while completely ignoring the fact that his Sunni opponents do not deny that Allah ta'ala is described with the attributes of absolute perfection and that their denial of corporeality is not just the denial of God being composed from bones, flesh and blood, but also from being described with a Miqdar (size or volume) - or say length, width and breadth (i.e. the three dimensions) - in general. Why does he always ignore that?
    His way of argumentation is to hide his Tajsim (!) and he does not see any embarrassment or discomfiture in regarding corporeal existence of God as possible!!

    Add to this:
    It's not like the "Salafi" Mashayikh accept Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn as Ma'ani (meanings) subsisting in the divine Self, but rather as A'yan (tangible things) that make up the divine Self (i.e. the inseparable eternal parts that Ibn 'Uthaymin believes in!), Exalted is Allah ta'ala above what these pagan minded people believe!


    That is why al-Fawzan said the following in his distorsion upon Lum'at al-I'tiqad:

    فدلّ على أن قوله (بيديّ) تثنية يد حقيقية ، كما يفهم هذا من المعنى اللغوي والمعروف في الحس

    So this indicates that His statement { with my Yadayn } [38:75] [with using] the dual form of Yad (hand) is [intended] real (i.e. real hands are intended) JUST LIKE it can be understood from the meaning in the language and that which is known from the senses (!).
    - end of quote -

    That which is known from our senses?!? Exalted is Allah above this disbelief!


    Muhammad Khalil Harras wanted to make it even clearer and said the following (see in the footnotes):

    ومن أثبت الأصابع لله كيف ينفي عنه اليد، والأصابع جزء من اليد؟

    The one who has affirmed fingers for Allah, then how would he deny hand[s] regarding Him, while the fingers are a part of the hand?
    - end of quote -

    This is how these people speak regarding the Lords of the worlds and this should be enough as an indication that they don't know Allah ta'ala.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
      Muhammad Khalil Harras wanted to make it even clearer and said the following (see in the footnotes):

      ومن أثبت الأصابع لله كيف ينفي عنه اليد، والأصابع جزء من اليد؟

      The one who has affirmed fingers for Allah, then how would he deny hand[s] regarding Him, while the fingers are a part of the hand?
      - end of quote -

      This is how these people speak regarding the Lords of the worlds and this should be enough as an indication that they don't know Allah ta'ala.
      Harras also said:

      فإن القبض إنما يكون باليد الحقيقية لا بالنعمة ، فإن قالوا إن الباء هنا للسببية أي بسبب إرادته الإنعام ، قلنا لهم: بماذا قبض؟ فإن القبض محتاج إلى آلة، فلا مناص لهم

      Grasping happens through a real hand and not through favor (Ni'ma). So if they say that the [letter] "Ba`" here indicates causation meaning through His will of [granting] favors, we tell them: Through what did He grasp?
      Because graspings is in need of a tool (Ala), so there is no way out for them.

      - end of quote -

      A tool? So Yad has become a tool now regarding the Creator? Really?
      Like I already said: These "Salafi" Mashayikh believe that God is made of inseparable eternal parts, Exalted is Allah above what they believe!

      Now compare this with the statement of Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) - which has already been partly quoted (where he denies God to be body - i.e. something with length, width and breadth - and that those who worship bodies are idol worshipers) - in his Iljam al-'Awam:

      الوظيفة الأولى: التقديس ومعناه أنه إذا سمع اليد والإصبع وقوله صلى اللّه عليه وسلم" إنّ اللّه خمّر طينة آدم بيده. وإنّ قلب المؤمن بين إصبعين من أصابع الرّحمن"، فينبغي أن يعلم أن اليد تطلق لمعنيين أحدهما هو الموضع الأصلي وهو عضو مركب من لحم وعصب، واللحم والعظم والعصب جسم مخصوص وصفات مخصوصة أعني بالجسم عبارة عن مقدار له طول وعرض وعمق يمنع غيره من أن يوجد بحيث هو إلا بأن يتنحى عن ذلك المكان، (و قد يستعار هذا اللفظ) أعني اليد لمعنى آخر ليس ذلك المعنى بجسم أصلا كما يقال: البلدة في يد الأمير فإن ذلك مفهوم وإن كان الأمير مقطوع اليد مثلا فعلى العامي وغير العامي أن يتحقق قطعا ويقينا أنّ رسول اللّه صلى اللّه عليه وسلم لم يرد بذلك جسما هو عضو مركب من لحم ودم وعظم، وأن ذلك في حق اللّه تعالى محال وهو عنه مقدس، 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. سواء كان ذلك الجسم كثيفا كالجبال الصم الصلاب، أو لطيفا كالهواء والماء، وسواء كان مظلما كالأرض أو مشرقا كالشمس والقمر والكواكب. أو مشفا لا لون له كالهواء، أو عظيما كالعرش والكرسي والسماء، أو صغيرا كالذرة والهباء، أو جمادا كالحجارة، أو
      حيوانا كالإنسان. فالجسم صنم فإن يقدر حسنة وجماله أو عظمه أو صغره أو صلابته وبقاؤه لا يخرج عن كونه صنما، ومن نفى الجسمية عنه وعن يده وإصبعه فقد نفى العضوية واللحم والعصب وقدس الرب جل جلاله عما يوجب الحدوث، وليعتقد بعده أنه عبارة عن معنى من المعاني ليس بجسم ولا عرض في جسم يليق ذلك المعنى بالله تعالى، فإن كان لا يدري ذلك المعنى ولا يفهم كنه حقيقته فليس عليه في ذلك تكليف أصلا، فمعرفة تأويله ومعناه ليس بواجب عليه بل واجب عليه أن لا يخوض فيه كما سيأتي
      - end of quote -

      So he mentions those texts where Asabi' and Yad is mentioned regarding Allah ta'ala and he mentions that it is obligatory to deny corporeality regarding them and THEN to believe that it's an expression for a meaning - that is neither a body nor an accident subsisting in a body - that is befitting of Allah ta'ala.

      So he's actually affirming Yad as a divine attribute, but denies corporeality regarding it.
      So it becomes known that the attack of "Salafis" against Ash'aris is because they deny corporeality, while "Salafi" Mashayikh do believe in corporeality in meaning (forget about the wording)!
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 11-06-20, 04:31 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

        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.
        It's not like the quotes that I mentioned from his Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya are the only problematic statements, rather the whole book is problematic.
        You can go and check the context of the quotes I posted and read whole sections and you'll see that it will only get worse.
        Remember that this book is written against a work that was intended as refutation of those who regard God to be corporeal. This is basically like writing a work that is intended as a refutation of atheists.

        What is done in this book is that it’s argued from all sides that God must be something with a volume or size - or say with length, width and breadth - and that otherwise He could not exist.

        Note that "Salafi" Mashayikh themselves believe in this and that is why Haitham Hamdan - the admin of the English "ahlalhdeeth" forum - explicitly affirmed size (!!!) (see HERE), when he was asked regarding a statement of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH).

        Note that I'm not writing this in order to attack Ibn Taymiyya, but I just want to show that he had problematic statements and that one should therefore stop turning him OR those who [try] to follow him as judges upon this Umma.
        This behavior is simply unacceptable! Scholars like al-Tabari (d. 310 AH), al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH), Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari (d. 324 AH), Abu Bakr al-Isma'ili (d. 371 AH) and others do not need the "okay" of Ibn Taymiyya to deny corporeality regarding Allah ta’ala (and they have explicitly done so in works that "Salafis" claim to support!) such that "Salafi" Mashayikh criticise them for disagreeing with a person, who was not even born yet!

        You know when one is trying to turn him into the judge in these issues, then it’s as if someone turns Ibn 'Arabi's (d. 638 AH) statements on Wahdat al-Wujud as a judge upon this Umma.

        As for the issue of the beatific vision, then it’s accepted without Ihata (encompassing) and Kafiyya (modality) as explicitly stated by Imam al-Tahawi. (I'll quote him insha`Allah.)
        You adding words like "above" or "entirety" is from your own pocket. It’s not like the people of paradise are going to see something with a length, width and breadth such that you use these terms, rather they will see the One, who has created whatever is in the heavens and the earth.
        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 11-06-20, 07:42 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
          As for the issue of the beatific vision, then it’s accepted without Ihata (encompassing) and Kayfiyya (modality) as explicitly stated by Imam al-Tahawi. (I'll quote him insha`Allah.)
          You adding words like "above" or "entirety" is from your own pocket. It’s not like the people of paradise are going to see something with a length, width and breadth such that you use these terms, rather they will see the One, who has created whatever is in the heavens and the earth.
          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) - the following:

          والرؤية حق لأهل الجنة بغير إحاطة ولا كيفية، كما نطق به كتاب ربنا: ( وجوه يومئذ ناضرة إلى ربها ناظرة )، وتفسيره على ما أراده الله تعالى وعَلِمَه، وكل ما جاء في ذلك من الحديث الصحيح عن الرسول ﷺ فهو كما قال، ومعناه على ما أراد لا ندخل في ذلك متأولين بآرائنا، ولا متوهمين بأهوائنا، فإنه ما سلم في دينه إلا من سلَّم لله عز وجل ولرسوله ﷺ، ورَدَّ عِلْم ما اشتبه عليه إلى عالمه.
          ولا يثبت قدم الإسلام إلا على ظهر التسليم والاستسلام، فمن رام عِلْمَ ما حُظِر عنه علمه، ولم يقنع بالتسليم فهمه، حجبه مرامه عن خالص التوحيد، وصافي المعرفة، وصحيح الإيمان، فيتذبذب بين الكفر والإيمان، والتصديق والتكذيب، والإقرار والإنكار، موسوسا تائها، زائغا شاكا، لا مؤمنا مصدقا، ولا جاحدا مكذبا.
          ولا يصح الإيمان بالرؤية لأهل دار السلام لمن اعتبرها منهم بوهم، أو تأولها بفهم، إذا كان تأويل الرؤية وتأويل كل معنى يضاف إلى الربوبية بترك التأويل ولزوم التسليم، وعليه دين المسلمين.
          ومن لم يتوَقَّ النفي والتشبيه زل ولم يصب التنزيه، فإن ربنا جل وعلا موصوف بصفات الوحدانية، منعوت بنعوت الفردانية، ليس في معناه أحد من البرية.
          وتعالى عن الحدود والغايات، والأركان والأعضاء والأدوات، لا تحويه الجهات الست كسائر المبتدعات


          The beatific Vision is a reality for the people of Paradise without enclosure or modality, just as the Book of God pronounces, Some faces will be aglow that day, gazing at their Lord (75:22-23). Its explanation is as God, the Sublime and Exalted, knows it to be and as He intended.
          All that came [to us] from the Messenger ﷺ in the authentic hadith is just as he said it was, and the meaning is as he intended. We do not interpret any of it to accord with our opinions, nor do we presume any of it to accord with our whims.
          No one is secure in his religion unless he resigns himself to God, the Sublime and Exalted, and His Messenger ﷺ and consigns whatever obscures his understanding to the One who knows its meaning.
          One’s footing in Islam is not firm save on the ground of resignation and surrender.
          Whoever covets knowledge that was barred from him, discontented with the limits of his understanding, shall be veiled from pure unity, unadulterated comprehension, and sound faith on account of his covetousness. He will then vacillate between belief and disbelief, assertion and negation, and resolution and denial. Observe, aimless, skeptical, and deviant, he is neither an assertive believer nor a resolute denier.
          Belief in the Beatific Vision of the denizens of Paradise is incorrect for anyone who surmises that is imaginary or interprets it to be a type of comprehension. For correct interpretation of the Beatific Vision – or any quality annexed to Lordship – lies in leaving interpretation and cleaving to resignation. Upon this are based the religion of the Muslims and the sacred laws of the prophets.
          Whoever does not guard against denying [God’s attributes] and against anthropomorphism has erred and failed to acquire understanding of divine transcendence.
          For undoubtedly, our Lord, the Sublime and Exalted, is described with the attributes of unity and uniqueness. No one in creation is in any way like Him.
          He is transcendent beyond limits, ends, supports, components, or instruments. The six directions do not contain Him as they do created things.

          - end of quote -

          Note how Imam al-Tahawi accepts the divine texts as they are without adding to them any additional meaning or interpretation nor does he take away anything from these texts away.
          He ends the section by declaring Allah ta’ala transcendent from corporeal descriptions.

          The one with intellect will understand why he chose this context to declare Allah ta’ala trancendent from bodily descriptions and that the claim found in Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya that seeing God necessitates him to be a body is false and a result of trying to imagine the reality of Allah ta’ala, which is not allowed and beyond our comprehension.
          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 12-06-20, 08:53 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
            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)
            Someone should tell Abuz Zubair to stop trying to hijack our scholars!
            The mentioned scholar did not say "literal meaning", but rather the outward of its wording.

            In the very quote above he differentiated between Dhahir al-Lafdh and Batin al-Ma'na, which is obviously the Madhhab of Tafwidh!
            The same scholar also allows Ta`wil, if there is a necessity to do so.

            Let us now refer to him to understand the reality of the issue.


            The way of the early Muslims regarding the divine attributes

            Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) said in his A'lam al-Hadith (p. 1907) the following in the context of a Hadith where Qadam (literally: foot) is mentioned in relation to Allah ta’ala:

            وكان أبو عبيد ، وهو أحد أئمة أهل العلم ، يقول : نحن نروي هذه الأحاديث ولا نريغ لها المعاني

            Abū ‘Ubayd [al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 224 H)] – who was one of the imāms from the people of knowledge – would say: We narrate these hadīths and we do not search for meanings for them.
            - end of quote -

            The above is the Madhhab of Tafwidh and the way of the early Muslims - the companions and their direct followers - and the correct way and the way to success.

            Imam al-Khattabi continued by saying:

            ونحن أحرى بأن لا نتقدم فيما تأخر عنه من هو أكثر علما وأقدم زمانا وسنا

            We are more worthy of not advancing into that which those with more knowledge and more senior in era and age retreated from.

            - end of quote -


            The exaggeration that happened from two groups in different directions and the reasoning behind Ta`wil

            Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi continued by saying:

            ولكن الزمان الذي نحن فيه قد صار أهله حزبين : منكر لما يروى من نوع هذه الأحاديث رأسا ، ومكذب به أصلا ، وفي ذلك تكذيب العلماء الذين رووا هذه الأحاديث وهم أئمة الدين ونقلة السنن ، والواسطة بيننا وبين رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، والطائفة الأخرى مسلمة للرواية فيها ذاهبة في تحقيق الظاهر منها مذهبا يكاد يفضي بهم إلى القول بالتشبيه ونحن نرغب عن الأمرين معا ، ولا نرضى بواحد منهما مذهبا ، فيحق علينا أن نطلب لما يرد من هذه الأحاديث إذا صحت من طريق النقل والسند ، تأويلا يخرج على معاني أصول الدين ، ومذاهب العلماء ، ولا نبطل الرواية فيها أصلا ، إذا كانت طرقها مرضية ونقلتها عدولا

            However, the time that which we are in, its people have evolved into two camps:
            the denier of what has been narrated of these hadīths entirely and a belier of them completely and in this is [entailed] accusing the scholars who narrated these hadīths of lying, while they are the imāms of religion, the transmitters of the sunnahs and the intermediaries between us and the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace);
            and the second group accept the narration of them, adopting a path in actualising the outward of them which almost leads them to tashbīh.
            We are averse to both approaches, and we are not pleased with either of them as a methodology.
            Thus, it is necessary for us to search – with respect to the hadīths that have been transmitted when authentic in terms of transmission and chain – for an interpretation that emerges on the basis of the principles of the foundations of religion and the views of the scholars, and we do not nullify their narration completely when their routes are accepted and their transmitters righteous.

            - end of quote -


            Differentiating between dealing with Yad / Wajh / 'Ayn and Rijl / Qadam / Saq:

            Imam al-Khattabi then said (p. 1911):

            فإن قيل : فهلا تأولت اليد والوجه على هذا النوع من التأويل ، وجعلت الأسماء فيهما أمثالا كذلك ؟ فإن قيل : إن هذه الصفات مذكورة في كتاب الله عز وجل بأسمائها ، وهي صفات مدح ، والأصل أن كل صفة جاء بها الكتاب أو صحت بأخبار التواتر أو رويت من طريق الآحاد وكان لها أصل في الكتاب ، أو خرجت على بعض معانيه فإنا نقول بها ونجريها على ظاهرها من غير تكييف ، وما لم يكن له في الكتاب ذكر ، ولا في التواتر أصل ، ولا له بمعاني الكتاب تعلق ، وكان مجيئه من طريق الآحاد وأفضى بنا القول إذا أجريناه على ظاهره إلى التشبيه فإنا نتأوله على معنى يحتمله الكلام ويزول معه معنى التشبيه ، وهذا هو الفرق بين ما جاء من ذكر القدم والرجل والساق ، وبين اليد والوجه والعين ، وبالله العصمة

            If it is said: Why do you not interpret hand and face in this manner of interpretation, and consider these terms metaphors likewise?
            It will be said: These attributes are mentioned in the Book of Allāh (Exalted is He) with their names, and they are attributes of praise, and the default is that every attribute mentioned in the Book and are authentic by reports of continuous transmission or narrated through the route of solitary reporters but has a basis in the Book or emerges from some of its principles, then we profess it and we let it proceed on its outward, without giving it a modality.
            And that which does not have any mention in the Book, nor a basis in continuous transmission and has no connection to the principles of the Book, and were we to let it proceed on its outward, it would lead [some people] to tashbīh, we will interpret it with a meaning which the speech accommodates and by which the meaning of tashbīh will be eliminated.
            This is the difference between what has been transmitted of the mention of foot, leg and shin [on the one hand] and hand, face and eye [on the other].

            - end of quote -


            How to understand the Yad of Allah ta’ala as an example

            Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi said (p. 2347):

            وليس معنى اليد عندنا الجارحة وإنما هي صفة جاء بها التوقيف فنحن نطلقها على ما جاءت ولا نكيفها وننتهي إلى حيث انتهى بها الكتاب والأخبار الصحيحة وهو مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة

            The meaning of yad (hand) according to us is not a physical appendage [as is its literal meaning]. Rather, it is an attribute brought forth by restraint [at the text]. Thus, we let it proceed as it has come, and we do not give it a modality, and we hold back to where the Book and the authentically transmitted reports kept us. This is the way of Ahlus Sunnah wa l- Jamā‘ah.

            - end of quote -

            Now compare the above with what Abuz Zubair claimed and see the big difference!

            (Note: Translation of all quotes taken from here: The Divine Attributes: Ahlus Sunnah vs. Mujassimah)
            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 12-06-20, 10:28 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              I posted this reply in this thread, as it is most appropriate subject matter.

              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

              Trust is a strong word. The beliefs I hold in creed aren't merely based on Taqlid or dependent on any Salafi scholar. I strongly sympathize with the Athari methodology of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah(ra) and believe that it most accurately represents the creed of the Salaf. This is what essentially binds me to the Salafi Mashayikh and the contemporary Salafi movement.

              I don't believe that Allah revealed or even preserved the Hanbali Madhhab. Let us agree for the sake of argument that the "traditional/mainstream" Hanbali scholars differed with the Salafis and actually believed in Tafwid. This does not necessitate that their viewpoint is the truth or that we are obliged to follow them. At the end of the day what is more important than conforming with the "traditional Hanbali scholars" is following Imam Ahmad(ra) himself and the Salaf as-Salih.

              There's a difference of opinion amongst Salafis regarding the theological inclinations of Ibn Qudama(ra). I'm of the view that he was not a blameworthy/extreme Mufaawid despite some of his seemingly problematic statements. In any case, what this example demonstrates is that Salafis do not consider the Haqq/orthodoxy as resting upon the shoulders of Ibn Qudama. Ibn Qudama could actually be criticized for his alleged deviations in Aqeedah without it effecting the Salafi narrative of the Athari creed. One should also note that Lumatul Itiqad is absolutely consistent with the Salafi/Athari understanding.

              On the previous page I briefly pointed out that the rise of Tafwid and the gradual "Ash'arization" of the Hanbali Madhhab just before Ibn Taymiyyah's prominence was a byproduct of the political dominance of Ash'arism and the influence of the Nizamiyya. It is not farfetched to assume that the Hanbali scholars were pressured into reforming aspects of their theology in order to lessen the tensions between them and the new mainstream denomination. There are historical examples of the Ash'ari elite imprisoning certain Hanbali scholars who did not toe the line on what they deemed to be acceptable Hanbali interpretations.
              You also believe that tafwid is a byproduct of Ilm Kalam, and then Ashari/Maturidi looked for proofs for tafwid in the Quran and Sunnah. One reason that I have a problem with this narrative is that I arrived at the conclusion of tafwid while a Salafi before I became an Ashari. The only thing that I knew about Asharism at the time was tawil and Ilm kalam, as this is what Salafis taught, and probably still teach. I don’t know how the Salafi dawah teaches new Salafis now, but when I was new Salafi, I wasn’t taught, yad haqiqatan (real hand or literal hand) or yad al Dhahiri (literal hand). This is something I was taught later, and rejected it because it didn’t make sense. If you read many of my arguments against Salafi Aqida, they aren’t arguments that were taught to me by Ashari scholars, these are arguments that came from me, based on an usul that I learned from the Salafis.

              The Salafis have done an excellent job in marketing that Asharis are this anti-Quran and Sunnah entity whose creed is based solely on ilm kalam, but have done a horrible job in proving that their creed conforms to the Quran, Sunnah and the way of the Salaf, which is why I am NOT Salafi. Salafi Aqida is very contradictory at there is no consistency in it.

              When I was Salafi, initially in Salafi Aqida, I was taught to take the Attributes as they are without going into how. If Allah says He has a Hand, we affirm that He has a Hand, without going into how. We don’t do what the Asharis and Mutazilah do and make tawil, and say Allah hand is power. I was also taught that Allah is above the Throne, and everywhere with His knowledge. We follow the Salaf, the first three generations, the Sahaba, the tabieen, and the tabi tabieen. There is no difference of opinion in matters of Aqida. This is a summary of what I was taught initially in Salafi Aqida. [To me this is closer to tafwid than it is to haqiqatan] I know you think, I back project tafwid of the Asharis onto the Salaf, but I do not. My rejection of ala Dhahiri and haqiqatan came from my Salafi education. When I was taught ala dhahiri and haqiqatan, I rejected it on the basis that I did NOT find the Salaf saying such, in reality or in meaning.

              Also the Salafi environment I was reared in was very anti-taqlid and anti-madhab. One does not blindly follow the scholars, that included Salafi scholars. Like I could NOT say, “I follow this opinion because Bin Baz said it was ok”, or “Al Albani said it was ok” or “Ibn Uthaymeen said it was ok.” You better have some daleel. Everyday you went to a Salafi masjid, it was a test if you did something different than what the other Salafi brothers were doing at that particular Salafi masjid, you better have some Quran and Sunnah to defend it. I had the mentality that I had to follow the Quran and Sunnah. So everything I did and believed in, it had to be defendable, at least from my perspective. I had to be able to hold my ground. This mentality along with the anti-taqlid mentality was probably instrumental in me leaving Salafism. Salafism as a whole is very incoherent. It makes sense in the beginning, because you don’t know anything.

              Where does this addition “haqiqatan” come from? It doesn’t come from the Salaf. It doesn’t come from the Quran and Sunnah. Where does it comes from? The proof that the creed of the Salafi Dawah is NOT the creed of the Salaf, can be summarized, as such, The Salaf did NOT say, that Allah has a Yad haqiqatan (a literal hand, a real hand). Nor did they say Allah has a yad ala Dhahiri (Literal Hand). You can play semantic roller coaster with someone else, but, when Salafis say, “Allah has a hand ala Dhahiri”, they intend the haqiqi meaning ie the literal meaning. To translate dhahir as obvious or apparent when speaking about the yad of Allah, is pure deception. It is not being honest.

              Allah says, Do not ascribe purity to yourself; He knows who fears Him.” (53:32)

              Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “By Him in whose hand is my soul, if you did not sin, Allah would replace you with people who would sin and they would seek forgiveness from Allah and He would forgive them.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)

              Salafis like to walk around as if their Aqida is “pure Athari Aqida straight from the Salaf untainted.” But when you study their creed from an objective perspective you know that this is far from the truth. Yes, the Asharis and Maturidis were influenced by Ilm Kalam. I am not going to deny that Ilm Kalam did have some influence on the Asharis and Maturidis. BUT, I cannot ignore the influence of fabricated hadiths on the Athari/Hanbali madhab of Aqida. Allah plagued the Athari/Hanbalis with fabricated hadiths. A proof of this is Kitab al-sunna [The book of the sunna] a book falsely attributed to Imam Ahmad’s son Abdullah (d. 290/903), a book filled with fabricated hadith. al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la - who is one of the most important scholars in the Madhhab - used a lot of baseless narration in his Ibtal al-Ta`wilat. Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s Ijtima‘ al-juyush al-Islamiyya [The meeting of the Islamic armies] a book filled with fabricated hadiths. Ibn Jawzi wrote a book against these anthropomorphic Hanbalis, and accuse them of using fabricated hadiths, and presented some of these fabricated hadiths that these Hanbalis used in matters of Aqida.

              What lead Hanbalis to using fabricated hadiths? In my view there two sound answers.

              1. The Decree of Allah: Allah decreed it. This cannot be denied for Allah decrees everything. The question is why did Allah decree it?

              I came across this hadith qudsi.
              Allah says, “He who is hostile to a friend (Wali) of Mine, I declare war against.” (Bukhari)

              And if you go to war with Allah, who do you think is going to win?

              There were two great awliyaullah (pl. of wali – friends of Allah) of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah, who the Hanbalis were hostile toward. These two awilya were the preservers of the religion, namely Imam al Tabari, preserver of the Quran and its meanings as understood by the Salaf. And Imam Bukhari, preservers of the most authentic narrations of the Sunnah. If you think about it, that’s the Quran and Sunnah. And because of Hanbalis’ hostility toward the awliyaullah (the friends of Allah), I believe Allah plagued their madhab of Aqida with fabricated hadiths.

              2. There was a time when Asharis and Hanbalis shared the same creed, or you could say their expression of creed was very similar. They would say that the Hand of Allah is an Attribute. And that the Speech of Allah proceeded from Allah, uncreated. (ie Allah speaking with “letters” and “without letters” were later developments within both madhabs). Asharis would venture into Ilm kalam and tawil as a way to explain the unclear verses and hadiths pertaining to Allah’s Attributes. And Hanbalis wanted a way to explain these similar verses but disliked the use of ilm kalam and tawil, to them this was similar to using ra’y (opinion) as oppose to the Quran and Sunnah. Since Imam Ahmad was opposed Qiyas (analogy) in fiqh, because it to was similar to using ra’y (opinion), Imam Ahmad decided to use weak hadith. He used weak hadith because they aren’t necessarily fabricated they just cannot be authenticated by a certain criteria. Hanbalis had a culture of using weak hadiths (ie from their madhab of fiqh) and naturally felt it was ok to use weak hadiths to explain the unclear verses and hadiths pertaining to Allah’s Attributes. However, the difference between Imam Ahmad and many Hanbalis, Imam Ahmad was a muhadith par excellence, while many Hanbalis were not, so in their quest to use weak hadith, some leading Hanbalis utilized fabricated hadith without realizing it. Allah veiled hadith authentication from them, and thus caused them to fabricated hadiths.There is a big difference between Ilm Kalam and fabricated hadiths. Although Ilm Kalam was prohibited by the vast majority of the Salaf, it is NOT prohibited by the Quran and Sunnah. Fabricated hadith however is prohibited by the Quran, Sunnah and ijma (consensus). I cannot think of any scholar who permitted the use of fabricated hadiths.

              Ibn Taymiyyah emphasized Yad haqiqatan. And it did not come from the Salaf (early Muslims). One has to ask themselves, where does the emphasizes for yad haqiqatan, and ala Dhahiri in Salafi Aqida come from? I don't understand where the emphasis of “haqiqatan” comes from, when I read the Quran and Sunnah and the early statements of the Salaf, I don’t see “haqiqatan” or “ala dhahiri” literally or in meaning. One has to ask themselves, after studying the statements of the Salaf, would one walk away with the impression that they intended yad Haqiqatan (Allah having a real Hand or a literal hand) for the Hand (yad) of Allah? I doubt it.

              For example,


              "Ibn Wahb says, I heard Malik say, "Whoever recites "The Hand of Allah" (3:73)(5:64)(48:10)(57:29) and indicates his hand or recites "The eye of Allah" (20:39)(11:37)(23:27)(52:48)(54:14) and indicates that organ of his: let it be cut off to disciple him over Divine Sacredness and Transcendence above what he has compared Him to, and above his own comparison to Him. Both his life and the limb he compared to Allah are cuff off." (Ibn al Arabi al Maliki, Ahkam al Quran)

              I doubt the one who walked out of that majlis would be saying or believing Allah has a yad Haqiqatan (a real Hand or a literal hand).

              One would walk out such a majlis saying, what
              Imam Shafi (d. 204 AH) said, “I believe in Allah, according to what came from Allah, according to what Allah intended. And I believe in the Messenger of Allah, according to what came from the Messenger of Allah, according to what the Messenger of Allah intended., peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.” (Ibn Qudamah in Lam’at al Itiqad)

              Or what Imam Shafi's student Imam al Humaydi said, “All that the Quran and Hadiths said, such as "The Jews say, the Hand of Allah is fettered. Their own hands are fettered."(5:64) "And the heavens are rolled up in His right hand." (39:67) and similar texts in the Quran and the hadith. We add nothing to them nor do we explain them. Rather, we stop exactly where the Quran and the Sunna stopped. You must say, "The Merciful established Himself over the Throne." (20:5). Whoever claims other than this is a Jahmi nullifier." (Al Humaydi's Musnad)


              Where does this emphasizes for Haqiqatan come from?


              The answer, is that it comes from anthropomorphic Hanbali Aqida, whose Aqida was influenced by fabricated Hadith. Ibn Jawzi mentions the anthropomorphism in his madhab.

              Ibn Jawzi said, “I have observed that some of members of the (Hanbali) school have taken positions on matters of usul that are not acceptable. Among them there are three persons, namely Abu Abd Allah b Hamid, his disciples the Qadi (Abu Yala), ad Ibn Zaghuni, who have detailed (their views) in writing and whose books have brought shame on the school. In my view they have descended to the level of the vulgar masses (awamm) by interpreting (texts from the Quran and the hadsith bearing on) the Divine attributes (sifat) in accordance with the requirements of sense perception (ala muqtada al hiss). Thus when they learn that Allah created Adam in his own “form” (sura), they conclude that Allah has a form consisting of a face (wajh), which (they say is an attribute) added to His essence (zaid ala al dhati), two eyes, a mouth, a uvula, molars, a forehead bearing the marks of prostration (subuhat), two hands, fingers – even a little finger a thumb – a chest and a thigh, two legs and two feet, but they add: “We know of no reference to a head.” (Ibn Jawzi – Kitab Akbar Sifat)

              Some fabricated narrations used by these Hanbali that Ibn Jawzi observed:

              “According to Umm Tufayl, wife of Ubayy (b. Ka’b), the Prophet reported that he saw his Lord in a dream in the form (sura) of a most handsome, dignified young man (shabb muwaqqar); His legs were covered by a green garment, He hand gold sandals on His feet and His head was surrounded by moths of gold.” (Fabricated, Ibn Jawzi, Kitab Akbar Sifat)

              Ubayd Allah B. Abi Salama reported that Ibn Umar once sent a message to Abd Allah Bin Abbas asking him whether Muhammad had seen his Lord. He replied in the affirmative, whereupon (Ibn Umar) sent inquiring of the details (Ibn Abbas) replied, “He saw Him in the form of a young man sitting on a Throne of gold born by four angels.” (Fabricated, Ibn Jawzi, Kitab Akbar Sifat)

              The Prophet is reported as having said, “I saw my Lord, and He had short curly hair, was beardless and wore a green-colored garment.” (Fabricated, Ibn Jawzi – Kitab Akbar Sifat)

              It seems to me, Ibn Taymiyyah sought to unanthropomorphize anthropomorphic Hanbali Aqida. This why you see hints of anthropomorphism, throughout his creed. Like why only affirm two hands for Allah, when Allah mentions His Hand in the singular, dual and plural (more than three)???

              Singular: “Lo! The bounty is in Allah’s Hand.” (yad) (3:73)
              Dual: “That which I have created with both my Hands.” (38:75)
              Plural: “We built the heaven with Our Hands (aydin).” (51:47)

              I am NOT saying Ibn Taymiyyah was an anthropomorphist, because he didn’t intend such. But what I am saying is that Ibn Taymiyyah’s creed was influenced by these Hanbalis who used fabricated hadiths in matters of Aqida. Because there are statements that seem broader line anthropomorphic, it seems wise not to teach his creed as there are better text on Athari Aqida text that have already been written such as Ibn Qudamah al Hanbali’s Lumat al Itiqad, or al Balbani al Hanbali’s Qala’id al Iqyan.

              Ibn Taymiyyah use of Ilm Kalam in Aqida, in my opinion, is that he sought to "unanthropomorphize" anthropomorphic Hanbal Aqida. He actually did what Salafis accuse Asharis of doing. He knew their Aqida was based on fabricated hadiths, so he looked into the Quran and authentic Sunnah to try and justify this baseless creed which was derived from fabricated hadiths. This is why one finds a lot of contradictions in Salafi Aqida.

              The scholars you referenced as being authoritative in the Hanbali/Salafi thread were either contemporaneous to Ibn Taymiyyah or from the latter generations. As such, none of them would be considered "authoritative" in the eyes of Ibn Taymiyyah himself. The Hanbalis prior to that era had relatively major disagreements in the Usool of Aqeedah along with different perceptions of Imam Ahmad(ra). One could easily argue that the proposed "mainstream Hanabila" didn't necessarily see eye-to-eye with another either. This is despite the fact that some of the later contributors to the Madhhab might have attempted to reconcile their differences and declare the variant trends to be complimentary.

              Anyways the point I'm trying to make is that what developed and became the "traditional" Hanbali school was put together by fallible scholars in the latter centuries and does not necessarily represent the exact views of Imam Ahmad(ra) or the Salaf on every issue. However, there's no denying that it is the most orthodox Madhhab in Aqeedah and closest to the truth. Unfortunately we don't have many Athari resources in the English language outside of what the Salafis have to offer. I would definitely be interested in studying the history of the Madhhab in more detail for myself.

              Lastly, I'm not really buying the whole unbroken Isnad back to the classical Ulama concept. I recall overhearing some knowledgeable brothers disputing the authenticity of those chains and the deception surrounding the Asaneed of the Suffiyyah in modern times.
              I guess the thing for me is how improbable it is for someone to have a direct chain of Lumatul Itiqad back to Ibn Qudama himself. Like what does that even mean? Does this only refer to having "permission" to teach the book or did they preserve Ibn Qudama's personal Tafsir as well? If the Isnad is merely an Ijaza to teach the book then I don't necessarily find this intriguing. However, if they claim to possess the actual interpretation of Ibn Qudama himself then that would be worth verifying.

              Wa Allahu Alam


              What does it mean to be connected to the Ulama with an unbroken chain?

              For one, it is the Sunnah. It is the Sunnah to be connected with an unbroken chain back to the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa salam). It is how Islam was transmitted and preserved.

              Two, it is a norm amongst traditional Sunni scholarship to have an unbroken chain transmitters back to the author. So, highly probable. There are unbroken chains of transmission of Aqida Tahawi, in which you can learn that text, exactly how it was taught. I am not saying that everybody who teaches Aqida Tahawi, teaches exactly the way Imam Tahawi was taught it. But there are shaykhs who know how it was taught by the Imam himself.

              Three, in regards to Lumat ul Itiqad. Without doubt there are unbroken chains of this text to Imam Ibn Qudamah. And you can learn it exactly how the Imam taught. There are actually three versions that the Imam actually wrote and taught.
              1. Imam Muhammad Ibn Al Khabbaz, (this version is rare but what makes this text significant is that the narrators of this text are comprised of chief Hanbali Qadis.)
              2. Imam Umar Ibn Ghazai Ibn Al al Maqdisi. (This is the most popular version).
              3. Shaikha Fatimah al Wasitiyyah (this version is also rare, what make this version unique is that there are a lot of commentary notes in it.)

              In a traditional Hanbali setting you would learn all three. (as a student of knowledge)

              Why don’t you seek a traditional Hanbali scholar out? Study with them. Seek out Shaykh Abu Jafar al Hanbali. I believe he is in England.

              And Allah knows best.
              Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 12-07-20, 08:29 PM.
              My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

              Comment


              • #67
                I would like to add several points to what the brother aMuslimForLife said in reponse to the brother AmantuBillahi:

                Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                Trust is a strong word. The beliefs I hold in creed aren't merely based on Taqlid or dependent on any Salafi scholar. I strongly sympathize with the Athari methodology of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah(ra) and believe that it most accurately represents the creed of the Salaf. This is what essentially binds me to the Salafi Mashayikh and the contemporary Salafi movement.

                I don't believe that Allah revealed or even preserved the Hanbali Madhhab. Let us agree for the sake of argument that the "traditional/mainstream" Hanbali scholars differed with the Salafis and actually believed in Tafwid. This does not necessitate that their viewpoint is the truth or that we are obliged to follow them. At the end of the day what is more important than conforming with the "traditional Hanbali scholars" is following Imam Ahmad(ra) himself and the Salaf as-Salih.

                There's a difference of opinion amongst Salafis regarding the theological inclinations of Ibn Qudama(ra). I'm of the view that he was not a blameworthy/extreme Mufaawid despite some of his seemingly problematic statements. In any case, what this example demonstrates is that Salafis do not consider the Haqq/orthodoxy as resting upon the shoulders of Ibn Qudama. Ibn Qudama could actually be criticized for his alleged deviations in Aqeedah without it effecting the Salafi narrative of the Athari creed. One should also note that Lumatul Itiqad is absolutely consistent with the Salafi/Athari understanding.

                On the previous page I briefly pointed out that the rise of Tafwid and the gradual "Ash'arization" of the Hanbali Madhhab just before Ibn Taymiyyah's prominence was a byproduct of the political dominance of Ash'arism and the influence of the Nizamiyya. It is not farfetched to assume that the Hanbali scholars were pressured into reforming aspects of their theology in order to lessen the tensions between them and the new mainstream denomination. There are historical examples of the Ash'ari elite imprisoning certain Hanbali scholars who did not toe the line on what they deemed to be acceptable Hanbali interpretations.
                The scholars you referenced as being authoritative in the Hanbali/Salafi thread were either contemporaneous to Ibn Taymiyyah or from the latter generations. As such, none of them would be considered "authoritative" in the eyes of Ibn Taymiyyah himself. The Hanbalis prior to that era had relatively major disagreements in the Usool of Aqeedah along with different perceptions of Imam Ahmad(ra). One could easily argue that the proposed "mainstream Hanabila" didn't necessarily see eye-to-eye with another either. This is despite the fact that some of the later contributors to the Madhhab might have attempted to reconcile their differences and declare the variant trends to be complimentary.

                Anyways the point I'm trying to make is that what developed and became the "traditional" Hanbali school was put together by fallible scholars in the latter centuries and does not necessarily represent the exact views of Imam Ahmad(ra) or the Salaf on every issue. However, there's no denying that it is the most orthodox Madhhab in Aqeedah and closest to the truth. Unfortunately we don't have many Athari resources in the English language outside of what the Salafis have to offer. I would definitely be interested in studying the history of the Madhhab in more detail for myself.

                Lastly, I'm not really buying the whole unbroken Isnad back to the classical Ulama concept. I recall overhearing some knowledgeable brothers disputing the authenticity of those chains and the deception surrounding the Asaneed of the Suffiyyah in modern times.
                I guess the thing for me is how improbable it is for someone to have a direct chain of Lumatul Itiqad back to Ibn Qudama himself. Like what does that even mean? Does this only refer to having "permission" to teach the book or did they preserve Ibn Qudama's personal Tafsir as well? If the Isnad is merely an Ijaza to teach the book then I don't necessarily find this intriguing. However, if they claim to possess the actual interpretation of Ibn Qudama himself then that would be worth verifying.

                Wa Allahu Alam

                - The 4 Madhhahib are not revealed by Allah ta'ala, BUT they are preserved by Him and they are representative of the understanding of the scholars of the Sahabat al-kiram - radhiallahu 'anhum ajma'in - and this is the position of major Hanabila like Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) and Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH)
                - Imam Ibn Rajab has specifically a book against those who follow other than the 4 Madhhahib and this with the knowledge that basically none of the other 3 Madhhahib followed the Hanbali creed during his time, which means that he regarded them (i.e. Ash'aris and Maturidis) as Sunnis also
                - I agree with you regarding the prohibition of Taqlid in creed, but this does not mean that one should hold positions in very detailed issues without having knowledge of all the proofs regarding it. For the laymen the knowledge of the general and great issues of creed is more than enough. Those who are trying to oblige people of more than that have clearly erred. This is why Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505) has specifically wrote a book why laymen should stay away from 'Ilm al-Kalam and this is why Imam Ibn Qudama criticized those among the Mutakallimin, who wanted to oblige people to know Kalami issues. In our day and age "Salafis" are doing a similar thing by obliging people to know detailed issues, which they themselves have not even got right in the first place!
                - The issue of chain of knowledge (Isnad) and the issue of permission to teach (Ijaza) is basically what makes Islam different from all other religions! This is how the religion was preserved through the help of Allah ta'ala! It's true that some people in our time give out Ijazat as if it's a game, but this does not mean that the concept itself is wrong or that the classical scholars were also guilty of this! You would be surprised how for example classical Hanabila gave out an Ijaza to their students. They did it in a written and detailed form, clearly showing you the importance of this issue!
                - Basically NONE of the Hanabila before the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and even after him (with the exception of IT direct followers) have criticized Ash'aris for Tafwidh! In fact Tafwidh can be found EXPLICITLY in the words of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) himself and in the creedal books of the Hanabila before and after Ibn Taymiyya! They criticized the Ash'aris mainly for Ta`wil! This should be more than enough for you to understand that attacking Tafwidh is something that the absolute majority of the Hanabila would not have accepted!
                - Even when the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya attacked Tafwidh and called its followers as Ahl al-Tajhil, he did not even intend his Hanbali colleagues (who performed Tafwidh), because they did not engage in Ta`wil and their words were in affirmation of the Sifat al-Khabariyya while making Tafwidh!
                - We know with ABSOLUTE certainty that Imam Ibn Qudama's creed is different to that of Ibn Taymiyya. During Ibn Qudama's discussions regarding the issue of the speech of Allah (some of these discussions are translated into English, but others - which are also very important - are not) it becomes crystal clear for example that he does not believe that God is subject to changes or having temporality in Him (i.e. Hulul al-Hawadith!) and he has no problem denying some of the bodily descriptions regarding Allah ta'ala. These are two of the main issues, where Ibn Taymiyya disagreed with almost all Hanabila!
                - Imam Ibn Qudama said for example that the speech of Allah is without Ta'aqub (following eachother) of the letters and words (remember that in every human language following eachother of the words and letters is necessary!) and it's obvious that this entails the rejection of Hulul al-Hawadith. He also clarified that with "sounds", they only intend that God's speech can be heard (a position that Ash'aris accept!) and not something like the need for having tools, which produce sound waves!
                Add to this: He emphasized very very much that the Qur`an is neither created (Makhluq), nor emergent (Muhdath), nor Hadith (new)! This is something that you will also find explicitly stated by basically all Hanbalis before and after him. Yet we see that Ibn Taymiyya did actually disagree on this and claimed that it's Muhdath and Ghary Makhluq at the same time thereby disagreeing with both: Hanbalis and Ash'aris!
                - In the other thread I mentioned al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) - who was way before Ibn Taymiyya; not Ibn Taymiyya nor any other Hanbali will deny his great status in the Madhhab - and Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) - a senior to Ibn Taymiyya: when he died Ibn Taymiyya had newly begun to divert from his Hanbali colleagues in creedal and other issues - and I could give many more (like for example Imam al-Kawadhani (d. 510 AH) and many others)! There is clearly a creed which the absolute majority of them have been upon throughout all centuries!
                - Add to this: Al-'Ayn wal Athar and Qala`id al-'Iqyan are both based upon Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in and the Hanabila in the time of the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) would teach these books alongside Lum'at al-I'tiqad! And they had an unbroken Isnad and an Ijaza for all these books!
                Imam Ibn Hamdan easily quotes from the major Hanbali scholars before him in creedal issues, which means that he had studied ALL of their books!
                In the end of Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in it is explicitly stated that most of the issues mentioned in his text are based upon the EXPLICIT statements of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) himself (!) and many of it have been hinted towards it by the Imam!
                Now no one will be able to deny that this was indeed the case and that is why the Hanbali Fuqaha` - when they would quote him regarding a creedal issue - would quote him as representative of the creed of Imam Ahmad himself!
                - These Hanbali scholars - whom you're trying to indirectly accuse of ignorance regarding the creed of their own Imam! - were in possession of books that has not even reached us! And they studied directly from the students of Imam Ahmad and their students and their students and so on. Don't think that anyone with "google search" will be superior to them in knowing the Madhhab of Imam Ahmad in 'Aqida and Fiqh!
                - Your claim of "Ash'arization" of their Madhhab is completely unacceptable and you have no proof for this claim whatsoever! If this would be the case, then the first one to clarify this would be Imam Ibn Qudama! He attacked Imam Ibn 'Aqil (d. 513 AH) in the harshest of manners for diverting from the Hanbali creed on some issues and being influenced by the Mutakallimin and this while he knew that he repented from this! Do you really think, he would have stayed silent, if what you say would be true?
                -That which is obligatory upon us is to follow the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and we mention the companions and their followers and the major scholars of Islam, because they were the inheritors of the Prophetic knowledge and understood our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in the best manner.
                - Differences in finer issue of creed have always existed among the people of the Sunna! There is for example clearly a difference on finer issues between Imam Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) and Imam Ahmad (d. 241). This includes issues like the exact definition of Iman and even the issue of Harf wa Sawt! So the Maturidis are nearer to the creed of Imam Abu Hanifa than the Hanabila and the Hanabila are nearer to the creed of Imam Ahmad than the Maturidis! Only one who does not know how the scholars have attained knowledge will deny this!

                If you're interested in studying the Hanbali Madhhab more, I would advice you the Shaykh Yusuf al-Sadiq al-Hanbali since his English is good and he can tell you which works you should start with and so. And as the Shaykh himself said (paraphrased): Study for some years and then you'll know by yourself who is nearer to the real Hanbali Madhhab and who not.

                Wallahu ta'ala a'lam.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by aMuslimForLife View Post
                  I posted this reply in this thread, as it is most appropriate subject matter.



                  You also believe that tafwid is a byproduct of Ilm Kalam, and then Ashari/Maturidi looked for proofs for tafwid in the Quran and Sunnah. One reason that I have a problem with this narrative is that I arrived at the conclusion of tafwid while a Salafi before I became an Ashari. The only thing that I knew about Asharism at the time was tawil and Ilm kalam, as this is what Salafis taught, and probably still teach. I don’t know how the Salafi dawah teaches new Salafis now, but when I was new Salafi, I wasn’t taught, yad haqiqatan (real hand or literal hand) or yad al Dhahiri (literal hand). This is something I was taught later, and rejected it because it didn’t make sense. If you read many of my arguments against Salafi Aqida, they aren’t arguments that were taught to me by Ashari scholars, these are arguments that came from me, based on an usul that I learned from the Salafis.

                  The Salafis have done an excellent job in marketing that Asharis are this anti-Quran and Sunnah entity whose creed is based solely on ilm kalam, but have done a horrible job in proving that their creed conforms to the Quran, Sunnah and the way of the Salaf, which is why I am NOT Salafi. Salafi Aqida is very contradictory at there is no consistency in it.

                  When I was Salafi, initially in Salafi Aqida, I was taught to take the Attributes as they are without going into how. If Allah says He has a Hand, we affirm that He has a Hand, without going into how. We don’t do what the Asharis and Mutazilah do and make tawil, and say Allah hand is power. I was also taught that Allah is above the Throne, and everywhere with His knowledge. We follow the Salaf, the first three generations, the Sahaba, the tabieen, and the tabi tabieen. There is no difference of opinion in matters of Aqida. This is a summary of what I was taught initially in Salafi Aqida. [To me this is closer to tafwid than it is to haqiqatan] I know you think, I back project tafwid of the Asharis onto the Salaf, but I do not. My rejection of ala Dhahiri and haqiqatan came from my Salafi education. When I was taught ala dhahiri and haqiqatan, I rejected it on the basis that I did NOT find the Salaf saying such, in reality or in meaning.

                  Also the Salafi environment I was reared in was very anti-taqlid and anti-madhab. One does not blindly follow the scholars, that included Salafi scholars. Like I could NOT say, “I follow this opinion because Bin Baz said it was ok”, or “Al Albani said it was ok” or “Ibn Uthaymeen said it was ok.” You better have some daleel. Everyday you went to a Salafi masjid, it was a test if you did something different than what the other Salafi brothers were doing at that particular Salafi masjid, you better have some Quran and Sunnah to defend it. I had the mentality that I had to follow the Quran and Sunnah. So everything I did and believed in, it had to be defendable, at least from my perspective. I had to be able to hold my ground. This mentality along with the anti-taqlid mentality was probably instrumental in me leaving Salafism. Salafism as a whole is very incoherent. It makes sense in the beginning, because you don’t know anything.

                  Where does this addition “haqiqatan” come from? It doesn’t come from the Salaf. It doesn’t come from the Quran and Sunnah. Where does it comes from? The proof that the creed of the Salafi Dawah is NOT the creed of the Salaf, can be summarized, as such, The Salaf did NOT say, that Allah has a Yad haqiqatan (a literal hand, a real hand). Nor did they say Allah has a yad ala Dhahiri (Literal Hand). You can play semantic roller coaster with someone else, but, when Salafis say, “Allah has a hand ala Dhahiri”, they intend the haqiqi meaning ie the literal meaning. To translate dhahir as obvious or apparent when speaking about the yad of Allah, is pure deception. It is not being honest.

                  Allah says, Do not ascribe purity to yourself; He knows who fears Him.” (53:32)

                  Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “By Him in whose hand is my soul, if you did not sin, Allah would replace you with people who would sin and they would seek forgiveness from Allah and He would forgive them.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)

                  Salafis like to walk around as if their Aqida is “pure Athari Aqida straight from the Salaf untainted.” But when you study their creed from an objective perspective you know that this is far from the truth. Yes, the Asharis and Maturidis were influenced by Ilm Kalam. I am not going to deny that Ilm Kalam did have some influence on the Asharis and Maturidis. BUT, I cannot ignore the influence of fabricated hadiths on the Athari/Hanbali madhab of Aqida. Allah plagued the Athari/Hanbalis with fabricated hadiths. A proof of this is Kitab al-sunna [The book of the sunna] a book falsely attributed to Imam Ahmad’s son Abdullah (d. 290/903), a book filled with fabricated hadith. al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la - who is one of the most important scholars in the Madhhab - used a lot of baseless narration in his Ibtal al-Ta`wilat. Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s Ijtima‘ al-juyush al-Islamiyya [The meeting of the Islamic armies] a book filled with fabricated hadiths. Ibn Jawzi wrote a book against these anthropomorphic Hanbalis, and accuse them of using fabricated hadiths, and presented some of these fabricated hadiths that these Hanbalis used in matters of Aqida.

                  What lead Hanbalis to using fabricated hadiths? In my view there two sound answers.

                  1. The Decree of Allah: Allah decreed it. This cannot be denied for Allah decrees everything. The question is why did Allah decree it?

                  I came across this hadith qudsi.
                  Allah says, “He who is hostile to a friend (Wali) of Mine, I declare war against.” (Bukhari)

                  And if you go to war with Allah, who do you think is going to win?

                  There were two great awliyaullah (pl. of wali – friends of Allah) of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah, who the Hanbalis were hostile toward. These two awilya were the preservers of the religion, namely Imam al Tabari, preserver of the Quran and its meanings as understood by the Salaf. And Imam Bukhari, preservers of the most authentic narrations of the Sunnah. If you think about it, that’s the Quran and Sunnah. And because of Hanbalis’ hostility toward the awliyaullah (the friends of Allah), I believe Allah plagued their madhab of Aqida with fabricated hadiths.

                  2. There was a time when Asharis and Hanbalis shared the same creed, or you could say their expression of creed was very similar. They would say that the Hand of Allah is an Attribute. And that the Speech of Allah proceeded from Allah, uncreated. (ie Allah speaking with “letters” and “without letters” were later developments within both madhabs). Asharis would venture into Ilm kalam and tawil as a way to explain the unclear verses and hadiths pertaining to Allah’s Attributes. And Hanbalis wanted a way to explain these similar verses but disliked the use of ilm kalam and tawil, to them this was similar to using ra’y (opinion) as oppose to the Quran and Sunnah. Since Imam Ahmad was opposed Qiyas (analogy) in fiqh, because it to was similar to using ra’y (opinion), Imam Ahmad decided to use weak hadith. He used weak hadith because they aren’t necessarily fabricated they just cannot be authenticated by a certain criteria. Hanbalis had a culture of using weak hadiths (ie from their madhab of fiqh) and naturally felt it was ok to use weak hadiths to explain the unclear verses and hadiths pertaining to Allah’s Attributes. However, the difference between Imam Ahmad and many Hanbalis, Imam Ahmad was a muhadith par excellence, while many Hanbalis were not, so in their quest to use weak hadith, some leading Hanbalis utilized fabricated hadith without realizing it. Allah veiled hadith authentication from them, and thus caused them to fabricated hadiths.There is a big difference between Ilm Kalam and fabricated hadiths. Although Ilm Kalam was prohibited by the vast majority of the Salaf, it is NOT prohibited by the Quran and Sunnah. Fabricated hadith however is prohibited by the Quran, Sunnah and ijma (consensus). I cannot think of any scholar who permitted the use of fabricated hadiths.

                  Ibn Taymiyyah emphasized Yad haqiqatan. And it did not come from the Salaf (early Muslims). One has to ask themselves, where does the emphasizes for yad haqiqatan, and ala Dhahiri in Salafi Aqida come from? I don't understand where the emphasis of “haqiqatan” comes from, when I read the Quran and Sunnah and the early statements of the Salaf, I don’t see “haqiqatan” or “ala dhahiri” literally or in meaning. One has to ask themselves, after studying the statements of the Salaf, would one walk away with the impression that they intended yad Haqiqatan (Allah having a real Hand or a literal hand) for the Hand (yad) of Allah? I doubt it.

                  For example,


                  "Ibn Wahb says, I heard Malik say, "Whoever recites "The Hand of Allah" (3:73)(5:64)(48:10)(57:29) and indicates his hand or recites "The eye of Allah" (20:39)(11:37)(23:27)(52:48)(54:14) and indicates that organ of his: let it be cut off to disciple him over Divine Sacredness and Transcendence above what he has compared Him to, and above his own comparison to Him. Both his life and the limb he compared to Allah are cuff off." (Ibn al Arabi al Maliki, Ahkam al Quran)

                  I doubt the one who walked out of that majlis would be saying or believing Allah has a yad Haqiqatan (a real Hand or a literal hand).

                  One would walk out such a majlis saying, what
                  Imam Shafi (d. 204 AH) said, “I believe in Allah, according to what came from Allah, according to what Allah intended. And I believe in the Messenger of Allah, according to what came from the Messenger of Allah, according to what the Messenger of Allah intended., peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.” (Ibn Qudamah in Lam’at al Itiqad)

                  Or what Imam Shafi's student Imam al Humaydi said, “All that the Quran and Hadiths said, such as "The Jews say, the Hand of Allah is fettered. Their own hands are fettered."(5:64) "And the heavens are rolled up in His right hand." (39:67) and similar texts in the Quran and the hadith. We add nothing to them nor do we explain them. Rather, we stop exactly where the Quran and the Sunna stopped. You must say, "The Merciful established Himself over the Throne." (20:5). Whoever claims other than this is a Jahmi nullifier." (Al Humaydi's Musnad)


                  Where does this emphasizes for Haqiqatan come from?


                  The answer, is that it comes from anthropomorphic Hanbali Aqida, whose Aqida was influenced by fabricated Hadith. Ibn Jawzi mentions the anthropomorphism in his madhab.

                  Ibn Jawzi said, “I have observed that some of members of the (Hanbali) school have taken positions on matters of usul that are not acceptable. Among them there are three persons, namely Abu Abd Allah b Hamid, his disciples the Qadi (Abu Yala), ad Ibn Zaghuni, who have detailed (their views) in writing and whose books have brought shame on the school. In my view they have descended to the level of the vulgar masses (awamm) by interpreting (texts from the Quran and the hadsith bearing on) the Divine attributes (sifat) in accordance with the requirements of sense perception (ala muqtada al hiss). Thus when they learn that Allah created Adam in his own “form” (sura), they conclude that Allah has a form consisting of a face (wajh), which (they say is an attribute) added to His essence (zaid ala al dhati), two eyes, a mouth, a uvula, molars, a forehead bearing the marks of prostration (subuhat), two hands, fingers – even a little finger a thumb – a chest and a thigh, two legs and two feet, but they add: “We know of no reference to a head.” (Ibn Jawzi – Kitab Akbar Sifat)

                  Some fabricated narrations used by these Hanbali that Ibn Jawzi observed:

                  “According to Umm Tufayl, wife of Ubayy (b. Ka’b), the Prophet reported that he saw his Lord in a dream in the form (sura) of a most handsome, dignified young man (shabb muwaqqar); His legs were covered by a green garment, He hand gold sandals on His feet and His head was surrounded by moths of gold.” (Fabricated, Ibn Jawzi, Kitab Akbar Sifat)

                  Ubayd Allah B. Abi Salama reported that Ibn Umar once sent a message to Abd Allah Bin Abbas asking him whether Muhammad had seen his Lord. He replied in the affirmative, whereupon (Ibn Umar) sent inquiring of the details (Ibn Abbas) replied, “He saw Him in the form of a young man sitting on a Throne of gold born by four angels.” (Fabricated, Ibn Jawzi, Kitab Akbar Sifat)

                  The Prophet is reported as having said, “I saw my Lord, and He had short curly hair, was beardless and wore a green-colored garment.” (Fabricated, Ibn Jawzi – Kitab Akbar Sifat)

                  It seems to me, Ibn Taymiyyah sought to unanthropomorphize anthropomorphic Hanbali Aqida. This why you see hints of anthropomorphism, throughout his creed. Like why only affirm two hands for Allah, when Allah mentions His Hand in the singular, dual and plural (more than three)???

                  Singular: “Lo! The bounty is in Allah’s Hand.” (yad) (3:73)
                  Dual: “That which I have created with both my Hands.” (38:75)
                  Plural: “We built the heaven with Our Hands (aydin).” (51:47)

                  I am NOT saying Ibn Taymiyyah was an anthropomorphist, because he didn’t intend such. But what I am saying is that Ibn Taymiyyah’s creed was influenced by these Hanbalis who used fabricated hadiths in matters of Aqida. Because there are statements that seem broader line anthropomorphic, it seems wise not to teach his creed as there are better text on Athari Aqida text that have already been written such as Ibn Qudamah al Hanbali’s Lumat al Itiqad, or al Balbani al Hanbali’s Qala’id al Iqyan.

                  Ibn Taymiyyah use of Ilm Kalam in Aqida, in my opinion, is that he sought to "unanthropomorphize" anthropomorphic Hanbal Aqida. He actually did what Salafis accuse Asharis of doing. He knew their Aqida was based on fabricated hadiths, so he looked into the Quran and authentic Sunnah to try and justify this baseless creed which was derived from fabricated hadiths. This is why one finds a lot of contradictions in Salafi Aqida.



                  What does it mean to be connected to the Ulama with an unbroken chain?

                  For one, it is the Sunnah. It is the Sunnah to be connected with an unbroken chain back to the Prophet (sallahu alayhi wa salam). It is how Islam was transmitted and preserved.

                  Two, it is a norm amongst traditional Sunni scholarship to have an unbroken chain transmitters back to the author. So, highly probable. There are unbroken chains of transmission of Aqida Tahawi, in which you can learn that text, exactly how it was taught. I am not saying that everybody who teaches Aqida Tahawi, teaches exactly the way Imam Tahawi was taught it. But there are shaykhs who know how it was taught by the Imam himself.

                  Three, in regards to Lumat ul Itiqad. Without doubt there are unbroken chains of this text to Imam Ibn Qudamah. And you can learn it exactly how the Imam taught. There are actually three versions that the Imam actually wrote and taught.
                  1. Imam Muhammad Ibn Al Khabbaz, (this version is rare but what makes this text significant is that the narrators of this text are comprised of chief Hanbali Qadis.)
                  2. Imam Umar Ibn Ghazai Ibn Al al Maqdisi. (This is the most popular version).
                  3. Shaikha Fatimah al Wasitiyyah (this version is also rare, what make this version unique is that there are a lot of commentary notes in it.)

                  In a traditional Hanbali setting you would learn all three. (as a student of knowledge)

                  Why don’t you seek a traditional Hanbali scholar out? Study with them. Seek out Shaykh Abu Jafar al Hanbali. I believe he is in England.

                  And Allah knows best.

                  Almost the whole religion is transmitted by ashaa'ira and/or sufis. Is there even just 1 hadith with a transmitter not from aforementioned? See for yourself...

                  http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=5621

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                    Since the issue of this thread is Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), I think we should concentrate on the above.


                    The importance of denying corporeality regarding the Creator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

                    What would you know expect him to say after the above statement? He should now say that this meaning (i.e. having a volume/size or having the three dimensions, i.e. length, width and depth) does not apply to Allah ta'ala (thereby silencing anyone who claims him to be a Mujassim!), but this is not what he did.
                    Let us see what he said.
                    In Bayaan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah, ibn Taymiyyah says:
                    And those who say that He is a jism are of two types.
                    the first: and this is the saying of their scholars, {‘He is a jism (form) but not like the created forms’, just as it is said an essence (dhaat) unlike other essences, and characterized by attributes but unlike other characterizations, established by Himself but not like other things that establish and maintain itself, an entity (shai) but not like other entities”.} So these (those who use jism with these meanings) are saying “He is as His reality is without resembling other than Him from any aspect whatsoever.
                    However, this is an affirmation that He has an “extent” by which He is distinguished from, just as when we say (He is) characterized by Attributes,’ this is an affirmation of the reality of being on account of which something is distinguished (from other than it) and this is from among the requisites of every existing thing.
                    as for al-jism as al-qaa’im bi nafsi he stated in Manhaj as-Sunnah
                    And whoever says ‘He is a jism’ then this is well known from the karamiyyah and other than them from amongst those who say ‘He is a jism’. Then that is to be explained to mean that He exists or that He is established by Himself (al-qaa’im bi nafsihi) NOT THAT HE IS COMPOSITE (jismul-aqsamuhu). And the people are agreed upon the fact that whoever says “He is a jism” and intends THIS PARTICULAR MEANING (the meaning of al-qaa’im bi nafsihi), then he is correct in the meaning and whoever declared such a one to have erred only did so on account of the wording used(and not the meaning applied)


                    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                    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.
                    I'm shocked at the amount of assumptions you have made here, you are implying he means something very different to what you intended. What Ibn Taymiyyah does regular (from what i see) is refuting the kalaam logic with their own logic.

                    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                    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).
                    You have got to be joking, he is not saying that Allah a volume and size.

                    There occurs Majmoo' ul-Fataawaa (5/262), a question posed to Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, under the chapter heading, "Issue: The one who believes in al-jihah (for Allaah), is He an innovator or a disbeliever?":

                    "As for the one who believed in al-jihah (for Allaah), then if he believes that Allaah is within the created beings, being contained by the created things, and being encompassed by the heavens, such that some of the created things are above Him and some of them are beneath Him, then he is a straying innovator. Likewise, if he believes that Allaah is in need of anything to carry Him - [in need] of the Throne and other than it - then he is also a straying innovator.
                    And likewise, if he made the attributes of Allaah to be like the attributes of the creatures, saying: The istiwaa (ascent) of Allaah is like the ascent of the creation, or His Nuzool (descent) is like the descent of the creation and what is like this, then he is a straying innovator.
                    For verily, the Book and the Sunnah, alongside [sound] intellect indicate that nothing from the created things are like Allaah in anything from the affairs, and they indicate that Allaah is free of need (ghaniyy) from everything, and they indicate that Allaah is separate from the created things, exalted, high above them.
                    And if he believes that the Creator, the Exalted, is separate and distinct (baa'in) from the created things, and that He is above His heavens, over His Throne, separate from His creatures, and that there is nothing from His essence inside the creatures, and that nothing from the creatures are inside His essence, and that Allaah is free of need of the Throne and everything that is besides it, not being dependent upon anything from the creatures - rather that He, alongside His istiwaa over the Throne, carries the Throne and the carrieres of the Throne with His power, and he does not liken the istiwaa of Allaah with the istiwaa of the creatures. Rather, he affirms for Allaah what He affirmed for Himself of Names and Attributes, and negates from Him any likeness to the creatures, and he knows that there is no likeness unto Allaah, neither in His Essence, His Attributes or His Actions, then such a one is correct in his belief, in agreement with the Salaf of the Ummah and its leading scholars."


                    I don't even need to reply to you, you are trying to understand Ibn Taymiyyah's works with the ashari principles (which is filled with lot's of contradictions and assumptions), this is the root of the problem. Ibn taymiyyah, many times goes a step further and refutes Ashari's with their own logic, this is what I understand when reading things such as what you posted.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post
                      I don't even need to reply to you, you are trying to understand Ibn Taymiyyah's works with the ashari principles (which is filled with lot's of contradictions and assumptions), this is the root of the problem. Ibn taymiyyah, many times goes a step further and refutes Ashari's with their own logic, this is what I understand when reading things such as what you posted.
                      Stop it!
                      "Hold fast to the rope of Allah SWT, and do not separate. It may be that Allah's blessings will depart from you"

                      We are all Muslims, and the differences that you are discussing are minor.
                      We are all individuals with varying views, but following one particular sheikh can become shirk when taken to extreme.
                      He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside the still waters - Psalms (Zaboor of Dawood)

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                        I don't even need to reply to you, you are trying to understand Ibn Taymiyyah's works with the ashari principles (which is filled with lot's of contradictions and assumptions), this is the root of the problem. Ibn taymiyyah, many times goes a step further and refutes Ashari's with their own logic, this is what I understand when reading things such as what you posted.
                        Why brother? Do I not deserve an answer or clarification? You were telling to laymen (!) to study his works and this with your knowledge that his works are complex and controversial.

                        Note that I did not ask you about Jiha, because I know that the mere affirmation of the wording of direction does not necessitate affirming corporeality.


                        Please refer to this:

                        I would be thankful to you, if you could convince me that my understanding of his words are incorrect, especially when these catastrophic beliefs are not befitting of a major scholar like him.

                        I would like to ask you to concentrate on one particular issue and that is the issue of Tajsim (not based upon Lawazim, but rather the very belief in a corporeal "god" itself!):
                        Does he regard God transcendent from being a 3-dimensional being or not? Or let‘s use his own terminology: Is God transcendent from having a Miqdar (size) or not?

                        Another point: If the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) is so difficult to understand correctly - to the degree that some of his today’s followers have fallen into clear Tashbih -, then why do you call people (laymen!!!) to study his works? I think you know that my understanding of his works is shared by major scholars in his very time and until today!
                        So this is basically like saying "go and study the works of Shaykh Ibn 'Arabi".

                        Why not tell people to study from sources that are not controversial? Why putting the people into such risk?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                          You have got to be joking, he is not saying that Allah a volume and size.
                          Really? This is what is he's basically arguing throughout the WHOLE book! He brings arguments from every side possible to establish this and to say every existent being - whether creation or Creator - must be necessarily described with this.

                          And before you accuse me of anything, consider this:

                          The admin of the English "ahlalhdeeth"-forums (Haitham Hamdan) - who is some kind of "Salafi" Shaykh - AFFIRMED this catastrophic belief and DEFENDED it:

                          "Pseudo-Salafis say Allah has a ‘Size’"

                          What do you say?
                          Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 16-10-20, 01:52 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Erg. I hate when this thread is bumped. There's a few cringe moments that I officially retract from (regarding how I wrote things not what I said). Honestly I wrote those messages after pulling an all-nighter on my way to and back from work.

                            May Allah grant me Sabr.

                            *Exits thread.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              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.
                              This statement in bold is also faulty. Their "disapproval" for negating limb would only apply to the Ash'aris who attempt to use this route to literally negate the Divine Attributes. I cannot find any references of Salafis condemning other Salafis for affirming Allah's Two Hands whilst negating limbs or parts (see Sharh Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah).

                              *Officially exists threads.

                              Wa Salamu Alaykum

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                                This statement in bold is also faulty. Their "disapproval" for negating limb would only apply to the Ash'aris who attempt to use this route to literally negate the Divine Attributes. I cannot find any references of Salafis condemning other Salafis for affirming Allah's Two Hands whilst negating limbs or parts (see Sharh Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah).

                                *Officially exists threads.

                                Wa Salamu Alaykum
                                Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                                Bro Hajji and Dilly Hussain speak about the atrocities committed by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and the Khuruj of the Saudi/Wahhabi alliance from 1:12:15:

                                This my question to you my brother. I personally don't believe Ibn Taymiyyah's creed is the creed of the Salaf nor the early Hanbalis.

                                Allah says, "Then Allah, by His leave, guided those who believed in the truth concerning that wherein they differed. For Allah guides whom He wills to a straight path. [Sūrah al-Baqarah (2): 213]

                                The Messenger of Allah (sallallāhu alaihi wa sallam) said, “There will not cease to be a group of my Ummah upon the truth. They will not be harmed by those who forsake them, until Allah’s affair comes to pass and they are uppermost.” [Reported by Muslim]’

                                If Ibn Taymiyyah's creed is the true creed of the Muslims, why did Allah allow this "creed" to die off? The traditional Hanbalis as far as I am aware never embraced Ibn Taymiyyah's creed as a true Hanbali creed, his texts aren't taught in traditional Hanbali circles, it is divergent (in Hanbali circles) as Ibn Jawzi's creed.

                                And if Allah wanted us, Muslims to follow Ibn Taymiyyah's creed, why would Allah use the profane najdi group of Muhammad Ibn Wahab to revive this creed of Ibn Taymiyyah, if it was the true creed of the Muslims?

                                Ibn Taymiyyah's creed has all the signs of stay away from it and don't touch it with a stick.

                                1) Ibn Taymiyyah's creed died when he died or shortly there after his death.
                                2) Ibn Taymiyyah's creed was revived by a group of Muslim killers, the nadji dawah of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab.
                                3) Ibn Taymiyyah teaches that Allah has a yad haqiqatan, which the Messenger of Allah (sallallāhu alaihi wa sallam), the Salaf, Imam Ahmad, Imam Shafi, Imam Malik, Imam Abu Hanifa and the early Hanbalis NEVER taught. How is this the creed of the Muslims?

                                Why would Allah allow it to die off, and then have it revived by likes of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab's group who is responsible for the deaths of many 1000's of Muslims?
                                Last edited by aMuslimForLife; 17-10-20, 10:45 PM.
                                My Blog ---> Reflections of the Traveler http://baraka.wordpress.com

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X