Were the Asha'irah Irrational? Discussion/ debate on validity of Taymiyyan Doctrine

[Muhammad Hasan]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

First of all, I should warn that this is a theological discussion/debate primarily between myself and my interlocutor TheHaqq in the realm of Ilm al-Kalam, and if you are not accustomed to the terminology etc. then most of this discussion will not make much sense or be accessible to you. I am simply refuting some false philosophical notions that certain people hold - these and other abstract issues do not need to be understood by most Muslims, who by default will never think about such things in their entire lives, just like most of the Sahabah.

For those unaccustomed to Kalam, just know that is Allah is not like anything else, he is absolutely unlike his creation etc. He is the one, and he is unique. We cannot imagine Allah. We affirm for him what he has affirmed in the Qur'an and negate for him what he has negated (any similarity to his creation). We do not try and imagine how Allah - our limited minds cannot comprehend him. That is pretty much all I am proving to my interlocutor.

I do not want someone to get confused by the back and forth between me and the brother, so I reiterate that the vast majority of people, who do not understand these issues should not be reading this thread. It is particularly due to the nature of Kalam, that a large group of Sunni Muslims, the Hanbalis, historically prohibited it.

Others such as Imam Shafi'i said that there must always be a group who learns these doctrines to refute heresy and disbelief, but that such debates with the heretics/disbelievers should take place in private, away from the common people unaccustomed to such terminology and who are unaccustomed to and uneducated in this style of thinking (slow, methodical, extremely dangerous if you make the slightest error*).

I think Kalam is useful and should be taught to people exposed to heretical/philosophical thinking, especially in this day and age, but this is not a teaching session. Go and watch this lecture or this series on Aqeedah Sanusiyyah if you want a qualified student of knowledge/ scholar to teach you Kalam etc.

* Dangerous for two reasons. 1) Islam is the truth and conforms wholly to reason, so if you err in rational thinking, then you enter the realm of innovation or at worse disbelief. 2) If you start teaching false proofs for the truth (e.g. the like of the ontological arguments of westerners and egyptian intellectuals that the Mutakallimun such as Shaykh Mustafa Sabri refuted and that foolish people like Mufti Abu Layth tries advocating today), then down the line it will cause some people, of weak iman and lack of will to reason, to question their faith when they realise the nature of such proofs.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

...Islam is the truth and conforms wholly to reason, so if you err in rational thinking, then you enter the realm of innovation or at worse disbelief...

Rational thinking = following revelation

Or else we would wipe the bottom of the socks instead of the top which 'seems' more rational.

[Muhammad Hasan]

TheHaqq, you quoted Ibn Taymiyyah saying the following:

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.“

This is the crux of the issue. This confirms for me that Ibn Taymiyyah is a Mujassim. Let me explain.

The Ash'ari who you criticise as 'irrational' understand that the above is false. The reason for this is the exact same reason Abu Hasan al-Ash'ari and all Asha'irah rejected the Mu'tazili beliefs regarding seeing Allah. This is the Mu'tazili belief:

"Allah must have Jism to be seen, he does not have Jism (both the Mu'tazila and Ash'ari* agree on this) and so Allah cannot be seen."

The Asha'irah reject this. They reject it for the exact same reason they reject what Ibn Taymiyyah has said above. It is because the Mu'tazila, like Ibn Taymiyyah, are making assumptions on the nature of something (in their case vision, in Ibn Taymiyyah's case existance), necessitating something when there is no necessitation of them. If you understand the doctrine of occasionalism, then you understand this - we, the Ash'ari reject natural causation for the exact same reason.

I tried pointing this out in the other thread, it seems you did not read what I said.

Considering something possible to be necessary is a cardinal mistake in reason, and leads to the belief of "contradiction in non-contradiction" i.e. when something is not impossible, you hold it is anyway thus inventing a contradiction where there is none. For something to be impossible it must lead to a contradiction - this is the very definition of impossible - if you reject this you are no longer Akil (a rational person) and this discussion is over as I only discuss these things with the Akil. Insha'Allah, I will show a contradiction in an impossibility you yourself argue is possible.

So let me be clear.

I will state the exact opposite of Ibn Taymiyyah and then we can start a debate on this point.

My first claim is:

"There is no requirement for something existant to have "an extent" (in the language of the Asha'irah we say a 'Hadd' (limit or boundary)**), contrary to what Ibn Taymiyyah thinks. Allah is the only example of an existant thing without any "extent", there is nothing like him."

It has become clear to me why you think Ibn Taymiyyah refuted the Ash'ari however. I will be explaining this below.

If at any point you wish to accept my claim, then we can stop this and move to whatever is next on the agenda - I will pick another mistake of Ibn Taymiyyah's and we will discuss that. If you manage to convince me that my claim above is wrong, then Allah as my witness, I will concede defeat that Ibn Taymiyyah is correct. I am here not only to prove the truth, but to seek it as well.

---

Footnotes

• *In the discussion below, when I say "Ash'ari" I mean what I believe is Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama'ah, defined by me to be the three schools (Ash'ari, Hanafi/Maturidi and Hanbali/Athari/Ahlul Hadith) as well as any of the extinct Kalami schools (e.g. Kullabiyyah, Hazmiyyah etc.) I will likely use the term "Ash'ari", "Sunni", "Sifatiyyah" etc. exchangeably. When referring to Ibn Taymiyyah's strand I will use "doctrine of Ibn Taymiyyah" or "Karrami" or "Mujassim" or "Hashwiyyah" or "Muqatiliyyah" etc. Technically there are differences in these terms and I will try and use each term where appropriate, but otherwise I am simply referring what I consider anthropomorphists/ corporealists.
• ** This is not a discussion on what earlier generations meant by "Hadd", it is a rational and philosophical discussion. I could care less what someone defines as Hadd - this is your space to prove that the Ash'ari notion of Hadd is wrong rationally speaking (by refuting any underlying ideas if you have to) - not the space for you to say, "You're using the wrong terminology" etc. If you feel so troubled by my use of the term just call it the "Ash'ari Hadd" or something.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Rational thinking = following revelation

Or else we would wipe the bottom of the socks instead of the top which 'seems' more rational.

Wiping the top of the socks is not rational (proven by reason) or irrational (disproven by reason) ...

I won't be responding to off topic discussion, this is the last time I clarify this. Please post what you wish to say on a thread titled, "The difference between Aqeedah and Fiqh" or "The legacy of Abu Hanifah" etc. I probably won't respond as I am more interested in this discussion, but I am sure someone will explain to you the differences between "Hukm Aqli" and "Hukm Shar'i" and the difference between logical deducation and not-so-logical analogy (qiyas) etc. and why we allow for following Khabar Ahad, speculation, qiyas etc. in fiqh and why we do not allow for anything like that in the field of Aqeedah. aMuslimForLife seems to have knowledge in the field of the development of fiqh so maybe he can help you there.

...

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

Wiping the top of the socks is not rational or irrational...

I won't be responding to off topic discussion, this is the last time I clarify this. Please post what you wish to say on a thread titled, "The difference between Aqeedah and Fiqh" or "The legacy of Abu Hanifah" etc. I probably won't respond as I am more interested in this discussion, but I am sure someone will explain to you the differences between "Hukm Aqli" and "Hukm Shar'i" and the difference between logical deducation and not-so-logical analogy (qiyas) etc. and why we allow for following Khabar Ahad, speculation, qiyas etc. in fiqh and why we do not allow for anything like that in the field of Aqeedah. aMuslimForLife seems to have knowledge in the field of the development of fiqh so maybe he can help you there.

"...Islam is the truth and conforms wholly to reason, so if you err in rational thinking, then you enter the realm of innovation..."

"Wiping the top of the socks is not rational or irrational..."

Good stuff.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

"Kalaaaaaam"

Yeah, but you're not even that good at it...

[Muhammad Hasan]

1. 1 ) "Infinitely many Limits" vs "No Limits"

(This issue is not helped by the fact that the word "unlimited" in the English language conjures up a picture of some kind of infinite set.)

I say this as someone who has studied Logic and Mathematics, like such Ash'aris as Imam Abdul Qahir al-Baghdadi, Ibn Taymiyyah has misunderstood what it means to not have any limits - he interprets this as having as being "infinite extent" i.e. "infinite" limit - and this is why he confuses Ash'ari beliefs with Jahmi beliefs - he sees no difference between them.

I say "Allah does not have any limits" not "Allah has infinite extent" the first is Tawhid, the second is Kufr, and illogical. The difference between this is hard to grasp for most which is why the Ash'ari use both simple and correct terminology to help people understand - they point out two incorrect beliefs and then give the correct belief: "Some say he is in every place. Others say he is in one place. We say is not in a place"

The problem is that Ibn Taymiyyah has fallen into the classical problem of false dichotomy i.e. "If not X, then Y", when in reality there is something else he has not considered.

1. 2 ) He tried to imagine what the Ash'aris are talking about and this is impossible and so he actually imagined what the Jahmi's are talking about - Infinite Extent

He has also tried to imagine what the Ash'ari and Salaf mean when they say "He has no limit" - you cannot do this the human mind draws a blank if you do - and someone who has done introspection realises the feeling one gets when trying to imagine this is the same feeling you get when trying to contemplate anything you cannot understand

(e.g. where was I before I was born? Mind draws blank. What do the other colors beyond our spectrum look like? Mind draws blank. What would 4 spatial dimensions look like? Mind draws blank.) - go find a blind person and ask them what it is like to see and the reaction you get will help you understand this mistake you are falling into.

1. 3 ) What should have Ibn Taymiyyah considered and what he did consider:

With regards to extent and some entity, Shay', one suggests three cases:

1. That Entity has a limited extent. (Muqatiliyyah say Allah is this)
2. That Entity has an unlimited extent. (Jahmiyyah say Allah is this).
3. That Entity does not have any extent. (Abu Hanifa* and the rest of Sifatiyyah, also Early/ Non-Jahmi Mu'tazila, say Allah is this)

1 and 2 are contingent.

Only the last option gives an incontingent entity - Allah. Not having any extent cannot be any other way (you cannot have things "in" that extent either as there is no "in" in the first place).

Ibn Taymiyyah has missed 3, and thinks those who hold 3 instead hold 2 i.e. he has not considered 3. This is clear in how he reasoned above. By the way, this is the exact reason is why you don't teach Kalam to the masses - they will make simple mistakes by falling into intuitionism ("what feels obvious must be correct"), which is what Ibn Taymiyyah has done.

Allah is a Shay without extent - "Allah BiLa Hadd" - i.e. he transcends having limits (infinite or finite) completely.

Therefore there is no in for Allah, nor any out, nor any above, nor any below. All of these concepts are for things he creates.

How Allah is cannot be imagined by the human mind.

But from Ibn Taymiyyah's perspective:

1. That Entity has a limited extent. ("Those Karramiyyah that al-Razi unfairly criticised/declared innovators")
2. That Entity has an unlimited extent. ("The Jahmi's, Ash'aris, etc.")

He says:

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.“

This intuitively makes sense if only two cases above are considered.

Essentially what Ibn Taymiyyah is arguing is as follows:

If we consider that these are the only possibilities for any Shay (entity), then the one saying "Allah BiLa Hadd" means to say that Allah's Dhat continues forever. Then it must coincide with the creation. Thus if you say Allah does not have any extent, then that would mean he is indistinguishable from the creation.

Ibn Taymiyyah defines something that has an existance seperate from other existance in the physical seperation sense - i.e. in order to be seperate, a thing must be physically seperate.

Allah is indistinguishable from the creation - the Salaf say "He is Ba'in min Khalqihi" i.e. seperate from his creation. Therefore 2 must be wrong. Therefore 1 is correct. Therefore Allah must have a Hadd that he knows. The saying of the Salaf "BiLa Hadd" means he does not have a Hadd we know.

Also a comment on this idea - one should realise that neither 1 or 2 are impossible rather they are possible for the creation (and the option that Ibn Taymiyyah did not consider i.e. BiLa Hadd is necessary for the uncreated creator.)

This is why Fakhruddin al-Razi accepted number 2 as a possibility - he used this to specifically refute greek philosophers in the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe/the only world, arguing that Allah can create a creation with infinite extent i.e. similar to what some people refer to as "an infinite universe".

2 is possible as it is infinite progression which is permitted, unlike infinite regression which is not - in infinite progression you do not need to complete or traverse an infinite amount, rather an infinite progression is simply something that continues forever after having a definite start. I.e. a creation that extends forever.

1. 4 ) "In order to be a seperate existance something must be distinguishable"

This is what Ibn Taymiyyah uses to argue the Ash'ari are wrong - unfortunately Ibn Taymiyyah has not realised that the Ash'ari "Bi La Hadd" is not a Jahmi "Bi La Hadd".

The Ash'ari already accept Allah's seperation from the creation - and they don't need a "physical seperation" (which necessitates Allah being a being bound by the dimensions) as with created things to achieve this. Proposition 3 above highlights this - any determined/created thing has extent**. Allah does not have extent. Therefore Allah is not the creation.

The logical rule is "That which does not have an extent" is not "That which has an extent" (regardless of infinite/ finite). Thus seperation is achieved by making use of a logical dichotomy.

---

Footnotes

• * Sunni Ilm al-Kalam traces back to Abu Hanifa through all lines. Muhammad Ash-Shaybani taught the likes of Sulayman al-Juzjani, etc. culminating in Hanafi aqeedah being transmitted to two - Maturidi and Tahawi. Ash-Shaybani taught Imam Shafi'i and from there we have the Kullabi school (i.e. extinct school represented by Ibn Kullab, Harith al-Muhasibi, Imam Bukhari, Imam Junayd etc.). The Kullabites developed into two: The Ash'ari and Hazmiyyah (extinct Kalami school followed by the early Zahiris, Ibn Kullab taught Dawud al-Zahiri Kalam etc. - it is named after Ibn Hazm). Imam Shafi'i also taught Imam Ahmad - from here develops the traditionalist position (Athari/Hanbali or "Ahlul Hadith"). This is not restricted to Hanbali scholars e.g. at-Tirmidhi, Bukhari's student, did not follow his teacher in Aqeedah positions, possibly due to Bukhari being harassed for them. Imam Ahmad was greatly influenced by Ishaq bin Rahwayh as well, a traditionist who disagreed heavily with Imam Shafi'i etc. Imam Ahmad had strong objection to Ibn Kullab. It is interesting to note that early Hanafis were dismisses as Murji by Kullabites and Athari - this is why Bukhari rejects many transmitters of Hanafi aqeedah as Murjis, including Abu Hanifa himself. The idea that Allah is not in a place is thus reliably attributed to Abu Hanifa through four sources, five if we include his comments on the Jahmiyyah and Muqatiliyyah. They are Fiqh al-Akbar (I), Fiqh al-Absat (i.e. Fiqh al-Akbar III), Imam Maturidi's Tafsir, Imam at-Tahawi's creed. 3 of these have the explicit negation of place, Imam Tahawi has negation of direction/dimension which is a corollary. I mention this as an explanation of history from my viewpoint, not a point of debate. Doubtless, a follower of Ibn Taymiyyah disagrees with what I have said.
• **Insha'Allah, I prove this below formally.

[isa_muhammad]

My shekh is better than your shekh

"Truth is distinct from falsehood"
"Allah SWT guides whomsoever He wills"

[TheHaqq]

If you agree that both atharis and asharis have roots in the salaf and both have slight differences, what exactly is your problem?

[Linkdeutscher]

"Kalaaaaaam"

Yeah, but you're not even that good at it...

Stop derailing the thread.

[Muhammad Hasan]

If you agree that both atharis and asharis have roots in the salaf and both have slight differences, what exactly is your problem?

Below is a side-note, not part of the discusission (for this I will use conventional terminology - Ash'ari as the group differing from Maturidi etc.)

Purpose of this thread is for me and you to have a rational debate using Ilm al-Kalam, as you said you can defend the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah rationally in the manner he attempted to do so himself (and I said this is something strange for a Taymiyyan). His followers in Aqeedah think that he refuteted the Ash'ari with their own use of rationality and Ilm-ul-Kalam - you are here to prove that.

The Atharis are one of the groups of Ahlus Sunnah.

They join in Jama'ah with the Ash'ari and Maturidi, and this is confirmed by their own scholars - Imam Abd al-Baqi in al-Ayn p.53 and Imam as-Saffarini in Lawami al-Anwar 1/292. I've heard Imam Ibn Qudamah fought in Jihad under an Ash'ari though he despised the Ash'ari due to their performance of Tawil and engagement in Ilmul Kalam.

Their beliefs are acceptable to the Ash'ari and Maturidi and they are not Mujassim, they explicitly negate such in their works, both in the past and in present. They will harshly rebuke anyone who states "Allah has a Hadd" and it is apparent from some of their scholars that they would make Takfir on the matter.

They do not view Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibnul Qayyim as being being reliable in matters of Aqeedah and only selectively quote from his work. They otherwise respect him, and call him Shaykh al-Islam, viewing him as an authority in Hanbali fiqh.

I respectfully disagree with the Athari and the few Ash'ari who said Ibn Taymiyyah did not fall into Tajsim - they make this claim understanding Ibn Taymiyyah's doctrine in the manner of a minority of his followers. Both groups are explicitly against the sort of Tajsim I and other Ash'ari/Maturidi accuse Ibn Taymiyyah of - they deny Allah being in a Makan, having Hadd, having a Jism, having Jawhar, being in a spatial Jiha etc.

Here is a good thread by Abu Sulayman detailing some of the differences between what the Modern Taymiyyans (whether Salafi or ex-Salafi) believe and what the Athari actually believe.

I would also recommend the books Hashiyah al-Muwaffaq and "The Creed and way of Muslim orthodoxy". Both detail Athari creed, the first one is available in both Arabic and English, and the second is an English work. The first work is a commentary on the creed of Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, and the second is a work of comparative theology, comparing between the Ash'ari, Maturidi and Athari. In both works the authors make quite valid criticism of the Ash'ari and particularly the later school.

I personally do not agree with some of the ideas in which the Athari differ with the Ash'ari on (e.g. the nature of Allah's speech, prohibition of Ilmul-Kalam, allowing Khabar Ahad Hadith to give certainty in matters of belief etc.) Nevertheless I accept them as my Sunni brothers and sisters.

So the point is - I do not consider Ibn Taymiyyah to be an Athari and both you and I agree that he affirmed things that contradict Ash'ari/Maturidi/Athari Aqeedah, such as being a phyicallity with dimensions, having an extent etc.

Point of this thread is not to discuss what the views are of the Athari etc.

The point of this thread is for you to refute me using Kalam since you said Ibn Taymiyyah is more rational than the Ash'ari and you said the Ash'ari make mistakes in rationality. Well test your claim then if you believe it to be true.

I say Ibn Taymiyyah followed the Karramiyyah sect (whose founder he called a Sunni Muslim) and the likes of Muqatil bin Sulayman and Uthman bin Sa'id from the earlier generations who are ascribed with anthropomorphist heresy. He was of the Karamiyyah type of thinking in particular in that he atttempted to use Ilmul Kalam to defend his views.

I await your response to what I have written so far from above this post, before I give a rebuttal and move on. This is the first of many matters we will discuss Insha'Allah.

[TheHaqq]

Purpose of this thread is for me and you to have a rational debate using Ilm al-Kalam, as you said you can defend the beliefs of Ibn Taymiyyah rationally in the manner he attempted to do so himself (and I said this is something strange for a Taymiyyan). His followers in Aqeedah think that he refuteted the Ash'ari with their own use of rationality and Ilm-ul-Kalam - you are here to prove that.

The Atharis are one of the groups of Ahlus Sunnah.

They join in Jama'ah with the Ash'ari and Maturidi, and this is confirmed by their own scholars - Imam Abd al-Baqi in al-Ayn p.53 and Imam as-Saffarini in Lawami al-Anwar 1/292. I've heard Imam Ibn Qudamah fought in Jihad under an Ash'ari though he despised the Ash'ari due to their performance of Tawil and engagement in Ilmul Kalam.

Their beliefs are acceptable to the Ash'ari and Maturidi and they are not Mujassim, they explicitly negate such in their works, both in the past and in present. They will harshly rebuke anyone who states "Allah has a Hadd" and it is apparent from some of their scholars that they would make Takfir on the matter.

They do not view Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibnul Qayyim as being being reliable in matters of Aqeedah and only selectively quote from his work. They otherwise respect him, and call him Shaykh al-Islam, viewing him as an authority in Hanbali fiqh.

I respectfully disagree with the Athari and the few Ash'ari who said Ibn Taymiyyah did not fall into Tajsim - they make this claim understanding Ibn Taymiyyah's doctrine in the manner of a minority of his followers. Both groups are explicitly against the sort of Tajsim I and other Ash'ari/Maturidi accuse Ibn Taymiyyah of - they deny Allah being in a Makan, having Hadd, having a Jism, having Jawhar, being in a spatial Jiha etc.

Here is a good thread by Abu Sulayman detailing some of the differences between what the Modern Taymiyyans (whether Salafi or ex-Salafi) believe and what the Athari actually believe.

I would also recommend the books Hashiyah al-Muwaffaq and "The Creed and way of Muslim orthodoxy". Both detail Athari creed, the first one is available in both Arabic and English, and the second is an English work. The first work is a commentary on the creed of Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, and the second is a work of comparative theology, comparing between the Ash'ari, Maturidi and Athari. In both works the authors make quite valid criticism of the Ash'ari and particularly the later school.

I personally do not agree with some of the ideas in which the Athari differ with the Ash'ari on (e.g. the nature of Allah's speech, prohibition of Ilmul-Kalam, allowing Khabar Ahad Hadith to give certainty in matters of belief etc.) Nevertheless I accept them as my Sunni brothers and sisters.

So the point is - I do not consider Ibn Taymiyyah to be an Athari and both you and I agree that he affirmed things that contradict Ash'ari/Maturidi/Athari Aqeedah, such as being a phyicallity with dimensions, having an extent etc.

Point of this thread is not to discuss what the views are of the Athari etc.

The point of this thread is for you to refute me using Kalam since you said Ibn Taymiyyah is more rational than the Ash'ari and you said the Ash'ari make mistakes in rationality. Well test your claim then if you believe it to be true.

I say Ibn Taymiyyah followed the Karramiyyah sect (whose founder he called a Sunni Muslim) and the likes of Muqatil bin Sulayman and Uthman bin Sa'id from the earlier generations who are ascribed with anthropomorphist heresy. He was of the Karamiyyah type of thinking in particular in that he atttempted to use Ilmul Kalam to defend his views.

I await your response to what I have written so far from above this post, before I give a rebuttal and move on. This is the first of many matters we will discuss Insha'Allah.

Well my view is that both asharis and atharis have a strong basis and can chain back to the salaf, both are mainly arguing over semantics, and if they are differ in anything past semantics then it is issues that they really should not be delving into in the first place.

So ye I won't be taking part in this discussion because even if IT disagreed with asharis, (obviously he did), then it's over issues neither side can actually prove from Quran and Sunnah and statements of Sahabah alone.

This is just my view, so I believe that claiming atharis do tajseem is as weak of an argument as saying asharis do tateel, both are strawmans resulting from a difference in semantics and method of understanding.

This is also why I believe this issue will never be resolved, and that neither side will sucsessfully ever refute the other.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Well my view is that both asharis and atharis have a strong basis and can chain back to the salaf, both are mainly arguing over semantics, and if they are differ in anything past semantics then it is issues that they really should not be delving into in the first place.

So ye I won't be taking part in this discussion because even if IT disagreed with asharis, (obviously he did), then it's over issues neither side can actually prove from Quran and Sunnah and statements of Sahabah alone.

This is just my view, so I believe that claiming atharis do tajseem is as weak of an argument as saying asharis do tateel, both are strawmans resulting from a difference in semantics and method of understanding.

This is also why I believe this issue will never be resolved, and that neither side will sucsessfully ever refute the other.

If I didn't make it clear enough - I don't consider Ibn Taymiyyah to be an Athari in the first place - his views contradict with the Athari. Also, on a sidenote, many of the Mordern Ash'ari do indeed do Ta'til, but that's another conversation.

Secondly, why did you ask me to take my comments onto another thread then? So you can accuse the Ash'ari of irrationality and you say Ibn Taymiyyah uses Kalami logic of the Ash'ari to refute them, and it is as if you say having a Hadd is allowable by reason etc. and yet you will not defend such beliefs? You thought Ibn Taymiyyah was rational like Imam al-Ghazali?

So you make claims without being able to defend them. Do you think dimensionality and place and spatial direction are possible or necessary for Allah? If you say they are, rationally, then you are an irrational person - these things are contradicted by sound reason. If you say they are impossible for Allah then we have an agreement.

In the future never claim Ibn Taymiyyah was a rationalist, or rationally refuted the Ash'ari - you know yourself you cannot defend that claim.

I was wrong about you it seems. No adherant of Ibn Taymiyyah has the ability to even attempt to defend his views from reason.

I say the one who says Allah is above the throne intending physical and spatial aboveness is an innovator and irrational (and I am being very lax - many of the Ulama of the past would say such a person is a Kafir outside the fold of Islam - according to the scholars, some of the Salaf wished to kill Muqatil bin Sulayman). Their beliefs are disproven by reason. I say the one who thinks Allah has physical, dimensioned hands or thinks Allah is a creature with physical eyes etc. is an innovator.

The one who affirms Hadd is an innovator, and as reported by Imam Ali Karram Allahu Wajhah, such a person does not know their creator who they worship.

May Allah forgive Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

Stop derailing the thread.

Thread is about rationality.

[TheHaqq]

If I didn't make it clear enough - I don't consider Ibn Taymiyyah to be an Athari in the first place - his views contradict with the Athari. Also, on a sidenote, many of the Mordern Ash'ari do indeed do Ta'til, but that's another conversation.

Secondly, why did you ask me to take my comments onto another thread then? So you can accuse the Ash'ari of irrationality and you say Ibn Taymiyyah uses Kalami logic of the Ash'ari to refute them, and it is as if you say having a Hadd is allowable by reason etc. and yet you will not defend such beliefs? You thought Ibn Taymiyyah was rational like Imam al-Ghazali?

So you make claims without being able to defend them. Do you think dimensionality and place and spatial direction are possible or necessary for Allah? If you say they are, rationally, then you are an irrational person - these things are contradicted by sound reason. If you say they are impossible for Allah then we have an agreement.

In the future never claim Ibn Taymiyyah was a rationalist, or rationally refuted the Ash'ari - you know yourself you cannot defend that claim.

I was wrong about you it seems. No adherant of Ibn Taymiyyah has the ability to even attempt to defend his views from reason.

I say the one who says Allah is above the throne intending physical and spatial aboveness is an innovator and irrational (and I am being very lax - many of the Ulama of the past would say such a person is a Kafir outside the fold of Islam - according to the scholars, some of the Salaf wished to kill Muqatil bin Sulayman). Their beliefs are disproven by reason. I say the one who thinks Allah has physical, dimensioned hands or thinks Allah is a creature with physical eyes etc. is an innovator.

The one who affirms Hadd is an innovator, and as reported by Imam Ali Karram Allahu Wajhah, such a person does not know their creator who they worship.

May Allah forgive Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah.

So like I said, it's mostly semantics and what leads to tajseem is trying to imagine Allah.

Maybe I should have been more clear, I would defend atharis from tajseem, but not support them in attacking asharis using strawmans.

Ok, let me ask you, what do atharis believe when they say Allah is above the throne. You tell me what they believe.