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

[Muhammad Hasan]

what do you follow? if any of them that is...

lets see what the brother has to say in sha Allah

As for the groups, Deobandi, Barelvi, Salafi, Ikhwani, Nursi, Wasitiyyah etc. I disassociate from them all. Some may be closer to Ahlus Sunnah (or upon it with issues that do not take them outside of its fold) or scholars of them may be Sunnis and some of them may be stooped in innovation. Perhaps some of the scholars they look up to may be Sunni scholars and perhaps they may be innovators. That would be looked at on a case by case basis, and most of my posts in the past have given my perspective hashing this out (I have commented on the first three in particular). But none of these groups are altogether correct, they each have some issues.

Don't follow those new groups and sects. Stick to the Jamhur of old and to the Qur'an and Sunnah. That doesn't mean you cannot benefit from the scholars of those groups, but do not lose sight of the fact that they are all sects.

The simple explanation of who is included in Ahlus Sunnah is, as I mentioned above, the seven: Athari, Ashari or Maturidi in Usul al-Aqeedah, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali in Fiqh.

The formal definition of Ahlus Sunnah is, as I mentioned above, the way of the Prophet Alayhis Salam and the Sahabah, and the Madhab of as-Salaf as-Salihin.

Traditional Athari have differences with most of the followers of Ibn Taymiyyah in creed. Ibn Taymiyyah started as a Sunni Athari (upon his father and grandfathers path) and then left that, by his own admission, by ad-Dhahabi's statement and by the statement of pseudo-Salafi scholars.

Not all of the followers of Ibn Taymiyyah would necessarily be considered outside the fold of Sunni Islam.

My Own Personal Views

These should not be confused with what I consider acceptable as above.

I model my din on the Hadith of Jibril. Generally I've used the Prophet Alayhis Salam's Hadith to guide myself, I am a firm believer in seeking guidance from Prophecy. I believe the Qur'an and Hadith talk to us.

I am personally a Muqallid of RasulAllah Alayhis Salam through the Hanafi Madhab in fiqh, and in Usul-al Aqeedah my opinions are a mix of Ash'ari, Maturidi and also Athari views (what is known as a "La Madhabi Sunni" in creedal issues). I take the views of the Athari in matters of the Sifat al-Khabariyyah especially, and am troubled by the Tawil Tafsili of later Ash'ari scholars - I see al-Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah was arguing in the right direction but went into the other extreme, whilst Imam al-Razi left what Ibn Taymiyyah criticised him of later on.

I do not blind follow anyone in issues of Aqeedah. (One does not "follow" the Ash'ari, Maturidi or Athari (they are not like the fiqhi Madahib). One is categorised with them by the opinions they adopt based off of evidence, and one can differ with some of them etc. E.g. having Isnad in Usul to Imam al-Maturidi does not make that scholar a Maturidi (e.g. Shaykh Muhammad al-Kawthari al-Ash'ari).)

As for Ihsan/Tazkiya/Tasawwuf, I do not like a lot of the practices of the modern sufi tariqah, and am not part of any, and I will keep my practices private except to say that I don't do nor hold permissible anything that is not established from dalil.

My view on the end of times is that they are near.

So the best way for me to describe myself is as a Sunni Hanafi, which happens to be what the majority of lay Muslims throughout the world are. I support the establishment of the Khilafah by the righteous and Allah will give dominion to whom he wishes. Like most Muslims I support the Hudood and think that essentially all people who call for (any) change in it are modernists. My view on democracy is that it is a bad system and against the Sunnah at best and against Islam at worst.

I do not consider myself a "Sufi" even if I think Tazkiya/Ihsan etc. is an integral part of the religion (and is what Tasawwuf is). I think people need to actually read Hadith before declaring something an innovation.

Some of my views on controversial figures

I have a good opinion on both Shaykh Ibn Arabi and Imam Ala ud-Din al-Bukhari (al-Hanafi al-Maturidi), who made Takfir of the same Ibn Arabi (he also made Takfir of Ibn Taymiyyah). I disagree with both accusations of disbelief that he, Imam Ala ud-din al-Bukhari, made. However, I do not think Ibn Arabi's works should be read outside of Futuhat (as the outward of works like his Fusus contain Kufr) and anyone who thinks Allah and his creation are one is a disbeliever.

I respectfully disagree with the defence of most of Ahlul Tasawwuf and view al-Hallaj as a clear cut Kafir - he was Mukallaf.

My view on Ibn Taymiyyah is that he is neither an innovator nor a disbeliever, rather he will enter Jannah as I believe he was Ghayr Mukallaf. His works contain Kufr however. His student Ibnul Qayyim is an innovator and not a disbeliever, I take the laxer opinion of Shaykh Ahmad Ridha Khan (a great scholar who the barelvis exaggerate upon). Again, the works of Ibnul Qayyim however contain Kufr.

Imam Ibn Hazm was in my opinion a Sunni scholar, theologian and muhaddith whose opposition to the Madhahib, Qiyas and claimed Ijma made him extremely unpopular, alongside his many attacks on the Ulama. He is controversial in his attacks but not an innovator. My view on him is in stark opposition to what most of our Sunni scholars would say.

Imam Al-Zamakhshari never became a Sunni in my view and we should stop trying to defend historical figures like this. Sometimes the innovators are very knowledgeable, we have to recognise this.

My views on other issues that may be controversial for some

The permissibility of Mawlid is a matter of fiqh and is subject to difference of opinion. The fiqhi opinion I take is that it is permitted at any time of the year, any day and should not be relegated to a single day. I respect those who say it is prohibited.

Tawassul of the dead is recommended e.g. in the case of the Prophet Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam. Those who say it is prohibited are within reasonable difference of opinion. Those who say it is Shirk are innovators.

Istigatha of the dead is something I avoid. Historically it was permitted, with correct and sound Aqeedah. It is within reasonable difference of opinion to permit or prohibit it. It is not within reasonable difference to label it as Shirk - that is Bid'ah.

Note: In all the three above I used to hold the pseudo-Salafi view.

Graves should meet the requirements of fiqh, according to the Madhab and scholarly judgement you follow. No new permanent structure should be built over a grave. I do not think that many/most of the Awliyah would be happy with the Shrines people built for them, even if they built them with love. I think they would have preferred simpler graves according to the Sunnah.

Care and respect must be taken with the Muslims who have passed away and their graves. Blowing up a shrine or tall grave is a sign of idiocy and evil. Any arrangement to restructure a Muslim's grave or shrine etc. should be gradual and taken with consultation and agreement of the local people, with the utmost respect shown to the one who has tasted death. Going around and quickly flattening the graves of the Muslims creates more problems than it solves.

The person who thinks the green dome should be demolished, should himself be demolished. The graves of the Sahabah and Prophet Alayhis Salam must be left untouched. I wish people didn't pray in certain areas.

The Masajid should be simple.

Difference of Opinion

I am accepting of the vast arena of difference of opinion, and I go further than most. For instance I consider Zahiris (if they have the correct Aqeedah like Dawud al-Zahiri and Ibn Hazm) to be Sunni Muslims. (Most Ulama I look up to would probably chastise me for such an opinion). That said there are few like that today, and I think it is a very bad idea to try be a Zahiri or try to follow an extinct Madhab. So my view is that if the Ghayr Muqallidin (those who do not adhere to a fiqhi madhab) who are principled had correct Aqeedah, I actually wouldn't call them innovators.

But none of them do.

If someone looks at what I've said in the past they'll note I am actually very lax in my criteria of Sunni Islam, but there are of course boundaries that must not be crossed. Beyond that I am as lax as is possible in my definition of a Muslim - I of course make Takfir of the so-called Ahmadis (followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) but consider most Shia to be Muslims. I do not make Takfir of Isis nor Ibn Abdul Wahhab, may Allah forgive even the Muslim murderers. Just believe in the six pillars of Iman properly, being one of Ahlul Qiblah and I cannot ever go near making Takfir of you - I am too afraid of the repercussion.

I leave specific Takfir upon unclear specific figures in history or contemporary to us (e.g. Usama Hasan who has defended Kufr in the past) to the learned Ulama, but obviously if someone comes up to me and says they believe in another god or gods or have doubts in their belief in Allah, or believe in a Prophet after RasulAllah Alayhis Salam etc. then I have no issue telling them that they are not a Muslim, that they have no Iman. (The followers of other religions are disbelievers and the modern Irja - perennialism - is disbelief).

Summary

Simply_Logical, I hope I have been as in depth as possible, firstly regarding who I consider Ahlus Sunnah (defined firstly as the Madhab of RasulAllah Alayhis Salam and the Sahabah) and then explaining my own views. If you feel I have beaten around the bush, then feel free to probe me further.

[Muhammad Hasan]

every group seems to claim theyre on the straight path, so my question to you is who is actually on the straight path?

please no beating about the bush, just keep the answer straight to the point please brother jazakAllah Khayran

I have explained many times before who is upon the straight path, and I will happily do it again.

Madhabb as-Salaf

Our Maddhab then is the Maddhab of such Sahabah. After all, Ahlus Sunnah is defined as being the way of the Sahabah.

As for all those sects, they can split away from them and us, deny the explicit verses of the Qur'an, deny reason and logic and say that the religion as practiced for 1400 years by the majority was practiced upon falsehood, but their statement of their claims to do not make them any less false.

The Jamhur are upon Haqq and the Firaq are upon Batil.

There are only two for you to choose in Islam: Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama'ah or Ahlul Biddah wal-Firqah, and I choose Ahlus Sunnah, which remains united and accepting of reasonable differences and does not break into firaq - sects.

We follow the Jamhur of the Ulama, we follow the four Imams of fiqh and the likes of Imam al-Bayhaqi, and the four Imams of Aqeedah: Imam Ahmed, Imam at-Tahawi, Imam al-Maturidi and Imam al-Ash'ari.

My view of Islamic history is that the majority of the prominent Ulama throughout Islamic history have been on the Haqq (defined as the way of the Prophet Alayhis Salam and the Sahabah), and they may have as individuals made mistakes (e.g. in fiqh), but they put together were correct.

I consider the majority of Muslims today as Sunni Muslims.

All of the Sahabah, including the four Khulafah, Amir Abu Bakr, Amir Umar, Amir Uthman and Amir Ali, were upon Haqq. I consider Imam Hasan al-Basri, Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i, Imam Ahlus Sunnah Ahmed bin Hanbal, Imam Ahlus Sunnah Abu Hasan al-Ashari, Imam Ahlus Sunnah Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, Imam Ahlus Sunnah at-Tahawi, Imam at-Tabari, Imam al-Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam at-Tirmidhi, Imam Ibn Hibban, Imam Abu Nu'aym al-Isfahani, Imam al-Bayhaqi, Imam Abu Bakr al-Isma'ili, Imam Ibn Battah, Imam Ibn Asakir, Imam an-Nawawi, Imam an-Nasafi, Imam al-Juwayni, Imam al-Ghazali, Imam Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi, Khatib al-Baghdadi, Imam al-Hakim al-Samarqandi, Waliullah Abdul Qadir Jilani, Imam Ali Qushji, Qadi Iyad, Imam al-Qurtubi, Imam at-Taftazani, Imam Ibn Hamdan, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Imam ad-Dhahabi, Imam Ibn Kathir, Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Imam as-Suyuti, Imam al-Balbani, Mulla ali-Qari, Imam Ibn Abidin, Imam as-Saffarini, Shah Waliullah ad-Dehlawi, Shaykh-ul-Islam Mustafa Sabri, Shaykh-ul-Hadith Hussein al-Jisr and Shaykh Muhammad bin Alawi al-Maliki Rahimullah Alayhum to be all prominent scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah and there were many, many more besides them.

Whether you are Athari, Ashari or Maturidi in Usul al-Aqeedah, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali in Fiqh, I regard you as a Sunni Muslim.

The one who takes the Shahadah is immediately a Sunni Muslim.

Pure reason and logic (and then empiricism) can be used to arrive at Sunni Islam as can seeking the reports of the righteous.

Here is an example of a scholar who is a follower of Ibn Taymiyyah who has arrived at the truth, and now interprets the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah's firqah in line with this.

[aMuslimForLife]

every group seems to claim theyre on the straight path, so my question to you is who is actually on the straight path?

please no beating about the bush, just keep the answer straight to the point please brother jazakAllah Khayran

Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah: The Asharis, the Maturidis and traditional Hanbalis.

Imam al Safarini al Hanbali said, “Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah consists of three groups, the Atharis, their Imam is Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, the Asharis, their Imam is Abu al Hasan al Ashari and the Maturidis and their Imam is Abu al Mansur al Maturidi.” (Lawami al Anwats al Bahiyya)

Imam Ibn al Shatti al Hanbali said, “Some scholars say that they, the saved group are the People of Hadith, in other words, the Atharis, Asharis and Maturidis.” (Tabsir Al Qani fi al Jami)

[maturidee]

what do you follow? if any of them that is...

lets see what the brother has to say in sha Allah

I do follow my own views.

[Simply_Logical]

He is a ashari... They are known for their word play games..

what do you follow? if any of them that is...

lets see what the brother has to say in sha Allah

[maturidee]

every group seems to claim theyre on the straight path, so my question to you is who is actually on the straight path?

please no beating about the bush, just keep the answer straight to the point please brother jazakAllah Khayran

He is a ashari... They are known for their word play games..

[Simply_Logical]

Taqlid in Aqeedah

These are the only issues where it is prohibited to "leave it to the scholars".

Issues of Aqeedah and fundamental belief are not areas for you to blindly follow your scholar or a scholar whose sermons you like the sound of. If the scholar you follow starts teaching deviation, will you blindly follow him in that? What if he starts teaching you disbelief? And how will you know if you are just blindly accepting everything they say?

If your scholar leaves Islam tomorrow or starts teaching deviation tomorrow, will you follow him? Clearly not.

So whilst we can do Taqlid in Fiqh etc. there is no Taqlid in Aqeedah.

Taqlid in Aqeedah has historically destroyed and corrupted the pure teaching of many of the Prophets Alayhim Salam before the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam, most of which we do not know the names of. This is because they latched onto their scholars and blindly followed them when they followed corrupted versions of the sole religion. Does Allah not mention in the Qur'an people who followed their forefathers assuming it was correct? Reflect on the story of Ibrahim Alayhis Salam and Zayd bin Amr.

You are judged by your beliefs not by what you label yourself

Technically speaking one does not become an "Ash'ari", "Maturidi" or "Athari" by merely blind following scholars who label themselves as such in Aqeedah. It is by adopting certain Usuli views and principles, arriving at Sunni belief through firm evidence and considering all of the Qur'an and Sunnah (and use of sound Reason if you give this weight) and not merely cherrypicking, that you become any of these, or more likely find yourself agreeing with some in some of their minor points of differences and others in other issues. True Ash'ari, Maturidi and Athari scholars are scholars of those by Ijtihad, not by blind following.

Otherwise there are for instance Maturidis who are not Maturidi (Atabek Shukrov etc.), Atharis who are not Athari (much of the modern Mushabihah) etc.

Is Ibn al-Jawzi a Hanbali/Athari? (the answer is no.) Do we classify him as such based off of what he says or what his views are? Do we blindly go with what other scholars call him or not? Clearly not.

Your views classify you as one of these groups (Maturidi, Ash'ari or Athari), or outside Ahlus Sunnah altogether or outside Islam.

A "Muslim" who believes homosexuality is permissible is not a Muslim in the first place. A "Muslim" who believes in a prophet after Muhammad Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam is not a Muslim in the first place. A "Sunni Muslim" who believes Allah's Qadar is just his knowledge is not a Sunni Muslim. An "Athari" who refuses to affirm Allah's trancendence and believes Allah has a limb unlike our limbs is not an Athari. An "Ash'ari" who struggles with believing in the reality of Sihr due to finding it "irrational" is not an Ash'ari.

Your beliefs themselves, not what you say you are, dictate whether you are a Muslim and a Sunni Muslim as well.

Leaving Sunni Islam is by being actively opposed to its beliefs after being upon the Shahadah, ignorance of advanced issues does not take one outside of Sunni Islam

Yes a layperson and the uneducated do not enter into these discussions, you only leave Sunni Islam by opposing the beliefs of Sunni Islam. E.g. a convert who does not know what Qadar is who has just taken the Shahadah is a Sunni Muslim. You only leave Sunni Islam by what you believe afterwards that opposes it, whether that is something you are taught (and blindly adopt) or whether that is something you conclude on your own (e.g. rejecting the Hadith sciences because of Hadith you find problematic).

E.g. it is a belief of Sunni Islam that Imam Abu Bakr Radiyallahu An is superior to Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah. Now if someone raised as a Muslim throughout most of their life show no comprehension of this issue and then when they discover the issue they say "No Imam Ali Radiyallahu An should have been caliph and is superior to Abu Bakr Radiyallahu An" then they have left the fold of Sunnism.

Their ignorance did not take them out of Sunni Islam, it was their knowledge of the issue and then opposing it that did.

Misguidance only comes after having knowledge.

What I was discussing with the Brother

As for the issue I was discussing with the brother, he questioned the words of the Prophet Alayhis Salam as implying something that is impossible, I explained to him to first explain to me what the issue is and that it is not impossible rather it may be due to him trying to imagine Allah and likening him to the creation in his mind that has caused him to find fault with our Prophet Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam's words.

every group seems to claim theyre on the straight path, so my question to you is who is actually on the straight path?

please no beating about the bush, just keep the answer straight to the point please brother jazakAllah Khayran

[maturidee]

I do not see the contradiction, and the Prophet Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam is the amongst the creation the best of explainers and he only speaks the truth, so please explain what issue you are having to me.

You are saying that "The Arsh was above the water when there was not anything with Allah"....

This is a absurd saying. To say the Arsh and water were existing, while at the same time claiming there was nothing else except Allaah.

When there was nothing with Allaah, there was only Allaah and nothing else. No Arsh no water, Allaah did create them.

BTW, you didn't answer my question whether you are a jabri in the issue of qadar. Refer to my thread "Asharis are hidden Jabariyyah".

[Muhammad Hasan]

thing i dont get about these issues is why not leave it to the scholars? Allah knows best

Taqlid in Aqeedah

These are the only issues where it is prohibited to "leave it to the scholars".

Issues of Aqeedah and fundamental belief are not areas for you to blindly follow your scholar or a scholar whose sermons you like the sound of. If the scholar you follow starts teaching deviation, will you blindly follow him in that? What if he starts teaching you disbelief? And how will you know if you are just blindly accepting everything they say?

If your scholar leaves Islam tomorrow or starts teaching deviation tomorrow, will you follow him? Clearly not.

So whilst we can do Taqlid in Fiqh etc. there is no Taqlid in Aqeedah.

Taqlid in Aqeedah has historically destroyed and corrupted the pure teaching of many of the Prophets Alayhim Salam before the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam, most of which we do not know the names of. This is because they latched onto their scholars and blindly followed them when they followed corrupted versions of the sole religion. Does Allah not mention in the Qur'an people who followed their forefathers assuming it was correct? Reflect on the story of Ibrahim Alayhis Salam and Zayd bin Amr.

You are judged by your beliefs not by what you label yourself

Technically speaking one does not become an "Ash'ari", "Maturidi" or "Athari" by merely blind following scholars who label themselves as such in Aqeedah. It is by adopting certain Usuli views and principles, arriving at Sunni belief through firm evidence and considering all of the Qur'an and Sunnah (and use of sound Reason if you give this weight) and not merely cherrypicking, that you become any of these, or more likely find yourself agreeing with some in some of their minor points of differences and others in other issues. True Ash'ari, Maturidi and Athari scholars are scholars of those by Ijtihad, not by blind following.

Otherwise there are for instance Maturidis who are not Maturidi (Atabek Shukrov etc.), Atharis who are not Athari (much of the modern Mushabihah) etc.

Is Ibn al-Jawzi a Hanbali/Athari? (the answer is no.) Do we classify him as such based off of what he says or what his views are? Do we blindly go with what other scholars call him or not? Clearly not.

Your views classify you as one of these groups (Maturidi, Ash'ari or Athari), or outside Ahlus Sunnah altogether or outside Islam.

A "Muslim" who believes homosexuality is permissible is not a Muslim in the first place. A "Muslim" who believes in a prophet after Muhammad Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam is not a Muslim in the first place. A "Sunni Muslim" who believes Allah's Qadar is just his knowledge is not a Sunni Muslim. An "Athari" who refuses to affirm Allah's trancendence and believes Allah has a limb unlike our limbs is not an Athari. An "Ash'ari" who struggles with believing in the reality of Sihr due to finding it "irrational" is not an Ash'ari.

Your beliefs themselves, not what you say you are, dictate whether you are a Muslim and a Sunni Muslim as well.

Leaving Sunni Islam is by being actively opposed to its beliefs after being upon the Shahadah, ignorance of advanced issues does not take one outside of Sunni Islam

Yes a layperson and the uneducated do not enter into these discussions, you only leave Sunni Islam by opposing the beliefs of Sunni Islam. E.g. a convert who does not know what Qadar is who has just taken the Shahadah is a Sunni Muslim. You only leave Sunni Islam by what you believe afterwards that opposes it, whether that is something you are taught (and blindly adopt) or whether that is something you conclude on your own (e.g. rejecting the Hadith sciences because of Hadith you find problematic).

E.g. it is a belief of Sunni Islam that Imam Abu Bakr Radiyallahu An is superior to Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah. Now if someone raised as a Muslim throughout most of their life show no comprehension of this issue and then when they discover the issue they say "No Imam Ali Radiyallahu An should have been caliph and is superior to Abu Bakr Radiyallahu An" then they have left the fold of Sunnism.

Their ignorance did not take them out of Sunni Islam, it was their knowledge of the issue and then opposing it that did.

Misguidance only comes after having knowledge.

What I was discussing with the Brother

As for the issue I was discussing with the brother, he questioned the words of the Prophet Alayhis Salam as implying something that is impossible, I explained to him to first explain to me what the issue is and that it is not impossible rather it may be due to him trying to imagine Allah and likening him to the creation in his mind that has caused him to find fault with our Prophet Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam's words.

[Simply_Logical]

thing i dont get about these issues is why not leave it to the scholars? Allah knows best

[Muhammad Hasan]

How can there be the Arsh and water if: there was not anything with Allaah?

I do not see the contradiction, and the Prophet Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam is the amongst the creation the best of explainers and he only speaks the truth, so please explain what issue you are having to me.


Are we assuming Allah is a physical creature in a location in a place? Why do we assume that?

So we assume the throne must have been below him physically, when RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam said there is nothing below him and no space below him?


So because of our assumption the Prophet Alayhis Salam is wrong? Why isn't our assumption wrong?

The assumption is wrong and the Prophet Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam is correct. Allah is not a physical creature in a location in a place. Rather he transcends all such things. He is more real than the limited objects and creation he creates and determines to be. He is seperate and distinct from his creation.

He transcends even the measures and dimensions.

Allah is without anything with him, there is no above or below for him, nothing and no space above or below him. He is not in a place, nor is he place itself, it is his creation and he transcends such things. Thus there is nothing with him and he exists independent of all else including space and time. He alone transcends all other things. So we say he is above all things, above the heavens and the Earth, above the throne to show he is distinct and seperate from his creation, in affirmation of his absolute aboveness.

Thus Allah exists without anything with him even when the throne is above the water.

The throne is not in a space below Allah. There was and is no space below him for it to be created in.

Rather it was created upon water in a place, and he is completely above, distict and seperate from all his creation.

Glory be to Him, exalted and above all things.

[maturidee]

[*]The Arsh was above the water when there was not anything with Allah.

How can there be the Arsh and water if: there was not anything with Allaah?

[Muhammad Hasan]

...

Before answering any of these questions, let us establish from Naql i.e. Qur'an and Sunnah "where" Allah is.

So coin not similitudes for Allah. Lo! Allah knoweth; ye know not.

(Pickthall's Interpreation al-Quran, Surah an-Naml Ayah 74)

This is a command by Allah and a prohibition - he has told us that he knows and we do not know.

So we do not assert similarities for Allah - we restrict ourselves of any assertion regarding him to the Qur'an.

The Creator of the heavens and the earth. He hath made for you pairs of yourselves, and of the cattle also pairs, whereby He multiplieth you. Naught is as His likeness; and He is the Hearer, the Seer.

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah ash-Shura, Ayah 11)

So there is not anything that is like his likeness.

Are you sure that He who is Fis Sama will not make the earth swallow you up with a violent shudder?

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah al-Mulk, Ayah 16, transliteration substituted in blue)

So we say he is Fis' Sama. Those who permit translating would say "in Heaven".

They fear their Lord Min Fawqihim, and do what they are bidden.

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah an-Nahl, Ayah 50, transliteration substituted in blue)

So we say that in relation to us he is Fawq. Those who permit translating would say "above".

The Beneficent One, Who Istawa above the Throne.

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah Taha, Ayah 5, transliteration substituted in blue, correction in orange)

So we say He is ala al-Arsh. Those who permit translating would say Allah is "above the Throne".

One group said, "We do not understand this as above (ala')", I say, "This is Radd and Ta'til, the word ala' is clear - it means on, above, upon, over etc."

Another group said, "Yes and - it is above like my foot is above (ala') the ground, and his Istawa is as I raise my hand or it is like anything I picture in my head could rise" I say, "This is Tamthil and Tasbih, - they disobey Allah's command to not make similarities and instead go beyond what he has said"

We say, "He is ala al-Arsh as he has said, and we believe in it and he Istawa as he also creates - istawa is an action of his and we do not liken or imagine it nor do we make comparisons."

It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.

(Sahih International's Interpretation of al-Qur'an Surah Ali'-Imran, Ayah 7)

Hadith of the Slave Girl

Umar ibn al-Hakam said,

"I went to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, 'Messenger of Allah, a slave girl of mine was tending my sheep. I came to her and one of the sheep was lost. I asked her about it and she said that a wolf had eaten it, so I became angry and I am one of the children of Adam, so I struck her on the face. As it happens, I have to set a slave free, shall I free her?' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, questioned her, 'Where is Allah?' She said, 'In heaven.' He said, 'Who am I?' She said, 'You are the Messenger of Allah.' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Free her.' "

- Muwatta of Imam Malik Book 38, Hadith 8, also with a slight variation in wording in Sunan Abi Dawud Hadith 3282.

So it is established that the question of where is Allah can be answered with "Fis Sama". Translated into English this means "in heaven".

The intended meaning is Fawq al-Arsh (above the Throne) i.e. it refers to the Sifat of Uluww (elevation).

Some said, "She was not answering the question of where, It is not clear if the other Hadith brought in these chapters are of the same incident or a different one. They do not contain the question "where is Allah?" but instead, "Who is your lord?". She points up. It is not clear whether she can speak Arabic, some say she is mute/ a foreigner."

I say: "She was according to this Riwayah answering the question of where is Allah with above or when asked regarding Allah she certainly points up and that is established. Moreover that is supported by the Qur'an."

Hadith of the Dua taught to the Sahabah

Abu Hurairah (ra) said:

“The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used to order that when one of us went to sleep, he should say: ‘O Allah, Lord of the heavens and Lord of the earths, and our Lord, and the Lord of everything, splitter of the seed-grain and date-stone, and Revealer of the Tawrah and the Injil and the Qur’an. I seek refuge in You from the evil of every evil that You are holding by the forelock. You are the First, there is nothing before You, You are the Last, there is nothing after You, and Az-Zahir, there is nothing above you, and Al-Batin, there is nothing below You. Relieve me of my debt, and enrich me from poverty

(Allāhumma rabbas-samāwati wa rabbal-arḍīna wa rabbanā, wa rabba kulli shai’in, fāliqal-ḥabbi wan-nawā, wa munzilat-Tawrāti wal-Injīli wal-Qur’ān. A`ūdhu bika sharri kulli dhi sharrin anta ākhidhun bināṣiyatihi, antal-Awwalu falaisa qablaka shai’un, wa antal-Ākhiru falaisa ba`daka shai’un, waẓ-Ẓāhiru falaisa fauqaka shai'un wal-Bātinu falaisa dūnaka shai’un, iqḍi `annid-daina wa aghninī minal-faqr).’”

- Adab al-Mufrad of al-Bukhari Hadith 1212 and Sahih Muslim Hadith 2713a, Jami` at-Tirmidhi Hadith 3400 and 3481, Sunan Abi Dawud Hadith 5051 etc. Text/translation from at-Tirmidhi Hadith 3400 Darussalam. Imam at-Tirmidhi rates it Hasanun Sahih, and it is a hadith found in Sahih Muslim. Note that the Arabic is the same in all of these texts, with only slight difference in one of the Matn of Tirmidhi.

So it is established that there is nothing after or before, above or beneath Allah.

Some said, "Dunaka means closer, there cannot be nothing below him as the Arsh is below him".

I say, "Do we find it in the Qur'an and Sunnah, or statements of the Sahabah or the Salaf that the Arsh is below Allah? They said that he is above the Arsh. Now these who bring this accusation against this Hadith have made Ta'til and Radd. This is distortion of the Arabic, the meaning of the word Dunaka is clear and the scholars before this era understood it like this. The word Dunaka means below, under, beneath and less/inferior than/to him (i.e. below in degree), unless it is being used in an idiomatic expression, which it is clearly not. The root of the word is دون and this connotes lowness both physical and in status/degree.

E.g.

عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ
"إِذَا زَوَّجَ أَحَدُكُمْ خَادِمَهُ عَبْدَهُ أَوْ أَجِيرَهُ فَلاَ يَنْظُرْ إِلَى مَا دُونَ السُّرَّةِ وَفَوْقَ الرُّكْبَةِ "

Narrated 'Amr b. Suh'aib: On his father's authority, said that his grandfather reported the Prophet (ﷺ) said:

When one of you marries his female servant to his slave or to his employee, he should not look at her private part below the navel and above the knees.

- Sunan Abi Dawud 4114

Note: The words Duwna and Fawqa are also juxtaposed as opposite directions in the above. Note: Both the words used for above and below in the Hadith have been used in other Hadith for size as well (bigger vs smaller) - so the Hadith doubles as rejection of both Jiha and Miqdar.
Moreover, this is apparent in commonly used phrases like Alim ad-Dunya (the world which is lowest), Sama ad-Dunya (the lowest heaven) - lowest as he created seven heavens and layered them one above another, our heaven is physically the lowest and also arguably in status it is the lowest (as it is the furtherst from the Throne).

Now does RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam intend that there is nothing above Allah in status (i.e. better than him) and below him in status (i.e. worse than him)? Clearly not. So this is taken as there is nothing above him or below him. Imam at-Tirmidhi did not mention what he states when mentioning Hadith that he passes over, without interpreting We do not reject the Zahir."

Hadith regarding the beginning of creation

عَنْ وَكِيعِ بْنِ حُدُسٍ، عَ

عَنْ عَمِّهِ أَبِي رَزِينٍ، قَالَ قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَيْنَ كَانَ رَبُّنَا قَبْلَ أَنْ يَخْلُقَ خَلْقَهُ قَالَ " كَانَ فِي عَمَاءٍ مَا تَحْتَهُ هَوَاءٌ وَمَا فَوْقَهُ هَوَاءٌ وَخَلَقَ عَرْشَهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ " .
قَالَ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مَنِيعٍ قَالَ يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ الْعَمَاءُ أَىْ لَيْسَ مَعَهُ شَيْءٌ

Narrated Waki' bin Hudus:

from his uncle Abu Razin who said: "I said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Where was our Lord before He created His creation?' He said: 'He was in Ama' - no space was under him, no space was above him, and He created His Throne upon the water.'"

Ahmad bin Mani' said that Yazid bin Harun said, "al-Ama' i.e. there is nothing with him"

- Jami'at-Tirmidhi Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3109, Sunan Ibn Majah Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 182,

Again this establishes that there is nothing with him, there is nothing above him and nothing below him.

Some said, "Surely it only establishes that there is nothing under him at the beginning of the creation and that he can go into the creation afterwards?"

I say, "This person has misunderstood the Hadith in two ways -

Firstly: there was nothing below him as in absolutely nothing below him - RasulAllah Alayhis Salam negates there being empty void above or below him, and uses the word Ama' which the narrator says means there is nothing with him. He is being as explicit as he can without using terminology that does not exist yet - he is quite literally saying that he is without absolutely anything being above or below him.

The person who misinterprets the Hadith thinks that Allah is in a void with there being space above him and space below him. He thinks then that Allah creates the Throne in a space beneath him. What he doesn't realise is there is no "beneath" for Allah, nor any "above" etc. where he can create the Throne. The Throne was created completely seperate of him - the last part confirms this. RasulAllah Alayhis Salam did not say "He created his Throne underneath him" - there is no underneath to begin with!

If the Throne is in a space beneath Allah - then why did RasulAllah emphasise that there is no space below him before creating the throne? And then why did he then not say he created the throne below him?

In fact whenever the throne is mentioned - it is mentioned as being above the water.

At the Beginning of Creation there was just Allah and then in the place he determined (the water) he created the Arsh.

So he created the throne above the water, not "below" himself.

Secondly: A nominal sentence in Arabic cannot be past tense. So the comment made by the narrator "Laysa Ma'ahu Shay'un" is present tense.

Why is he saying there is nothing with Allah?

Because Allah is as he was. He was without anything else and is now without anything with him. The creation is completely seperate to him.

Finally, one notes that Imam at-Tirmidhi who wrote down the comment does not make any comment about taking the Hadith upon the wording. He does not do what he usually does where he says that we pass over the Hadith, without interpreting, imagining it etc. The reason why is because he does not need to - the Hadith has nothing which necessitates that to him. Note that he also does not oppose the comment. One also notes that Hammad bin Salamah, the teacher of Abu Hanifah, is mentioned in the chain."

Hadith of the Beginning of Creation - and a Prophecy regarding deviation

Narrated Imran bin Husain:

I went to the Prophet (ﷺ) and tied my she-camel at the gate. The people of Bani Tamim came to the Prophet (ﷺ) who said "O Bani Tamim! Accept the good tidings." They said twice, 'You have given us the good tidings, now give us something" Then some Yemenites came to him and he said, "Accept the good tidings, O people of Yemem, for Bani Tamim refused them." They said, "We accept it, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! We have come to ask you about this matter ." He said, "First of all, there was Allah and there was not anything else, and His throne was over the water, and He wrote everything in the Book and created the Heavens and the Earth." Then a man shouted, "O Ibn Husain! Your she-camel has gone away!" So, I went away and could not see the she-camel because of the mirage. By Allah, I wished I had left that she-camel.

- Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 3191

So it is established there was Allah without anything else and his Throne was above the water in the beginning.

'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) recited (these verses of the Qur'an):

" He it is Who revealed to thee (Muhammad) the Book (the Qur'an) wherein there are clear revelations-these are the substance of the Book and others are allegorical (verses). And as for those who have a yearning for error they go after the allegorical verses seeking (to cause) dissension, by seeking to explain them. And none knows their implications but Allah, and those who are sound in knowledge say: We affirm our faith in everything which is from our Lord. It is only the persons of understanding who really heed" (iii. 6). 'A'isha (further) reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said (in connection with these verses): When you see such people, avoid them, for it is they whom Allah has pointed out (in the mentioned verses).

- Sahih Muslim Hadith 2665, also Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 4547, Sunan Abi Dawud Hadith 4598

We do not distort what is clear and follow what is unclear.

Summary of the Beliefs derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah on this Matter:

1. He is One God, and there is not anything like him, and he Sees and Hears.
2. We are not permitted to make similarities with Allah. Allah knows and we do not know.
3. Allah is Fawq, Allah is Fawq al-Arsh and Fis Sama'. All of this means he is has Fawqiyyah/Uluww.
4. He Istawa ala al-Arsh as he has said. We do not intepret or distort it. There is no comparison with the creation.
5. There is not anything Fawq Allah nor anything Dunw Allah.
6. Before the creation there was not anything else with him and there remains not anything with him now.
7. The Arsh was above the water when there was not anything with Allah.
8. There are some verses that are clear and some verses that are unclear. We leave the interpretation of what is unclear to Allah. We believe in all of the Qur'an and obey the messenger and believe in him and what he has come with.

That is it.

That is what the Sahabah believed, without distortion, taking only the apparent (Zahir) ignoring implication, analogy etc. in the manner of the theologians even of the Zahiri.

I stopped where the Qur'an stopped and stopped where the Sunnah stopped with the above.

The claims of all groups, Ash'ari, Maturidi, Athari, Late Ash'ari, Mu'tazila, Jahmiyyah, "Salafi", Karramiyya, Muqatiliyyah, etc. will be judged against the above.

The only other thing we will judge them by is the following:

Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah Said,
"Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that"

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

[aMuslimForLife]

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.

What did the Salafus Salih mean when they said Allah is Above the Throne?

What do Asharis mean when they say, Allah is above the Throne?

what do Salafis mean when they say Allah is above the Throne?

what do Atharis mean when they say Allah is above the Throne?

What did Imam Tahawi mean when he said Allah is above the Throne?

What did Sufyan Al Thawri mean when he said, Allah is above the Throne?

[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.