Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ibn 'Uthaymin: The Jahmi Mujassim?!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ibn 'Uthaymin: The Jahmi Mujassim?!

    Salamun 'alaykum,

    Ibn 'Uthaymin lived in our time and passed away more than 20 years ago (in 1421 AH).
    He was not really on a high level of knowledge, but somehow still managed to find a lot of followers and admirers among the so called "Salafi" movement and this due to this movement being like a magnet for those lacking true knowledge, insight and deeper understanding.

    He was a creature with many deviated views and a caller to them. His audio recordings and books are filled with mindless statements regarding the Lord of the Worlds jalla jalaluhu and His religion.

    A lot of people in our time unfortunately regard this man as a "great scholar" and this due to the widespread ignorance regarding the religion of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.
    At the same time a lot of money was spent by a specific state in order to ensure the spread of these type of ideas.



    Ibn 'Uthaymin, the Mujassim!!!

    As for him being a Mujassim (anthropomorphist), then this is established by so many proofs from his audio recordings and his books that his Tajsim has become famous among the students of knowledge.

    A prime example for his Tajsim is heard in this recording:

    الوهابي ابن عثيمين: صفة الوجود لله لا بد منها(الجسمية) فيكون ذا طول وعرض وثقل وحجم



    So he says:
    "... The Mu'tazila affirmed the self (Dhat) [for Allah ta'ala], while they denied the [divine] attributes (Sifat). Billahi 'alaykum, can there be a self (Dhat) without attributes (Sifat)?... There can not be such a thing. Every self (Dhat) must have attributes (Sifat). The least is that we say: the attribute of existence (Wujud)... as long as it's a [real] existing self (Dhat), then it must have an attribute, even if only the attribute of existence (Wujud). This with the knowledge that a self (Dhat) must [also] have a length / height (Tul), a width / breadth ('Ardh), a weight (Thiql), a size (Hajm) and what is similar to that..."
    - end of quote -

    That which is highlighted in red is clear Tajsim and therefore Kufr (disbelief).
    Note that in the mind of this man only material or corporeal things can exist, which is why according to him every self - including the Divine Self! - must necessarily have a length, width, size and so on.


    The correct position: Allah jalla jalaluhu is described with the attributes of absolute perfection and is free from corporeality, similarity, likeness, needs or flaws. Whosoever describes Him ta'ala with a meaning from among the meanings that applies to the creation has disbelieved.



    Ibn 'Uthaymin, the Jahmi!!!

    This may come to the surprise of some people, but this man was also a Jahmi at the very same time.

    So this man got asked whether one should believe that "Allah ta'ala is established above the throne with His Self and He [also] is with us with His Self", and he answered by saying:

    الوهابي ابن عثيمين: الله(في كل مكان) معنا بنفسه حقيقة وفي السماء حقيقة لكن لا تخبروا أحدا❗🚫



    "YES ... this is what we believe! But we do not say »with His Self« (bi Dhatihi), because what could be understood from [the expression of Him being with us] »with His Self« is indwelling (Hulul)... so we avoid [this expression].
    As for that which I believe in Allah with, then it's that He subhanahu wa ta'ala is with us HE HIMSELF (!!!), but He is [also] in the heaven upon His throne...
    "
    - end of quote -

    He then goes on trying to doubt the position of the classical scholars, who stated that Allah ta'ala is with us with His knowledge!

    What he stated above is one of the ugliest positions of the Jahmiyya - who believe that Allah ta'ala is with us He Himself (!) and therefore everywhere He Himself - and has been heavily criticized by the classic scholars of the past.
    Note that his rejection of indwelling (Hulul) does not help him, but rather makes his position only more contradictory! This is similar to what the Christians do when they affirm Divinity for three different persons and then deny that they believe in three gods! Their denial does not help them and what they stated remains disbelief!


    As for the correct position: Allah ta'ala is distinct from His creation and completely beyond them, such that He is beyond time and space. He jalla jalaluhu is with us, because He is All-knowing, All-Hearing and All-Seeing, which means that it's NOT a Ma'iyya of the Divine Self and this in opposition to what this Jahmi claimed!
    Allah ta'ala is described with absolute Highness and is - unlike the "god" of Ibn 'Uthaymin - neither located in a physical direction of the throne, nor everywhere with us He Himself, rather He is beyond time and space!

    The statement that Allah ta'ala is above the throne (which is correct) is an affirmation of the distinctness and dissimilarity of the Creator from the creation from every angle and NOT an affirmation of place and for this reason the classical scholars stated that whosoever ascribes a place or every place to Allah ta'ala has disbelieved!

    (By the way: There is no time and space beyond the throne, which is something that these anthropomorphists simply do not understand!)



    Conclusion: Ibn 'Uthaymin believes in a "god" that has a height, breadth, weight, size and is located in a high place. At the same time this so called "god" is everywhere with us he himself!
    Many classical scholars have stated that a person, who believes in the former or the latter is not a believer in Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala in reality even if he claims to believe in Him or name that which he worships instead of Allah ta'ala as Allah ta'ala.
    So imagine the state of a person, who combines both these positions of heresy and disbelief? Is this a person that we as Muslims should be looking up to and take our religion from?

    We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and protection.


  • #2
    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Ibn 'Uthaymin lived in our time and passed away more than 20 years ago (in 1421 AH).
    He was not really on a high level of knowledge, but somehow still managed to find a lot of followers and admirers among the so called "Salafi" movement and this due to this movement being like a magnet for those lacking true knowledge, insight and deeper understanding.
    One of the false claims that we encounter a lot these days after the so called "Salafis" realized that many Muslims have understood the dangers of LaMadhhabism and that LaMadhhabism is a joke and is only taken serious by ignorant people is that they will try to present Ibn 'Uthaymin as a "Hanbali scholar".

    But Ibn 'Uthaymin was not a true Hanbali in reality and had not studied the Madhhab as it should be studied.

    Some proofs for what has been stated:


    Ibn 'Uthaymin teaches a book without having read it before!

    An example that comes to my mind here is that Ibn 'Uthaymin once started explaining the work Qawa'id al-Usul wa Ma'aqid al-Fusul by Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Haqq al-Hanbali (d. 739 AH), which is a short work on Usul al-Fiqh in accordance to the Madhhab of the Hanabila.
    Now guess what happened? He stated that if he knew that this work was so difficult (it's only intermediate level!), he wouldn't have started explaining it! So imagine that he was "explaining" a work, which he seemingly had not even read before and he founded difficulty in it!

    Note that the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali had mentioned this issue together with other examples of the weakness of knowledge of the "Salafi" Mashayikh.

    Listen to this here:

    توضيح الضعف العلمي عند الشيخ ابن عثيمين و باقي مشايخ السلفية



    Wallahi, it's a shame that these type of ignorant people are regarded as "great scholars" and that there are Muslims who take their religion from these people and show enmity towards other Muslim because of these creatures, who are lacking knowledge of some basic Islamic sciences!



    Ibn 'Uthaymin makes an "explanation" upon the Hanbali creed and tries to refute the creed that he is supposedly "explaining"!

    As for him not being in agreement with the Hanabila in creed, then he has a so called "explanation" upon the poem in creed al-Durra al-Mudhiyya (better known as al-'Aqida al-Saffariniyya) by the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH). The ironic and strange thing here is that he felt the need to write an "explanation" upon a work, which already has a real explanation by its very own author (I mean Lawami' al-Anwar)!
    And guess how the "explanation" of Ibn 'Uthaymin looks like? He tries to refute major points of the creed he is supposedly "explaining" (which is a completely unscholarly behavior). Why did not call it simply a refutation?



    Ibn 'Uthaymin tries to "explain" a Hanbali Fiqh work in accordance to his own head!

    As for him not being in agreement with the Hanabila in Fiqh, then he has a work called Sharh al-Mumti', which is supposedly an "explanation" regarding the Hanbali Fiqh work Zad al-Mustaqni' by Imam al-Hajjawi (d. 968 AH).
    Guess what he does there? Instead of explaining the work in accordance to the intention of the author (which is the foundation of any real explanation work!) and in accordance to the Madhhab of the Hanabila, he instead explains it in accordance to his own head!
    If a person wants to see a real explanation, then al-Rawdh al-Murbi' by Imam al-Buhuti (d. 1051 AH) is without any doubt a good work.



    To make the issue short: He is neither a real Hanbali, nor really a "major scholar" and yet almost all "Salafis" will mention him as if he's some sort of Mujtahid fil Madhhab or even higher in knowledge!
    ​​

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
      So he says:
      "... The Mu'tazila affirmed the self (Dhat) [for Allah ta'ala], while they denied the [divine] attributes (Sifat). Billahi 'alaykum, can there be a self (Dhat) without attributes (Sifat)?... There can not be such a thing. Every self (Dhat) must have attributes (Sifat). The least is that we say: the attribute of existence (Wujud)... as long as it's a [real] existing self (Dhat), then it must have an attribute, even if only the attribute of existence (Wujud). This with the knowledge that a self (Dhat) must [also] have a length / height (Tul), a width / breadth ('Ardh), a weight (Thiql), a size (Hajm) and what is similar to that..."
      - end of quote -

      Ibn 'Uthaymin's 3-dimensional "god" also wears clothes!!!

      Someone asked this man regarding a Hadith Qudsi where the statement of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala "Pride is my cloak (Rida`) and greatness My robe (Izar), and he who competes with Me in respect of either of them I shall cast into Hell-fire." can be found (similar to this wording can also be found in Sahih Muslim).

      So this creature - who does not seem to understand his own mother tongue properly - answered by stating what can be heard in this recording:

      الوهابي ابن عثيمين: يزعم أن لله ثيابا(ملابس) حقيقية يلبسها بعدما ابتدع أن الله ذا طول وعرض وثقل❗🚫



      So he says:
      "They believe in it as it came in the narration ... [questioner interrupts him] ... Yes, they (he intends his group) affirm what Allah affirmed for Himself... [questioner interrupts him again] ... So you mean that it's a metaphoric Izar (lit. lower garment) and Rida` (lit. cloak)? If someone asks you, no if Allah 'azza wa jall asks you on the day of judgement, what will you say? What will you say to Allah? ... Especially when the apparent of His speech is that it's a real lower garment (Izar) and a real cloak (Rida`)! But how did He wear [the cloak] and how did He wear the [lower garment]? The knowledge of this is with Allah. Do you understand [now]?... "
      - end of quote -

      So here he is literally affirming CLOTHING for that which he worships [instead of Allah ta'ala]!
      Note that even the questioner gets uneasy and interrupts him several times and even correctly suggests that this style is found in the Arabic language (such that it can not be taken literally), yet this man does not take heed and boldly keeps on in his vain!

      No Arab - or any person who properly understands Arabic - would understand this statement in the manner this Ibn 'Uthaymin understood it.

      Rather it's obvious that Rida` and Izar in this context is a metaphor for attributes, such that it's understood that pride / glory and greatness are from the attributes of Allah ta'ala!
      This, o Ibn 'Uthaymin, is from the language of the Arabs, which seems to be completely alien to you!


      Here we find similiar to this in the book of Allah ta'ala, so that your followers may take heed and repent from this paganism and heresy before death reaches them:

      { وَضَرَبَ ٱللَّهُ مَثَلًا قَرْيَةً كَانَتْ ءَامِنَةً مُّطْمَئِنَّةً يَأْتِيهَا رِزْقُهَا رَغَدًا مِّن كُلِّ مَكَانٍ فَكَفَرَتْ بِأَنْعُمِ ٱللَّهِ فَأَذَٰقَهَا ٱللَّهُ لِبَاسَ ٱلْجُوعِ وَٱلْخَوْفِ بِمَا كَانُوا۟ يَصْنَعُونَ }

      { And Allah presents an example: a city [i.e., Makkah] which was safe and secure, its provision coming to it in abundance from every location, but it denied the favors of Allah. So Allah made it taste the envelopment of hunger and fear for what they had been doing.}

      [Al-Qur`an al-karim 16:112 with English interpretation]

      If the Aya would be translated literally, then it would be "the clothing (Libas) of hunger and fear" (with the knowledge that hunger and fear are not clothes and can not be worn!) and this type of metaphoric expressions is known in the Arabic language!
      No Arab in his right mind would take these type of expressions literally.



      ​​​​
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 2 weeks ago.

      Comment

      Collapse

      Edit this module to specify a template to display.

      Working...
      X