The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS

[AbuNajm]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

You don't need to attack my comprehension to make up for your shortcomings.

You quoted me incorrectly , rather it is clear that you yourself are confused , or dishonest.

Brother, you keep asking the same questions. It makes me think you don't understand the first time around.

I already responded to what you asked about Abu Sulayman in post #767 on page 77 of this discussion, where I said:

... then this, although a reasonable and non-Shirk issue, is still wrong.

You even acknowledged what I said and asked:

After reading this once again now , I believe I have taken your words " although non shirki " incorrectly.

To make the matter decisive , and wallaahi , I am asking you for the third time for a clear answer

1) Are the beliefs in the quote Shirk Akbar?

Can you just reply with a yes or a no?

So I answered a second time in post #776:

The only "belief" contained in the above is that the Prophet SAWS can hear those at his grave.

That is a false belief and is based on invalid Qiyas and/or weak Hadith. However, it does not appear to be "Shirk Akbar" according to any scholars that I'm aware of.

You seem obsessed with Abu Sulayman. It's unhealthy. Leave it alone.

Also, I don't know why you insist on asking me for my opinions since it's clear you don't have any respect or patience. Also unhealthy. Leave it alone.

It's not my problem that you don't understand and it's not an "attack" to point out this issue you're having. It's inconvenient for me as your inability to understand is forcing me to repeat myself.

[AmantuBillahi]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

Brother, you keep asking the same questions. It makes me think you don't understand the first time around.

I already responded to what you asked about Abu Sulayman in post #767 on page 77 of this discussion, where I said:



You even acknowledged what I said and asked:



So I answered a second time in post #776:



You seem obsessed with Abu Sulayman. It's unhealthy. Leave it alone.

Also, I don't know why you insist on asking me for my opinions since it's clear you don't have any respect or patience. Also unhealthy. Leave it alone.

It's not my problem that you don't understand and it's not an "attack" to point out this issue you're having. It's inconvenient for me as your inability to understand is forcing me to repeat myself.

: )

May Allah grant you sincerity , enjoy , my brother.

Salam alaykom

[aMuslimForLife]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

I've been debating with wannabe Ash'aris for over 15 years. I would say to you "take some time and come back", but in my experience, people in your position just dig themselves farther into the confusion. Your problem is that you didn't study Aqeedah properly from the outset, rather you began by being influenced by these peddlers of confusion and obfuscation from the beginning, so that the truth sounds false and falsehood sounds true.

For those who begin their study of Aqeedah under the auspices of neo-Ash'aris, they rarely ever dig themselves out of that deviant sect. Even wannabe so-called "Salafis" fall prey to that deviant creed, if they don't begin with studying Aqeedah properly before engaging in such debates and discussions.

I am not confused at all. It doesn't matter how knowledgeable one is about a subject matter, if Allah chooses you to leave that position for another, you will leave that position for another. In the many years I've been on the planet, I've seen Salafis become Ashari and I've seen Asharis become Salafi. And I've seen both Asharis and Salafis leave Islam. (May Allah protect us both from that).

Some people who leave Salafism for Asharism, may not even be related to Aqida. Why a person chooses to stay a Salafi and never be bothered by Ashari, may not every be related to Aqida? People are complex individuals.

But let me let you in on something you apparently don't know:

A person who accepts the "Ta'weel" and "Tafweedh al-Kayfiyyah" of the Salaf, and also acknowledges that when the Salaf did not do "Ta'weel" and simply "passed along as is" the Attribute upon "its Dhaahir", that such a person is an Athari in Aqeedah, not an Ash'ari.

You're almost there. Only if you'd get out of your own way...

Ok

No. You were rather specific in stating that the phenomena of taking the Dhaahir of the Attributes was an invention of Ibn Taymiyyah and the "Salafi Dawah, Hanbali anthropomorphs".

I completely shredded that notion by proving it wrong through the quotes of Shafi'ees from the 4th century. I can go earlier than that as well.

The problem is that you're going to do the same as what you just did above- move the goal posts and claim that the texts quoting those Salaf are altered somehow.

This isn't my first rodeo.

I don't care how many rodeos you've been to, or how many cattle you lassoed in those rodeos nor how much time it took you to lasso those cattle.

Great. The problem is you don't believe Ibn Taymiyyah. Rather you consider him a Kaafir. The only reason you'd quote him is to disprove what he's saying.

Never in the history of me debating Salafis, have I ever called Ibn Taymiyyah a kaafir, nor do I consider him a kaafir.

So since you wannabe Ash'aris love to play with terminologies once you get cornered, thereby obfuscating and moving goal posts, let's get something clear:

The time of the "Salaf" did not involve debates requiring the clarification and codification of terms like "upon the apparent meaning" and "literal meaning". These were terminologies developed specifically to combat the Jahmiyyah and other deviants who arose later on.

One thing we agree on is that the early Salaf related the verses and Ahadith of the Attributes without delving into them or diverting them from the "apparent meaning" in their wording.

And this is where your personal confusion regarding the Ash'ari creed leads your argument to go off to the woods and die a lonely death:

This is a fair argument. The scholars of the khalaf codified and systematized the statements of the Salafus Saleh.

Certain scholars developed the wording of "upon the apparent meaning" (ala dhahiri) and "the literal meaning." (Haqiqatan) in their codification and systematization of the Aqida of the Salafus Saleh. While other scholars developed the wording of Tafwid (non-specific interpretation) and Tawil (specific interpretation) in their codification and systematization of the Aqida of the Salafus Saleh.

Statement of the Salafus Saleh
Codification of the scholars from the Khalaf


Point 1: Tafwid and Tawil

Imam Al-Qurtubi al Maliki says, "On this verse and those similar to it the people are divided into three groups:

(Tafwid) Some have said, “we should it, and we believe in it without explaining it,” and which is the position of most of the Imams, and this is as has been reported from [Imam] Malik (rh) who was asked by a man about the verse, “ar-Rahman ‘ala l-arshi Stawa” and he said “Al-istawa is not unknown, the how is not conceivable (ghayr ma’qul), belief in it [al-istawa] is obligatory and questioning about it is an innovation and I do not think that you are anything but an innovator.’ Then he ordered that the man be led out.

(Dhahir) Some others said, “we read, and we explain it by what is apparent in the language.” And this is what the anthropomorphists (mushabbihah) say.

(Tawil) And others said: “We read and we interpret them and we prevent taking it upon the apparent meaning [which comes to the mind of the anthropomorphists].” (Tafsir al Qurtubi)

Imam Nawawi expressed a similar position, Imam Nawawi said, “Scholars disagree about the Quran verses and hadiths that deal with the Attributes of Allah, [such as Allah’s ‘hand’ (Quran 48:10), His ‘eyes’ (52:48), or His ‘nearness’ (50:16)] as to whether they should be discussed in terms of a particular figurative interpretation (tawil) or not.

(Tawil) Some say that they should be figuratively interpreted as befits them (ie interpreting His hand for example, as an allusion to His omnipotence). And this is more well known of the two positions of the scholastic theologians.

(Tafwid) Others say that such verses should not be given a definitive interpretation, but rather their meaning should not be discussed, and the knowledge of them should be cosigned to Allah Most (tafwid), while at the same time believing in the transcendence of Allah Most High, and that the characteristics of created things do not apply to Him (Allah). For example, it should be said we believe that

“the All Merciful is ‘established’ (Arabic: istawa) on the Throne.” (Quran 20:5)

But we do not know the reality of the meaning of that, nor what is intended thereby, though we believe of Allah Most High that

“there is nothing whatsoever like unto Him (Quran 42:11)”

And that He is above indwelling in created things (hulul), or having the characteristics of temporal, contingent existence (huduth). [color=blue]And this is the path of the Early Muslims (Salafus Saleh) or the vast majority of them, and is the safest, for a person is not required to enter into discussions about this. [color=blue] When one believes in Allah’s transcendence above created things, there is no need for debate on it, or taking risks over what there is neither pressing necessity nor even any real call for.

But if the need arises for definitive interpretations to refute someone making unlawful innovations and the like, then the learned may supply them, and this is how we should understand what has come down to us from scholars in this field. And Allah knows best. (Al Majmu- Nawawi)

Point 2: Dhahir

Ibn Taymiyyah siad, "The tawil of divine attributes is that the truth about them which Allah alone knows. It is the truth about their nature, which is unknown to us. Malik Ibn Anas said about Istiwa, "Istiwa is known but its nature (kayfiyyah) is unknown." Istawa is known in the sense that its meaning is known, that it may be explained (yufassar) and translated into another language. This is the tawil of istawa which the perfect in knowledge know. However, the tawil of istawa in the sense of the truth about its modality is known only to Allah." (Majmu al Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah)

Ibn Taymiyyah also said, "The person who has made his vow conditional on the belief that the verse, "The Merciful ascended the Throne," is to be understood on its dhahir (apparent meaning), as people understand from its words, should know that dhahir is an ambiguous term. As known to the uncorrupted nature of man (fitrah) and used in Arabic, the religious literature and the parlance of the Salaf, dhahir means something other than what it means to many later writers...."

Ibn Taymiyyah continues, "....But if the one who vowed meant by dhahir what is known (dhahir) to human nature before it is overwhelmed by desires and confused by conflicting opinions, it is the dhahir that behooves Allah's majesty and transcendence. It is also the dhahir of all His names and Attributes, such as life, knowledge, power, hearing, seeing, speech, will, love anger, and pleasure as well as the attributes that have been referred to in the verse, "What has prevented you from prostrating to one whom I have created with my hands" (38:75), or in the hadith, "Our Lord descends to the lowest heaven to the lowest heaven every night." The dhahir of these words, when they are used in our case, is an incident or a body (kalami terminology), for our beings belong to the same category. But when they refer to Allah, their apparent meanings (dhahir) is only that which behooves them and suits His Exalted Self. Words like essense (dhat), existence, wujud, reality (haqiqah), sense, even though we know, to be sure, that the apparent meaning (dhahir) of these words in the divine context, and that they have nothing in common between them which may imply a defect or contingency on the part of Allah, whether or not they are taken as unequivocal, or general in their connotation." (Majmo al Fatawa- Ibn Taymiyyah)


These scholars did not understand the statements of the Salafus Saleh in the same way.

So I ask you again,

and why do you believe taking the dhahir is a better than the methodology of Tafwid? Or even Tawil?

That you would think this verse is proof for Tafweedh demonstrates that you not only know nothing about the language of the Arabs but also that you have no idea what Tafweedh means.

You can't argue that ignorance of the Arabic language leads one to picking tafwid over the dhahir position, because Imam Nawawi and Imam Qurtubi knew Arabic.

And Allah knows best.

[AmantuBillahi]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

[MENTION=86685]aMuslimForLife[/MENTION]

Are you aware of these quotes from Imam Qurtubi?


"And the Salaf of the very first times - may Allaah be pleased with them all - never used to negate direction (al-jihah) for Allaah and nor did they used to express this (negation). Rather, they, and all of the others, used to speak with its affirmation for Allaah, the Most High just as His Book has spoken about it and just as His Messengers informed of it. And not a single one of the Salaf denied that his ascending (istawaa) the Throne was real and true (haqeeqah) (as opposed to metaphorical, majaaz). And Allaah specified the Throne with istawaa because that is the greatest of all His creation. However they assumed ignorance only of the exact nature (kaifiyyah) of istiwaa, for the true nature of that is not known. Imaam Maalik said, ‘Istiwaa is known…’, meaning in the language, ‘…its true nature is unknown and asking about it is an innovation." Commentary of [7:54] in his Tafsir.


and ..

The most correct of these opinions, although I do not adopt it or choose it for myself!, is the opinion which numerous Quranic versus and narrations agreed on reporting: Allah SWT is over His throne, as He mentioned in His book, and His Prophet’s sayings, without a howness, He is separate from His creation. This is the opinion of the righteous predecessors as reported by the trustworthy.” (Aqaweel al-Thiqaat 1/132).

[AmantuBillahi]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

(Dhahir) Some others said, “we read, and we explain it by what is apparent in the language.” And this is what the anthropomorphists (mushabbihah) say.

This quote itself is problematic , due to the fact that it can be interpreted in different ways , based on the readers preconception. In one sense it is correct , and in another sense it is incorrect ..

It's very recitation is it's explanation. Our dictionaries do not have an "Allah Chapter". The Mushabbihah is the one approaches the text preconceiving tashbih.

1) It is essential to acknowledge that these attributes are relevant to Allah , and not created beings.
2) It is essential to acknowledge the context in which the attributes are being described.

The quote above would have it seem that the people who affirm the Dhahir of Yad , intend by it a created hand , or a door hand , or the hand of a clock- because there is no "Uncreated Perfect Hands of Allah" in the language of people. Our language is relevant to our day to day discourse.

The wordings of the Attributes of Allah , although the same , are ultimately relative to Allah's Existence.

They are similar only in concept , but not in reality. Had they not been similar in concepts , we would have absolutely no idea what they meant , and this also includes Life, Power, Will, Knowledge, Hearing, Sight, Speech. We affirm them as concepts , relative to Allah's nature , which is a Nature / Essence / Existence separate and unlike the creation.

The onus of proof is upon you to prove that Yad , by definition , can not apply to Allah. If you respond with "But what is a Yad" , then please re-read what I have typed. But just for clarity sake.

1) Yad is a Sifat mentioned clearly in both the Qur'an and the Hadeeth.
2) Allah's attributes are not created.
3) Allah Created Adam and performed other tasks with his Yadayn.

Allah did not say , "Why did you not bow down to that which I have created with Alif Lam Meem." ..

It is only tashbih if one says "Hand like my hand , or Hand similar to."

I really can not see why anyone would find this problematic as far as definitions are concerned. In fact , early Ashari's affirmed Sifat Dhatiyyah , and they are actually acceptable within your Madhhab , and Allah knows best.

[AmantuBillahi]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

and why do you believe taking the dhahir is a better than the methodology of Tafwid? Or even Tawil?

I know I am stealing these questions , but I desire to respond myself.

The reasons why it is better is because it is more honest. No one is forcing me to be a Muslim , and I can not lie to myself. When the Allah describes Himself , and when the Prophet describes Allah (saws) , I can not imagine that the companions were understanding certain Sifat which do not go against 'logic' in one manner ,and then affirming another set which are in tune with certain metaphysical beliefs.

Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
We said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon when the sky is clear?" We said, "No." He said, "So you will have no difficulty in seeing your Lord on that Day as you have no difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon (in a clear sky)
Sahih al-Bukhari 7439

What an ideal time to perform tafwid , or ta'weel. Think of all the Kufr and Tajsim an uneducated mind would assume from this Hadith. Oh but of course, the Sahabah were so pure that their minds automatically agreed with the conclusions of the philosophers , rather than submitting to their natural meanings within their contexts.

Anyways the better question , which would actually lead to a beneficial conclusion , would be to ask "Why are certain attributes accepted without it being problematic - while other Attributes ( Related by the same source ) are not only rejected out of safety , but rather , believing in them would necessitate Kufr"

What is important is recognizing standards and presuppositions. The Athari has a blank mind when He approaches Islam. He is open to anything Allah and His Messenger dictate for him to believe.
Not so much the Ashari .. Ashari's approach Aqeedah with presuppositions. Until you understand this point , and realize that Ashari's will never accept that Allah is literally Above The Throne. Even if there was a mutawatir hadith that says " Allah is literally above the throne". ( There is not a hadith like that). That Hadith would actually necessitate Tafwid / Ta'weel. Do you see the dilemma?

The reality of the Ashaa'ira is that they perform Tafwid and Ta'weel lest they call the Prophet an incoherent false Prophet ( wa iyyadhu billah). The reality is , this a field where human reason is unreasonable to use , except in general affirmations and full submission. We did not come to know Islam to be true via metaphysical argumentation. We know it's true by the things we can measure , and we submit to the matters of the unseen.

Allahu alam

[aMuslimForLife]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

[MENTION=86685]aMuslimForLife[/MENTION]

Are you aware of these quotes from Imam Qurtubi?


" Commentary of [7:54] in his Tafsir.

Therefore, I say:

and ..

I am not sure what to make of this quote. It appears to be from Imam Qurtubi, not sure what he meant by this quote, especially in light of what is in his tafsir. And I am not sure of the time frame he wrote this in light of his tafsir. It could be an earlier work it or could be a later work. I would have to do some more research on this quote.

And Allah knows best.

[aMuslimForLife]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

I know I am stealing these questions , but I desire to respond myself.

The reasons why it is better is because it is more honest. No one is forcing me to be a Muslim , and I can not lie to myself. When the Allah describes Himself , and when the Prophet describes Allah (saws) , I can not imagine that the companions were understanding certain Sifat which do not go against 'logic' in one manner ,and then affirming another set which are in tune with certain metaphysical beliefs.

Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
We said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon when the sky is clear?" We said, "No." He said, "So you will have no difficulty in seeing your Lord on that Day as you have no difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon (in a clear sky)
Sahih al-Bukhari 7439

What an ideal time to perform tafwid , or ta'weel. Think of all the Kufr and Tajsim an uneducated mind would assume from this Hadith. Oh but of course, the Sahabah were so pure that their minds automatically agreed with the conclusions of the philosophers , rather than submitting to their natural meanings within their contexts.

Anyways the better question , which would actually lead to a beneficial conclusion , would be to ask "Why are certain attributes accepted without it being problematic - while other Attributes ( Related by the same source ) are not only rejected out of safety , but rather , believing in them would necessitate Kufr"

What is important is recognizing standards and presuppositions. The Athari has a blank mind when He approaches Islam. He is open to anything Allah and His Messenger dictate for him to believe.
Not so much the Ashari .. Ashari's approach Aqeedah with presuppositions. Until you understand this point , and realize that Ashari's will never accept that Allah is literally Above The Throne. Even if there was a mutawatir hadith that says " Allah is literally above the throne". ( There is not a hadith like that). That Hadith would actually necessitate Tafwid / Ta'weel. Do you see the dilemma?

The reality of the Ashaa'ira is that they perform Tafwid and Ta'weel lest they call the Prophet an incoherent false Prophet ( wa iyyadhu billah). The reality is , this a field where human reason is unreasonable to use , except in general affirmations and full submission. We did not come to know Islam to be true via metaphysical argumentation. We know it's true by the things we can measure , and we submit to the matters of the unseen.

Allahu alam

[Abu Sulayman]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

Let's not forget that the 'Ashaa'irah of today will like to make it seem like that it is them and the Maturidiyyah at war with the Salafis.

Such is not the case. Anyone who has read the books of the Maturidiyyah such as ...

You're acting just like orientalists. So just because these type of statements can be found, it means that the Jumhur was upon that?

There is another point: Look what "Salafism" does to one's way of thinking so that differences and discussions between Muslims is perceived as "war".
"Salafism" is an ideology that calls it followers to cause problems with other Muslims. As such it's a call to disunity and Fitnah and the last 200 years are the best proof for that.
Other than that it's also a call to the laymen to speak regarding the religion of Allah ta'ala without knowledge as it's evident from all those discussions regarding the divine attributes. Most of those engaging in these discussions do not know where the actual differences lie.

IslamWeb is Salafi and not promoting the killing of you misguided Ashaa'irah.
IslamQA is Salafi and not promoting the killing of you misguided Ashaa'irah
The ahl al-Hadiith in the subcontinent are not killing any of you misguided mix in the form of Maturidi/Ashaa'irah here
The Salafis in the UK/US are not killing any of you misguided Ashaa'irah

Ibn Taymiyyah never called for you to be killed.

What Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhaab did is history. If the OP sees the killing where he is let him preach there.

Should we thank these websites for not calling for our killing? It's indeed a pity which type of people have raised their head in the last 100 years.

As for IAW: The "Salafis" teach his books and call to his views. This has a very negative impact upon the whole Islamic world. America, Russia, the Zionists, the twelver Shi'ah and the "Salafis" are the main reasons for all the killing and bloodshed that is happening in our countries right now.

[Abu Sulayman]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

Since this thread cannot stick to Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhaab and also goes into 'Ashaa'irism, here are my questions to you

...

How is this different from the Jahmiyyah? And is there a single person from among the Companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) who explained the Kalaam of Allaah like this?

More importantly, do you endorse it?

Do you really think the layman thinks like this?

How is this not delving into the modality

I'll answer your questions. I do however expect you to answer my questions too.

The Jahmiyyah do not affirm attributes that are za`idah 'ala al-dhat al-ilahiyyah. So they did not believe that God can be attributed with speech (Kalam) in the first place. The companions - radhiallahu 'anhum - did not go into details.
And yes, I do believe it's correct.
As for whether laymen think like this: What is necassary is to believe that the Qur`an al-karim is the relevation of Allah and His speech and free from any mistake. Going further into details is not necessary.

I don't think that "Salafis" are in a position to point with their fingers at other Muslims:
Let me remind you that according to them the speech of Allah is qadim al-naw' hadith al-ahad, which means that it's only pre-eternal in it's kind. They say the same regarding the world (l'm intending here the creation in general), i.e. that it's pre-eternal in it's kind.
Now they go on and say "the speech of Allah is uncreated, the world is created", but what is their statement worth while they have already described the speech of Allah ta'ala with contingency and the universe with pre-eternity.

Know that anything that has a beginning is created and saying otherwise is the position of atheists, polytheists and other disbelievers and goes against logical understanding.
Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) has mentioned in his Maqalat al-Islamiyyin (one of his last books, which "Salafis" even qoute sometimes because they think he supports their views in that book) that muhdath (new, contingent) and makhluq (created) has the same meaning according to all islamic groups.

Now it's my turn to ask:
Do you accept Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn as attributes that are meanings (ma'ani) subsisting in the divine essence or do you regards them as physical entities (A'yan)?
Do you know that believing that God is described by Sifat 'Ayniyyah Dhatiyyah (which is the belief of "Salafi" Mashayikh) is disbelief according to all Sunni scholars?

[Abu Sulayman]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

Now as for the discussion regarding the divine attributes:

Unfortunately the "Salafis" have started a very bad trend in our time by confusing and misinforming laymen (especially youngsters) through the internet. As a result we see laymen discussing the divine attributes without knowledge and blindly repeating statement without having understood what the issue at hand is.
If they would would simply stick to the Muhkamat and stopped speaking about the Mutashabihat and their exact meaning it would have been better for them.

We see here people speaking about dhahir, ta`wil, tafwidh, kayfiyyah and so on while misusing qoutes and not even understanding the real difference between the Ahl al-Sunnah and the "Salafis".

First of all: What is the apparent meaning to a Sunni maybe different to the apparent that a Mushabbih understands.
Then: Bringing qoutes without knowing the context and without knowing the beliefs of the person is not a good idea. An example is to qoute the Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) in order to support the view of "Salafis". If the person would have looked into the context of the statement in his book Ma'alim al-Sunan he would have understood that he's actually supporting Tafwidh al-Ma'na. His positions regarding 'Aqidah in that book and in others are clearly against the Madhhab of the Taymiyyun.

I'll give you an example for an issue where "Salafi" laymen have no clue whatsoever what they're talking about: You'll see them blindly repeating the words of "Salafi" Mashayikh who say things like "God has real hands and real fingers".

Now that 99% of the classical scholars of the 4 Madhahib and those from the Dhahiriyyah have been upon one of these 3 positions regarding the Ayat and Ahadith which mention Wajh, Yad and 'Ayn in context to Allah ta'ala:

- Tafwidh: Which means to believe in these text (without adding something to it nor subtracting from it) and relegating the exact interpretation to Allah ta'ala while being sure that there is nothing unto like Him. This is the way of the majority of the early generations of the Muslims and the safest way.
- Ta`wil: Which is to mention a possible interpretation which is in line with the context and the Arabic language. This is the way of many classical scholars (like Imam al-Harayman al-Juwayni (d. 478 AH) for example).
- Ithbat with Tanzih: That is to accept these descriptions as meanings (Ma'ani) that subsist in the divine essence (i.e. just like one accepts knowledge ('Ilm) or power (Qurdrah) as divine attributes), while being sure that limbs (Jawarih) or parts (Ajza`) are not meant. Imam al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) has mentioned that this was the approach of Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH).


The problem is that "Salafi" Mashayikh go against all three positions and regard Yad or Wajh as A'yan (i.e. physical entities which can be pointed at... look at the explanation of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) concerning Sifat 'Ayniyyah for further understanding). To them God consists of unseperable parts and these parts can be literally pointed at and it's possible to see one part without the other and so on (see again statements of Ibn Taymiyyah). So what they simply intend by saying "real hands" is two 3-dimensional things. And their statement "we do not know its modality" means "we do not know how big these hands are and which shape they exactly have and so on".
This is disbelief by agreement of every single Sunni scholar throughout history.
Note that most "Salafi" laymen do bot believe this and do also not know that this is actually the meaning that their Mashayikh intend.

Know that as layman one is not obliged to go into details: What is important is to now is that Allah ta'ala has the attributes of absolute perfection and that there is nothing unto Him.

[ZeeshanParvez]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

I'll answer your questions. I do however expect you to answer my questions too.

The Jahmiyyah do not affirm attributes that are za`idah 'ala al-dhat al-ilahiyyah. So they did not believe that God can be attributed with speech (Kalam) in the first place. The companions - radhiallahu 'anhum - did not go into details.
And yes, I do believe it's correct.
As for whether laymen think like this: What is necassary is to believe that the Qur`an al-karim is the relevation of Allah and His speech and free from any mistake. Going further into details is not necessary.

I don't think that "Salafis" are in a position to point with their fingers at other Muslims:
Let me remind you that according to them the speech of Allah is qadim al-naw' hadith al-ahad, which means that it's only pre-eternal in it's kind. They say the same regarding the world (l'm intending here the creation in general), i.e. that it's pre-eternal in it's kind.
Now they go on and say "the speech of Allah is uncreated, the world is created", but what is their statement worth while they have already described the speech of Allah ta'ala with contingency and the universe with pre-eternity.

Know that anything that has a beginning is created and saying otherwise is the position of atheists, polytheists and other disbelievers and goes against logical understanding.
Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) has mentioned in his Maqalat al-Islamiyyin (one of his last books, which "Salafis" even qoute sometimes because they think he supports their views in that book) that muhdath (new, contingent) and makhluq (created) has the same meaning according to all islamic groups.

Now it's my turn to ask:
Do you accept Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn as attributes that are meanings (ma'ani) subsisting in the divine essence or do you regards them as physical entities (A'yan)?
Do you know that believing that God is described by Sifat 'Ayniyyah Dhatiyyah (which is the belief of "Salafi" Mashayikh) is disbelief according to all Sunni scholars?

I do not understand why you keep brining in Hand, Face, and Eye into the discussion. Why do you not discuss Love, Hate, Content, Mercy, and the other "non-physical" attributes?

Do you do this because you know it is easier to convince the reader of your belief?

You can tell a layman look they say Allaah has a Hand. The listener thinks of his hand, pictures it, says this cannot be right, and agrees with you.

Instead, if you told him that we Ashaa'irah do not believe Allaah's Hate, Love, or Mercy then you would have a problem. The person would think, wait a minute how can you not believe in them while you believe in Allaah having Knowledge which befits Him and is unlike the creation or any other attribute you attribute to Him while saying it befits Him only knowing full well that the same noun is used for the creation.

The fact is al-Baqillaani says the Hate, Love, and Mercy of Allaah is His Iraadah to reward the one He is content with and punish the one He is Angry with.

Then he goes on to say:

The "evidence" for this is that Anger and Contentment and that which is similar to it [like Mercy] will either mean His Iraadah to benefit or harm or the meaning is aversion of natural disposition and the changing of natural disposition at the time of being angry and its [i.e. natural disposition's] friendliness, sympathy and inclination, and ablation of anger at the time of contentment.

When it is not possible that Allaah possesses a natural disposition which changes and becomes averse nor one which abates and shows pity because these are from the SiFaah of the creation and He is far removed from all that, then it is evident the meaning of His Contentment, His Mercy, His Anger, is only His Iraadah and His intention to benefit the one who has preceded in His knowledge that He will benefit him and to harm him who has preceded in His Knowledge that He will harm him, and it means nothing more.

You keep brining up Hand, Face, and Eye. You only want to discuss them.

The fact is you Ashaa'irah had Imaams who did not believe in His Anger, His Love, His Contentment, or His Mercy.

I have nothing else to say.


Reference(s):
Page 39
الانصاف فيما يجب اعتقاده

[Muslim First]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

I thought this was about the extremism of the najdi dawah? lol every time op starts this topic it delves into aqeedah wars.

[ZeeshanParvez]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

One thing I forgot to mention is that the OP seems to maybe not completely understand the beliefs of the Salafis. He has a link in his signature which leads to the Marifah website.



It gives a link to the following book: Do the Ash`aris Negate Allah's Attributes. The book reads:



Once one rejects that the meaning can be that of limbs and parts, and [one rejects] modality, what remains is subject to independent scholarly reasoning (Ijtihaad) because there are no decisive texts on this matter.


Now let's look at what Imam al-Tabari writes in his Tafsir. He points out the different understandings of Yadaahu MabsuuTataani.

After that, he shows why the understandings of power and blessing are all wrong [which the above mentioned book supports btw] in the light of the Arabic language.

Finally, he supports the following understanding:

بل " يد الله " صفة من صفاته، هي يد، غير أنها ليست بجارحة كجوارح بني آدم

Rather, the Hand of Allaah is a Sifah from among his Sifaat, it is a Hand, but it is not limb like any of the limbs of the children of Adam.

Then he says

صحةِ قول من قال: إن " يد الله "، هي له صفة

[We support] the correct understanding of the one who says indeed the Hand of Allaah is a Sifah which belongs to Him.


So, the Hand is a Sifah but it is not a limb like any limbs of the children of Adam.


The OP gives the impression that the Salafis believe it is like a limb of humans. I do not know why he says that.


Look at what Ibn Taymiyyah says:

قلت له : فالقائل ؛ إن زعم أنه ليس له يد من جنس أيدي المخلوقين : وأن يده ليست جارحة فهذا حق . وإن زعم أنه ليس له يد زائدة على الصفات السبع ؛ فهو مبطل



I say to him: The one who thinks that He does not have a hand from among the genus of hands which belong to the creation and that His hand is not a limb, then this is the truth.

And if he thinks that He does not have a Hand [as a Sifah] above and beyond the seven Sifaat, then that is false.


In another book Ibn Taymiyyah says:

القسم الثالث من الصفات يحمل على ظاهره ويجري بلفظه الذي جاء به، من غير أن يقتضي له معرفة كيفية أو يشبه بمشبهات الجنس، ومن غير أن يتأول فيعدل به عن الظاهر إلى ما يحتمله التأويل من وجه المجاز والاتساع، وذلك كاليد والسمع والبصر والوجه ونحو ذلك، فإنها ليست بجوارح ولا أعضاء ولا أجزاء، ولكنها صفات الله عز وجل لا كيفية لها ولا تُتَأوَّل فيقال: معنى اليد: النعمة والقوة، ومعنى السمع والبصر: العلم، ومعنى الوجه: الذات، على ما ذهب إليه نفاة الصفات

The third category of Sifaat which are to be understood on their Zaahir and without understanding the modality or interpreting them away from the Zhaair include the Hand, Hearing, Sight, Face, and the likes. For they are not limbs, nor body parts, but they are Sifaat of Allaah without modality....


It is beyond me as to why the OP thinks and accuses the Salafis of what he does. Perhaps, he needs to read up a bit more.

Imaam al-Tabari said that the Hand was a Sifah of Allaah but was not like the limbs of the children of Adam.

Ibn Taymiyyah said the Hand was a Sifah of Allaah and not a limb like that of the creation.

[Abu Sulayman]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

I do not understand why you keep brining in Hand, Face, and Eye into the discussion. Why do you not discuss Love, Hate, Content, Mercy, and the other "non-physical" attributes?

Zeeshan, you asked me whether I agree with the Ash'ari position regarding the speech of Allah ta'ala and I gave you a clear answer.
Then I asked you whether you accept Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn (I'm not tranlating it, because most scholars don't regard it as correct to translate it) as Sifat that are Ma'ani (meanings) subsisting in the divine essence or A'yan (physical / tangible attributes), but you didn't answer my question. Why are you not responding?

And as for love, hate and mercy: So what if one says that these go back to the will of Allah ta'ala? Do you want us to "affirm" it the way your "Salafi" Mashayikh "affirm" it, i.e. by acting as if the divine essence is subject to changes and goes from one state into another state?
Ya Subhanallah, Ibn Taymiyyah praised a book (i.e. al-Naqdh 'ala Bishr al-Marisi) where a physical distance, a direction and a place (it's done explicitly!) is affirmed for God and where it is claimed that God sits, moves, stands up, touches things, has limits and has even a weight, but you still got the nerves to act as if saying that love goes back to attribute of the divine will is "so evil"? Should I bring you evidence?

One thing I forgot to mention is that the OP seems to maybe not completely understand the beliefs of the Salafis.
...

It is beyond me as to why the OP thinks and accuses the Salafis of what he does. Perhaps, he needs to read up a bit more.

Imaam al-Tabari said that the Hand was a Sifah of Allaah but was not like the limbs of the children of Adam.

Ibn Taymiyyah said the Hand was a Sifah of Allaah and not a limb like that of the creation.

It's nothing to be ashamed of if you don't know the difference between affirming Yadayn as Sifat that are Ma'ani or to affirm it as "Sifat" that are A'yan (what I mean here is the scientific vocabulary). What is however not acceptable is that even though you lack knowledge regarding this issue you're still trying to discuss and act as if you're right.

Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) accepted it as a meaning subsisting in the divine essence and we know from his statements that he's from the people of Tanzih.
As for Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH), then this one qoute proofs nothing, because he doesn't even use the word Jarihah (limb) in the same way other scholars use it. Why do you think, why he always plays this "what do you intend by tahayyuz, tarkib, jism, jihah, ajza`"-game even though he knows very well what the scholars intend by it?

And now listen: Ibn Taymiyyah believed that God has Sifat 'Ayniyyah and that Yad or Wajh are not Ma'ani (meanings) subsisting in the divine essence like for example knowledge or power, but rather A'yan (physical entities) subsisting in themselves and making up parts (!!!) of the divine essence (according to him the divine essence consists of unseperable physical parts!)
Now before you try to discuss with me, please go and see for yourself what Ibn Taymiyyah actually said regarding the Sifat al-Khabariyyah al-'Ayniyyah or al-'Ayniyyah al-Dhatiyyah (I'm using his expressions by the way).
What you don't realize is that Ibn Taymiyyah actually believed that nothing can exist subsisting in himself - whether creation or Creator - except that it's mutahayyiz (spatially confined, i.e. something that has three dimensions) and that is Tajsim and Kufr in itself. He defends this idea more than 100 times or more in his Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah!
(FYI: I used to respect Ibn Taymiyyah highly before starting to read his works.)

I advice you to read this link to understand the actual difference between Sunnis and the Taymiyyun (the link is filled with statements by Ibn Taymiyyah):

الصفات الإلهية بين أهل التنزيه وأهل التشبيه

Please read it with full concentration.