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

[ZeeshanParvez]

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

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?




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.

You are provoked so easily.

Let me jog your memory. You already gave me that link last time we talked. I have already read it like six times.

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 makes you think I am interested?

I just wanted to point some things up about what the Imaams of the Ashaa'irah believe and this thread provided me the opportunity. And I will be adding in a few snippets from now and then as people should know all that is in the books.

And since you think I do not know anything I suggest you respond to others who can help you better.

Finally, I am surprised that a man like you who claims not to be a hard core Ash'ari - since that was my post which got your attention - has used words like kufri beliefs, atheism, disbelievers, and all sorts in his posts for his opposition.

It is rather embarrassing to see someone call others extreme and yet when a discussion comes up he acts in exactly the same way.....

It won't help your cause of saying the Salafi's are the ones who are extreme because you quite frankly are no less extreme against your opposition with the language you use. In all honestly, the more Ashaa'irah forums you direct me to the more I realize how violent you people are in their language to the Salafis and their websites are no where that extreme against you.

Rather than direct me to forums, if you really are interested in a discussion - which you should not be as according to you I have no clue what I talk about and just think I am right - you should bring the relevant pages from one of the following books regarding Ashaa'irah beliefs which you believe are misrepresented by the Salafis - as you did claim that - as they are an interesting read I must say.


الانصاف فيما يجب اعتقاده
أبكار الأفكار في أصول الدين
الشامل في أصول الدين

[ZeeshanParvez]

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

al-Naqdh 'ala Bishr al-Marisi is filled with evidence from the Qur'aan and Sunnah. This irritates the Ashaa'irah. They like to reject NaQl when it contradicts "their" aQl.

The author provides evidence from NaQl and not aQl. I can see why that infuriates an Ash'ari. NaQl was never a strong point of the Ashaa'irah. You will see them reject authentic narrations when they contradict "their logic." However, they will use weak ones when they conform with "their" aQl.

al-Baqillaani does a wonderful job of that in his book under the section of the Qur'aan not being the Kalaam of Allaah in itself. Writing that out makes me cringe.

Here is the section of al-hadd from the book the OP hates

"Abdullaah bin al-Mubaarak was asked: By means of what do we recognize our Lord? He said: By means of that He is on 'Arsh, separate from His creation. It was asked: By means of hadd? He said: By means of Hadd."





And the part that He does what He Wills as He Wills, which is in conformity with the Qur'aanic Verses. The Ashaa'irah will tell you that taking these Verses on face value will lead to kufr. Imagine Allaah sending down a Book in the Arabic language and saying it is clearly explained and you ending up in kufr for believing what the Book says!


"As for your claim that the tafsiir of the world al-Qayyuum is the one who does not cease being at His place and He does not move, then it is not accepted unless you have an authentic narration to back up your claim. One which comes from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam), his Companions, or the Taabi'uun because al-Hayy al-Qayyuum does what He Wills, and He moves when He Wills, He descends and ascends when He Wills...."



The only reason the Ashaa'irah have problems is because they have tried to encompass Allaah within their limited "logic." They have set up rules. They are called "logical" rules. If some Attribute of Allaah does not fit that rule they say it can't be.

Imagine trying to fit Allaah into your logic knowing your logic as a human is limited and flawed. The hallmark of deviance. Nothing can encompass Allaah.

That is why you do not rely on your flawed and twisted logic. You reject aQl and accept NaQl.

According to them Imaam al-Daarimi had kufr beliefs! [But they like to stick to Ibn Taymiyyah as they can round up more hatred easily]
And the God of the Ashaa'irah can't move.

Sweet dreams, I am out!

[Abu Sulayman]

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

You are provoked so easily.

Let me jog your memory. You already gave me that link last time we talked. I have already read it like six times.

And did you read the quotes by Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH)? It doesn't seem so. And if you have it doesn't seem you understood his statements.

What makes you think I am interested?

Ohh, so you defend Ibn Taymiyyah and blindly qoute him without knowing his actual position? How great! As long as you don't know what Sifat 'Ayniyyah are (which Ibn Taymiyyah mention in his books and affirms) you don't have any right to defend him. What is so difficult about understanding that speaking without knowledge is not allowed?

I just wanted to point some things up about what the Imaams of the Ashaa'irah believe and this thread provided me the opportunity. And I will be adding in a few snippets from now and then as people should know all that is in the books.

Let me remind you that this is not the topic of this thread. I tried quite often now to come back to the actual issue of this thread, but you and some others are always changing the topic and start speaking down upon the Asha'irah.
By the way: Unlike the Wahhabiyyah we've nothing to hide.

Finally, I am surprised that a man like you who claims not to be a hard core Ash'ari - since that was my post which got your attention - has used words like kufri beliefs, atheism, disbelievers, and all sorts in his posts for his opposition.

It is rather embarrassing to see someone call others extreme and yet when a discussion comes up he acts in exactly the same way.....

It won't help your cause of saying the Salafi's are the ones who are extreme because you quite frankly are no less extreme against your opposition with the language you use. In all honestly, the more Ashaa'irah forums you direct me to the more I realize how violent you people are in their language to the Salafis and their websites are no where that extreme against you.

Well let me remind you what happened: A group emerged 200 years ago out of nowhere and started killing Muslims left and right. After the people had forgotten about their crimes, they started spreading their corrupt creed through lies and deception and through the money they had stolen from the Ummah. They started to replace real Tawhid with a fake one (go and read classical books regarding 'Aqidah!) and caused Fitan everywhere they are. Do you honestly expect Ash'aris to be soft towards this group?

As for me calling some of the beliefs of the Wahhabiyyah as disbelief: So what? Do you expect me to call these beliefs that classical scholars all regarded as disbelief as something good? Believing that God is subject to changes or that He has tangible / physical attributes or that He's spatially confined all of this disbelief by agreement of the Ahl al-Sunnah! I'm not going to change the religion of Allah ta'ala for your sake.
Just like there is disbelief in the ideology of the Rafidhah, there is also disbelief in the ideology of the Wahhabiyyah.

Unlike the Wahhabiyyah we're not calling to the killing of anyone who says the Shahadatayn and does not go against what is necessarily known to be from the religion.

[Abu Sulayman]

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

al-Naqdh 'ala Bishr al-Marisi is filled with evidence from the Qur'aan and Sunnah. This irritates the Ashaa'irah. They like to reject NaQl when it contradicts "their" aQl.
...
And the God of the Ashaa'irah can't move.

It's a Kufri and Wathani book. Yes I called it Wathani (you can add this to the list of my "extremist" expressions), because the concept of God in that book is completely different from the Islamic one and in opposition to Surat al-Ikhlas.

Come on are you not ashamed of the beliefs that are in that book?
I mean a "God" who moves, stands up, sits, has a physical distance, has a direction and place, has limits and even a weight?!?
Are you seriously telling us that this Tawhid? Is this how one differentiates between the Creator and the creation?
We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being.

By the way: Allah ta'ala is high above being described with movement (harakah) or stillness (sukun). Go and read what Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) said in his Ma'alim al -Sunan regarding the one describes Allah ta'ala with any of this.

[ZeeshanParvez]

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

As for the other things you mentioned, then this reminds me of the following narration:

أن حذيفة حدثه قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : " إن ما أتخوف عليكم رجل قرأ القرآن حتى رئيت بهجته عليه ، وكان ردئا للإسلام ، غيره إلى ما شاء الله ، فانسلخ منه ونبذه وراء ظهره ، وسعى على جاره بالسيف ، ورماه بالشرك " ، قال : قلت : يا نبي الله ، أيهما أولى بالشرك ، المرمي أم الرامي ؟ قال : " بل الراميVerily, I fear for you that a man will recite the Quran until his delight is seen and he takes Islam as a cloak. Then, he changes to whatever Allah wills for him, such that it is stripped from him and he throws it behind his back, assaulting his neighbor with the sword and accusing him of idolatryRather it is the accuserSource: Sahih Ibn Hibban, tranlation taken from HERE

You have quoted Justin Parrot for your source? A man who opposes the the penalty of apostasy?

Come to think of it, why in the world have you quoted his website for that hadith and its translation?

[ZeeshanParvez]

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

Ohh, so you defend Ibn Taymiyyah and blindly qoute him without knowing his actual position? How great! As long as you don't know what Sifat 'Ayniyyah are (which Ibn Taymiyyah mention in his books and affirms) you don't have any right to defend him. What is so difficult about understanding that speaking without knowledge is not allowed?

The irony.

[ZeeshanParvez]

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

Let me remind you that this is not the topic of this thread. I tried quite often now to come back to the actual issue of this thread, but you and some others are always changing the topic and start speaking down upon the Asha'irah.
By the way: Unlike the Wahhabiyyah we've nothing to hide.

Please return to the topic of this thread which is Muhamamd Ibn Abd al-Wahhaab. I have already got here what I needed. Have fun!

[Abu Sulayman]

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

And the part that He does what He Wills as He Wills, which is in conformity with the Qur'aanic Verses. The Ashaa'irah will tell you that taking these Verses on face value will lead to kufr. Imagine Allaah sending down a Book in the Arabic language and saying it is clearly explained and you ending up in kufr for believing what the Book says!


"As for your claim that the tafsiir of the world al-Qayyuum is the one who does not cease being at His place and He does not move, then it is not accepted unless you have an authentic narration to back up your claim. One which comes from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam), his Companions, or the Taabi'uun because al-Hayy al-Qayyuum does what He Wills, and He moves when He Wills, He descends and ascends when He Wills...."


The only reason the Ashaa'irah have problems is because they have tried to encompass Allaah within their limited "logic." They have set up rules. They are called "logical" rules. If some Attribute of Allaah does not fit that rule they say it can't be.

Imagine trying to fit Allaah into your logic knowing your logic as a human is limited and flawed. The hallmark of deviance. Nothing can encompass Allaah.

That is why you do not rely on your flawed and twisted logic. You reject aQl and accept NaQl.

Look at this Christian "logic" that you're using here! "God can move when he wants, because he can do everything".... So what's next? He may settle upon the back of a mosquito? Ohh wait, that is actually mentioned in that book of disbelief of yours:

إن الله أعظم من كل شيء وأكبر من كل خلق ولم يحتمله العرش عظما ولا قوة، ولا حملة العرش احتملوه بقوتهم ولا استقلوا بعرشه بشدة أسرهم ولكنهم حملوه بقدرته ومشيئته وإرادته وتأييده لولا ذلك ما أطاقوا حمله. وقد بلغنا أنهم حين حملوا العرش وفوقه الجبار في عزته وبهائه ضعفوا عن حمله واستكانوا وجثوا على ركبهم حتى لقنوا لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله فاستقلوا به بقدرة الله وإرادته لولا ذلك ما استقل به العرش ولا الحملة ولا السموات والأرض ولا من فيهن ولو قد شاء لاستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته ولطف ربوبيته فكيف على عرش عظيم أكبر من السموات السبع والأرضين السبع

Source: al-Naqdh

In that case even believing that God has a son is not a problem anymore after the above statement of disbelief!

Ironicaly you're saying that "Nothing can encompass Allah" (which is true), but at the same time you're praising a book where Allah ta'ala is described with limits! Do you see your contradiction?

By the way: What your're saying is NOWHERE found in the Book of Allah ta'ala or in the authentic reports, so this again is the way of the Jews and the Christians that you're using.

The irony.

The irony is that you didn't respond to a question where I used the same expressions that Ibn Taymiyyah (the one you're defending!) used.

Please return to the topic of this thread which is Muhamamd Ibn Abd al-Wahhaab. I have already got here what I needed. Have fun!

What did you need? Getting on one's nerves and praising a book where it said that God has a weight?

[AmantuBillahi]

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

Look at this Christian "logic" that you're using here! "God can move when he wants, because he can do everything".... So what's next? He may settle upon the back of a mosquito? Ohh wait, that is actually mentioned in that book of disbelief of yours:

إن الله أعظم من كل شيء وأكبر من كل خلق ولم يحتمله العرش عظما ولا قوة، ولا حملة العرش احتملوه بقوتهم ولا استقلوا بعرشه بشدة أسرهم ولكنهم حملوه بقدرته ومشيئته وإرادته وتأييده لولا ذلك ما أطاقوا حمله. وقد بلغنا أنهم حين حملوا العرش وفوقه الجبار في عزته وبهائه ضعفوا عن حمله واستكانوا وجثوا على ركبهم حتى لقنوا لا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله فاستقلوا به بقدرة الله وإرادته لولا ذلك ما استقل به العرش ولا الحملة ولا السموات والأرض ولا من فيهن ولو قد شاء لاستقر على ظهر بعوضة فاستقلت به بقدرته ولطف ربوبيته فكيف على عرش عظيم أكبر من السموات السبع والأرضين السبع

Source: al-Naqdh

In that case even believing that God has a son is not a problem anymore after the above statement of disbelief!

Ironicaly you're saying that "Nothing can encompass Allah" (which is true), but at the same time you're praising a book where Allah ta'ala is described with limits! Do you see your contradiction?

By the way: What your're saying is NOWHERE found in the Book of Allah ta'ala or in the authentic reports, so this again is the way of the Jews and the Christians that you're using.



The irony is that you didn't respond to a question where I used the same expressions that Ibn Taymiyyah (the one you're defending!) used.



What did you need? Getting on one's nerves and praising a that book where it said that God has a weight?

Assalamu alaykom

I am certain that you have not studied logic because your method of argumentation is actually fallacious. Are you aware of what a False Dichotomy is ? If so , do you believe you are engaging in such with us?

Curious to witness your logic.

[Abu Sulayman]

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

Assalamu alaykom

I am certain that you have not studied logic because your method of argumentation is actually fallacious. Are you aware of what a False Dichotomy is ? If so , do you believe you are engaging in such with us?

Curious to witness your logic.

[AmantuBillahi]

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

Firstly , before moving to that , my point is this.

It is incorrect to argue with us through the following method , because this is not even our default.

1) Force us to engage in Kalam
2) Force us to adopt the Kalam positions of Ibn Taymiyyah

Because your argument will proceed as ..

1) No one has preceeded him in these Kalam positions ..

(Which we do not necessarily deny , that's what makes Ibn Taymiyyah such an elevated and contraversial scholar)

2) Since he is alone in these Kalam positions and all your "classical scholars" i.e Ashari scholars - disagree with him , then surely he is ..

a) illogical
b) mubtadee

Obviously no Ashari scholar agrees with him , his attempt was to support a claim in favour of the dhahir ( Which is the Madhhab of the Salaf ) , by engaging ilm al Kalam ( Which is not the Madhhab of the Salaf )

Ibn Taymiyyah is one of a kind in this regard.

It is not our asl to engage in Kalaam in the first place. Your attempt to force the situation is invalid and an unnecessary argument.

I would like to address the issue furthermore but not at the moment. I apologise for that , and hope to continue in the future.

Jazak Allahu khayron

[Abu Sulayman]

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

Obviously no Ashari scholar agrees with him , his attempt was to support a claim in favour of the dhahir ( Which is the Madhhab of the Salaf ) , by engaging ilm al Kalam ( Which is not the Madhhab of the Salaf )

Brother, when I get time I’ll answer your comment.
But I would like you to read this older comment of mine:



______________


Wa 'alaykum al-Salam,


I think that it is important to clarify what exactly one intends while making statements like "we accept the apparent", "the apparent [meaning] that comes to the mind of the Mushabbihah is rejected", " we consign the kayfiyyah and ma'na to Allah", "without kayfiyyah" and so on, especially in our times when there is so much confusion regarding these issues.
Through this way many misunderstandings can be prevented and it becomes much easier to understand where exactly the difference lies between the different groups.


Abu Hawwa said: ↑

"accepting the thahir"

The statement "we accept the apparent (Dhahir) of the Ayat and Ahadith regarding the divine attributes" can be used with more than one intention/meaning. There is a meaning which is correct and in line with the understanding of the Atharis and Ash'aris, and another meaning that is Tashbih and in line with the understanding of the Mushabbihah and Mujassimah.


1) The correct usage:
What is intended here by "accepting the apparent" or "leaving it on the apparent" is to believe in these Ayat and Ahadith as they have reached us without adding something to it or subtracting from it, while consigning the knowledge of the real interpretation/meaning to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and being sure that the Creator is not similar to his creation in any way.
This is Tafwidh and the Madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah. Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) for example uses "Dhahir" with this meaning in his "Ma'alim al-Sunan".


2) The false usage:
What is intended here by saying "accepting the apparent" is to believe in the literal sensory meaning (i.e. al-Dhahir al-hissi). Some examples for this would be to understand Yad as a limb (Jarihah) or Nuzul and Ityan/Maji` as a movement (Harakah) and Istiwa` as [literal] sitting (Julus) and settlement (Istiqrar) and as transition from one state to another one (Intiqal min Hal ila Hal) and so on.
This is Tashbih and Kufr.


When Ash'ari scholars say "the apparent in not intended", they mean the Dhahir al-hissi.


What is interesting is that even Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) (who is a staunch enemy of Tafwidh and believes in the false usage) admits that there are many scholars who say "we pass it upon it's apparent", but are Mufawwidhah:


ثم كثير من هؤلاء يقولون : تجري على ظاهرها فظاهرها مراد مع قولهم : إن لها تأويلا بهذا المعنى لا يعلمه إلا الله . وهذا تناقض وقع فيه كثير من هؤلاء المنتسبين إلى السنة : من أصحاب " الأئمة الأربعة " وغيرهم


"Then many of them (the Mufawwidhah) say "it's passed upon it's apparent (dhahir)" - so the apparent is intended - while at the same time they say: "It has a interpretation with this meaning that no one knows except Allah".
This is a contradiction in which many of the people who ascribe themselves to the Sunnah have fallen into, from among the companions of the four Imams (i.e. scholars of the 4 Madhahib) and other than them."


Source: "Majmu' al-Fatawa" 5/35


(Note: This being a contradiction is his personal opinion.)


Abu Hawwa said: ↑

"accepting the thahir" I always expected that to mean that we accept the text and leave its kaifiyya and its meaning to Allah.

This is the correct usage, so you're insha`Allah on the safe side.


However it should be noted that the statement "leaving the kayfiyyah" can also be used in more than one way.


1) The correct usage:
That one leaves the reality (Haqiqah, Kunh) of the divine attributes to Allah ta'ala. (That is because it is not possible for the creation to understand the reality of the Bari subhanahu wa ta'ala.)


2) The false usage:
That one leaves the knowledge regaring the modality of the divine attributes to Allah ta'ala, this would mean for example that Yad is a literal hand, but one doesn't know how big that hand is and which colour it has and so on.
This is Tashbih and Kufr.


In this context many of the early scholars of Islam would say "bila kayf" and that was in order to declare Allah ta'ala exalted from Kayfiyyah with the second meaning and also so that no one asks "how?" (because that would mean that one would apply Kayfiyyah with the false meaning to Allah ta'ala).


Conclusion:
Two people may say similar things [in their wording] while intending completely different meanings. That's why what is important is to understand what is intended. Hope that helps for a better understanding.


Wallahu ta'ala a'lam.
______________

[AmantuBillahi]

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

Brother, when I get time I’ll answer your comment.
But I would like you to read this older comment of mine:



______________


Wa 'alaykum al-Salam,


I think that it is important to clarify what exactly one intends while making statements like "we accept the apparent", "the apparent [meaning] that comes to the mind of the Mushabbihah is rejected", " we consign the kayfiyyah and ma'na to Allah", "without kayfiyyah" and so on, especially in our times when there is so much confusion regarding these issues.
Through this way many misunderstandings can be prevented and it becomes much easier to understand where exactly the difference lies between the different groups.


Abu Hawwa said: ↑

"accepting the thahir"

The statement "we accept the apparent (Dhahir) of the Ayat and Ahadith regarding the divine attributes" can be used with more than one intention/meaning. There is a meaning which is correct and in line with the understanding of the Atharis and Ash'aris, and another meaning that is Tashbih and in line with the understanding of the Mushabbihah and Mujassimah.


1) The correct usage:
What is intended here by "accepting the apparent" or "leaving it on the apparent" is to believe in these Ayat and Ahadith as they have reached us without adding something to it or subtracting from it, while consigning the knowledge of the real interpretation/meaning to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and being sure that the Creator is not similar to his creation in any way.
This is Tafwidh and the Madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah. Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) for example uses "Dhahir" with this meaning in his "Ma'alim al-Sunan".


2) The false usage:
What is intended here by saying "accepting the apparent" is to believe in the literal sensory meaning (i.e. al-Dhahir al-hissi). Some examples for this would be to understand Yad as a limb (Jarihah) or Nuzul and Ityan/Maji` as a movement (Harakah) and Istiwa` as [literal] sitting (Julus) and settlement (Istiqrar) and as transition from one state to another one (Intiqal min Hal ila Hal) and so on.
This is Tashbih and Kufr.


When Ash'ari scholars say "the apparent in not intended", they mean the Dhahir al-hissi.


What is interesting is that even Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) (who is a staunch enemy of Tafwidh and believes in the false usage) admits that there are many scholars who say "we pass it upon it's apparent", but are Mufawwidhah:


ثم كثير من هؤلاء يقولون : تجري على ظاهرها فظاهرها مراد مع قولهم : إن لها تأويلا بهذا المعنى لا يعلمه إلا الله . وهذا تناقض وقع فيه كثير من هؤلاء المنتسبين إلى السنة : من أصحاب " الأئمة الأربعة " وغيرهم


"Then many of them (the Mufawwidhah) say "it's passed upon it's apparent (dhahir)" - so the apparent is intended - while at the same time they say: "It has a interpretation with this meaning that no one knows except Allah".
This is a contradiction in which many of the people who ascribe themselves to the Sunnah have fallen into, from among the companions of the four Imams (i.e. scholars of the 4 Madhahib) and other than them."


Source: "Majmu' al-Fatawa" 5/35


(Note: This being a contradiction is his personal opinion.)


Abu Hawwa said: ↑

"accepting the thahir" I always expected that to mean that we accept the text and leave its kaifiyya and its meaning to Allah.

This is the correct usage, so you're insha`Allah on the safe side.


However it should be noted that the statement "leaving the kayfiyyah" can also be used in more than one way.


1) The correct usage:
That one leaves the reality (Haqiqah, Kunh) of the divine attributes to Allah ta'ala. (That is because it is not possible for the creation to understand the reality of the Bari subhanahu wa ta'ala.)


2) The false usage:
That one leaves the knowledge regaring the modality of the divine attributes to Allah ta'ala, this would mean for example that Yad is a literal hand, but one doesn't know how big that hand is and which colour it has and so on.
This is Tashbih and Kufr.


In this context many of the early scholars of Islam would say "bila kayf" and that was in order to declare Allah ta'ala exalted from Kayfiyyah with the second meaning and also so that no one asks "how?" (because that would mean that one would apply Kayfiyyah with the false meaning to Allah ta'ala).


Conclusion:
Two people may say similar things [in their wording] while intending completely different meanings. That's why what is important is to understand what is intended. Hope that helps for a better understanding.


Wallahu ta'ala a'lam.
______________

Assalamu alaykom

I would argue that the route by which you attempt to argue is fruitless and will ultimately lead us to an unnecessary conversation.

Offering your sectarian understanding of Dhahir , bi la kayf , tafwid , etc - is of no use because the conversation will lead to spiral inconsistencies.

1) The reason why you interpret these scholarly terms in the manner that you do is ultimately do to the fact that you believe that the mere affirmation of the texts is illogical and therefore Kufr.

So you will interpret "dhahir" as an affirmation of the text without physically distorting it's wording - and you will interpret "bi la kayf" as " There is no how " i.e Ta'teel.

While I would interpret accepting the narrations upon the dhahir , as an affirmation of what the text is conveying - and I would interpret " bi la kayf " to mean " Without asking 'how?' " i.e Without concerning yourself of how they are possible or how they are in reality. ( This is certain from the use of the individual who questioned Imaam Maalik)

Why do we differ?

I believe the Prophet Muhammad (saws) came with the truth. The revelations he received and conveyed regarding Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta'ala are the truth , by definition. Meaning , the revelations and teachings of the Prophet (saws) , which are expressed in the Quran and the Ahadith are the absolute truths regarding Allah.

You believe that the Prophet Muhammad (saws) came with the truth. The truthfulness of his Prophethood is dependant upon the fact that he can not be logically inconsistent. The Prophet Muhammad (saws) teachings are upon the truth , by definition , and therefore it is unfamothable that his teachings lead to incoherence.

Firstly , from an Imaan perspective , it is obvious as to which side is upon the truth. One can argue that the Ashari position is a position of Imaan and love for the Prophet (saws). We need to free the Prophet from logical absurdities by interpreting certain passages or relogating their true meanings back to Allah - but in reality , this was not a position in which your 'logic' was invited to in the first place.

Islaam is submission.

Part of that submission is Imaan bil-ghayb ( Belief in the unseen ). Allah is an unseen and immeasurable through the limited human intellect. Knowledge which is related via Revelation is superior to that which appears to be true through the intellect.

I believe that Allah is Above His Throne. I am not being metaphorical in my language when I say that. I believe , as the scriptures convey , and our scholars exclaim , that there are over 1000 Proofs for Allah being Above.

The Ashari will say that "this belief is illogical. You can not literally believe that Allah is Above."

Me :"Why? My logic doesn't say that , and besides , the Naql is suggesting that."

Ashari :" You are illogical. You cannot believe that Allah is literally above due to what definitively known via the Aql."

Me : "The Aql that Allah naturally created me with ( Common sense ) , does not naturally say that though."

Ashari : " You have not studied logic and metaphysics."

Me : " Explain."

Ashari : " It is absurd to affirm that Allah is literally Above us due to it's implications. To affirm Allah Above the Throne would necessarily imply that he is in a 'place' , which would necessarily imply that he has a limit , and furthermore necessitate that he is a body (jism).

All bodies are created by definition, from what is decisvely reasoned through Huduth al Ajsaam ( Arugment of Occurences and Bodies ). It is necessary for an 'incorperal agent' to bring about all other bodies which consist of occurrences , in order to escape the logical absurdity of the 'infinite regress'.

Therefore , it is illogical to affirm that Allah is literally Above the Throne. Rather , all your '1000 proofs' are to be interpreted or relogated back to Allah , because it is impossible to suggest that the Prophet(saws) was being literal - lest we ascribe incoherence to our beloved Messenger (asws)"

----------

I would argue that this reasoning is ultimately fallacious. I am not calling it fallacious due to me having a strong stance against the argument of huduth al ajsam .. Wallahi I don't. I believe this position is inconsistent with scripture and therefore it is false.

A man who is receiving authentic revelation from God i.e a Prophet , becomes axiomatically true in matters pertaining to the unseen. Hence the term " bi la kayf " , " Without asking 'how?'

The 'logic' you presuppose as ultimate truths are dhannee ( Speculative ) when you attempt to apply it to Allah. It is not true like empirical science , upon which all humans have a consensus upon. The aql of the Ashaa'ira differs with that of the Maturidi , which differs from the Muta'zila , and within each camp , the theoligians disagree with eachother.

Ultimately it contradicts the Naql (The Quran , The Sunnah , Statements of the Sahabah and respected Scholars from the Salaf) and It forces us interpret and negate, affirmative statements from the sacred sources , based on presuppositonal knowledge not legislated by the Prophet (saws) himself , and therefore it is bid'ah and misguidance.

( Apologise for my typos , I am using a phone to deliver these messages )

May Allah grant us Submission to the teachings of Muhammad (saws)

[AmantuBillahi]

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

Assalamu alaykom akhi

The reason why I said that I believe your method of arguing will lead us to inconsistencies is due to the fact that our standards differ. I strongly believe your Madhhab is inconsistent with what is authoritative , and it is for that reason I reject it as deviance. Though , if you present me the truth , I would hope Allah guides me to it.

Allow me to ask you some questions regarding certain things which trouble me , maybe you can clarify them , if you have time.

1) Do you agree that the Asl of language and human communication is to judge a speakers intent by what is apparent in his use of ; language , expressions , metaphors , etc?

If not , then how do you distinguish the intention of the speaker? Do you take my current speech literally or do you think I am being sarcastic?

2) Why would Allah speak regarding Himself in a manner which is Kufr , in a language and context which is universally considered affirmative? What is the wisdom behind the repetitive mentioning of "Istawa" , if actually believing in what the affirmative text implies is kufr?

i.e " Allah said the Most Merciful Istawa His Throne. Therefore , Allah actually Istiwa His Throne."

If this logic is flawed , then can you provide any reason why Allah even said these words?

3) If Allah does not actually nu'zool every last third of the night , then why did the Prophet convey it in a manner which is affirmative by nature? Why didn't he say that it is His bounty? Why didn't he say that nu'zool can not apply to Allah , and this necessitates ta'weel / tafwid? I want to know what is the Hikmah in his language , from your perspective?

4) If tafwid and ta'weel are necessary in the case of certain ayat/ahadith , then why was this teaching not clearly explained in detail by the Prophet(saws) to his early companions?

It is historically impossible to suggest that the companions understood the philosophical terms and concepts which confused later generations.

If they were not aware of your logic , then by what standard did they accept or reject potential sifaat? Basic human aql ( Common sense ) does not conclude that it is illogical to believe that Allah is literally Above His Throne or that Allah actually created Adam with His Two Hands ( Which are sifat that befit Allah's reality )

I am not sure if you only accept mutawaatir ahadith with regards to these matters - but there are even Ahadith where the Prophet conveys what Allah creates or does with His Hands. Why would I deny a concept called "Hands" for Allah when I have reasons via Quran , Sunnah , speaking about them in an affirmative , and non metaphorical manner? Isn't that illogical ?

If it is false to simply say ,
" The Prophet said He created Adam with his Two Hands , therefore Allah actually created Adam with His Two Hands "

If this statement is false , then what was the use in delivering the Aqidah in such a strange way? This is not an effective method of Da'wah , in fact , naturally it would lead a sincere individual astray.

I really would like to address other obvious issues which are relative , but inshaAllah at another time.

Salamo alaykom

[Spicen]

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

I don't agree with spicen or those attacking MIAW/salafiyyah in general but i'm open to hearing what they have to say. And if there is some small amount of truth in something they say then I acknowledge that. There are things that happen within the salafi community and a way some salafis carry themselves that I don't like or agree with. That doesn't make mean I've deviated.

Just going to reply to the relevant part of this post.

Why do you disagree -barring the whole mass-ignoring the evidences shown. But maybe since you won't hear the opinion of non-salafis then atleast hear from salafis themselves.

Former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Adel Kalbani: Daesh ISIS have the same beliefs as we dohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWORE6OBfhc

At the end of the day, ISIS practice Salafism, pure and applied. Those who disagree with ISIS have deviated from the path of salafism. There is a reason why knowledgable salafists refer to isis as mujahideen. Only ignorant salafis dislike ISIS.

I'm not sure what more is there to prove.