Upbringing and Salafism

[Muhammad Hasan]

Options 1 - 3: If you are not a Salafi i.e. you are - to me - a Sunni Muslim who does not follow the Salafi Movement.

Options 4 - 6: If you are a Salafi and/or if you just follow Ibn Taymiyyah in his theological views i.e. you believe 'Salafi' followers of Ibn Taymiyyah are true Sunnis or upon the method of the Sahabah.

Option 7: If you have no idea what the Salafi movement is, or who 'Ibn Taymiyyah' is.

*religious parents = religious/practicing Muslim parents who taught you Salah, prayed regularly, taught you stories of the prophets etc.
**parents who weren't so religious = Muslim parents who weren't that practicing, did not teach you Salah or were more cultural in the sense that they don't really believe in Islam but just identify with it.

Poll should only be answered by Muslims.

[YahyaIbnSelam]

If you consider Salafism a movement, then one could be a (Muhammad Hasanian) Sunni within the Salafi movement, of course if one is not excluded from the movement for holding non-Salafi views. As there are non-Salafis within political or jihadist Salafism for instance.

This would also imply that Salafi cannot be part of non-Salafi/neutral movements.

In short, Salafism is not one movement. There are several Salafi movements. Rather, Salafism is a theological and legal doctrine that combines anti-Sufi attitudes coupled with a restrictive view on bida, Taymiyyan traditionalist dogma and ahl al-hadith legal traditionalism that is either madhhab based or wholly independent.

I know from your past writings that you are foremost concerned with Taymiyyan traditionalist dogma. And you said scholars condemned Muqatil. But what about Ibn Qutayba, al-Barbahari and other Hanbalis who share Ibn Taymiyya's views. Did scholars unanimously condemn them to the degree you do (exclusion from Sunnism)? Muqatil is no good case example, because he held other views beyond this issue, like his doctrine on faith, which is Murjiite, saying all Muslims go directly to paradise by default (EI2).

Theological debates are without an end. Hanafis and Ashari Shafiis greatly resented each other too. Imam al-Juwayni and other scholars (Baqillani, Isfarayini?) were persecuted in Nisabur and had to leave Iran for Iraq, because Hanafi Turks did not protect them. Sultan Tughrul did not hold Asharism in much esteem, to say the least. On the other end, Shafiis derided Hanafi doctrine. For instance narrating the story of al-Qaffal simulating Hanafi prayer before Sultan Mahmud Ghaznawi, where he made ablution with dirty water, prayed like a hen and I don't want to mention how he ended the prayer... Even bloodshed happened on these issues. Yet now we are done with that conflict fortunately. Why? Because Malik Shah and Nizam al-Mulk tolerated both Shafiites and Hanafites.

Salafis say we refrain from tashbih... What sense is there on insisting they do fall in tashbih, to the degree of excluding them? I do not oppose to theologians debating this. But why insist on exclusion, especially when they reject tashbih? This is no different from Salafis' insisting that mutakallimun annul the attributes.

[Muhammad Hasan]

...

The Hanabilah simply did not hold Ibn Taymiyyah's views. Ibn Taymiyyah differed with the Athari scholars (such as Ibn al-Bannah, Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Hamdan, al-Balbani etc.) and is ignored by them or criticised by them (ad-Dhahabi at the end of his life, Ibn Rajab too) in matters of Aqeedah. The True Athari are part of Ahlus Sunnah. The Salafis are not the mainstream Athari we say are Sunnis.

He called Muhammad bin Karram (founder of the infamous Karramiyyah) a Sunni Muslim - I want to get your opinion on that - would you say Muhammad bin Karram is a Sunni? Also do you admit Ibn Karram used Kalam to try and defend Tajsim?

Who is right on Muqatil? Abu Hanifah or Ibn Taymiyyah? Take you pick - one is of the Salaf - a Tabi'i and the other is not of the Salaf.

Maybe some like Ibn al-Manda had points of agreement with Ibn Taymiyyah.

Al-Barbaharee's Sharh is not his own actual work, both GF Haddad and Yasir Qadhi agree on this.

If an Athari (traditional one) said RasulAllah Alayhis Salam would sit on the throne with Allah, I would not consider this Tajsim - unlike ironically some of the Taymiyyan scholars like Yasir Qadhi. The reason why is because I understand what such an Athari is doing (he is not affirming it physically - he believes in it consigning the actual meaning of that to Allah - at-Tabari explained this).

I admit I don't know much about this Ibn Qutaybah - please bring statements from him (in Arabic) that I can use to discern his views - to my understanding he was a scholar who delved into Kalam whilst remaining faithful the traditionalist/ Athari camp in Usul - please correct this understanding if it is wrong. I have never read any of his works and do not have access to them, I've just read what some scholar wrote regarding him. Allahu Alam.

Do you think we should admit the Mu'tazilah into Ahlus Sunnah? I cannot accept Ibn Taymiyyahs creedal views until I do that. Nizam al-Mulk, a paragon of orthodoxy, would be mortified to find out we are even discussing such things. There needs to be a line and we have already drawn the line - one can argue the Athari are pushing it with letters in Allah's Kalam but nevertheless we tolerate this as it has some basis as a position transmitted from Imam Ahmad and held by the righteous Hanabila throughout history).

We must (logically speaking) acccept the Mu'tazila/Jahmiyyah if we accept them.

We exlude them from Ahlus Sunnah not Islam. On the off chance a follower of Ibn Taymiyyah manages to explain Taymiyyan creed like this arguably we could accept it as not Tajsim - but this academics views are not typical of really any Taymiyyan. Taymiyyans say it is possible for him to have dimension which is rationally flawed (you can debate me on this if you wish since you seem learned in Kalam). They believe something without physical limits cannot exist (which is essentially basic rejection of Allah).

Yasir Qadhi once wrote this article. Explain to me how we can unify with that? And he is someone who simply holds onto Ibn Taymiyyan in matters of Aqeedah.

We should unite with them and the Shia (who do not believe in Tahrif etc.) for bigger things, but we cannot admit their doctrines are orthodox or acceptable. They are our Muslim brothers and Sisters but they have strayed from the path of the Salaf, and their Aqeedah contradicts agreed upon things in Aqeedah Tahawiyyah.

Their doctrines should only be taught in Heresiology classes.

They have poisoned the minds of the Muslims and deliberately distort books - you are aware of what they did to the English translation of Ibn Kathir I assume? And why don't they translate Imam Bukhari's comments in his Sahih, or Imam at-Tirmidhi's comments in his Sunnan? We cannot accept such deceptions in orthodoxy.

Sunni Islam is meant to be the Truth agreed upon, by the way of the Sahabah and Salaf - not just a group to hug each other and unify for the sake of unity. Hold onto the rope of Allah - we need to hold onto the rope first - we cannot unify with those rejecting the rope.

To agree with them is to give up and say "we allow the religion to be corrupted". Scholars like Imam Ahmad did not go through the Mihna for us in the final generations to give up on their efforts. Ibn Furak wasn't killed for this.

Doctrinally there is little difference between the Ash'ari, Maturidi and Athari. We disagree only in a few minor things.

Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi fought under an Ash'ari and his creed is also acceptable.

But when was the last time a Salafi helped us? Rather they betrayed us for the British and backstabbed us when the committee took us into that stupid war that the Ulama were against.

The followers of Ibn Taymiyyah are in the end pracitcally rallying around one scholar. One scholar coming a long and contradicting all those before him is the definition of Bid'ah - neither the Ash'ari, nor Maturidi or Athari suffer from this. They are contiguous traditions that go back to the Salaf.

I will accept the Taymiyyans as Sunnis when we accept the Mu'tazila (i.e. never if they hold onto their views). But I am not afraid to unify with them and the Muslim Shia. They remain my brothers and sisters in Islam.

I will happily accept them as Sunnis if they can come out and explicitly negate Miqdar (physical size), Hadd (physical limit), Maqan (place), Jiha (physical direction) etc. for Allah. Or just if they say they absolutely agree with Imam At-Tahawi's statement that the six directions do not contain him, and that he doesn't have Jariha (physical limbs), a Jism (physical body) etc. in any sense, teaching this to their students.

Otherwise:

They are calling to the fire and I will not answer.

(By the way I am willing to accept even Zahiris and Ghayr Muqallidin into Ahlus Sunnah if they have the correct Aqeedah e.g. like Ibn Hazm etc. If someone wants to take the fiqh views of someone like Assim al-Hakeem I think thats a bad idea but that alone doesn't take you out of Ahlus Sunnah. I am being as lenient as I can be without compromising.)

We cannot in the end compromise with heresy.

I listen to some of them as they are knowledge in matters other than Aqeedah but I cannot compromise on this I'm afraid. I undertand their are some of them (like Yasir Qadhi, Salman al-Ouda etc.) who want this but this is the Din of Allah. There is no compromise. They are the ones who must now make the last effort to return to us and enter within the very broad realm of acceptable difference of opinions.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Imagine if in the early part of this Ummah we gave into the Mu'tazilah and accepted them as true representatives of Hanafi creed that many of them claimed. Can you imagine that?

[Muhammad Hasan]

YahyaIbnSelam please read this and then this.

Please ignore my poor transliteration of the Arabic in the first one - I should say "Zahirah" not "It's Zahirah" and likewise for the other case Zahirihi - unfortunately when this was brought to my attention I noticed I could not edit the posts...

Second one was written by a brother active on here not long ago.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Did scholars unanimously condemn them to the degree you do (exclusion from Sunnism)?

I'm guessing you are referring to al-Shahrastani? Perhaps he understood what Muqatil was saying in the manner the academic tries to understand what Ibn Taymiyyah is saying. Regardless, to the masses such a complicated idea cannot be easily explained - it just lets out into easy Tajsim.

Also Ibn Taymiyyah did display clear anthropomorphic views, which he also defended, that his followers defend to this day - just see what I quoted of Yasir Qadhi above - he is comparing Allah to the Sun and the Moon!

[Muhammad Hasan]

I'm guessing you are referring to al-Shahrastani? Perhaps he understood what Muqatil was saying in the manner the academic tries to understand what Ibn Taymiyyah is saying. Regardless, to the masses such a complicated idea cannot be easily explained - it just lets out into easy Tajsim.

Also Ibn Taymiyyah did display clear anthropomorphic views, which he also defended, that his followers defend to this day - just see what I quoted of Yasir Qadhi above - he is comparing Allah to the Sun and the Moon!

Also who would you go with - al-Shahrastani defending Muqatil (and he is an Ash'ari who clearly negates Jism etc.) or Imam Abu Hanifah who died 150 H clearly criticising him and saying he was a Mushabihah. In fact Abu Hanifah's statement is quite literally the measurement of orthodoxy as he included two heretics in it.

[YahyaIbnSelam]

The Hanabilah simply did not hold Ibn Taymiyyah's views. Ibn Taymiyyah differed with the Athari scholars (such as Ibn al-Bannah, Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Hamdan, al-Balbani etc.) and is ignored by them or criticised by them (ad-Dhahabi at the end of his life, Ibn Rajab too) in matters of Aqeedah. The True Athari are part of Ahlus Sunnah. The Salafis are not the mainstream Athari we say are Sunnis.

1. Hanbali relation to Ibn Taymiyya.

Ibn Rajab, to my knowledge, mentioned Hanbali criticism of him for indulging in kalam (Bori, Caterina, “Ibn Taymiyya wa-jamāʿatuhu: Authority, Conflict and Consensus in Ibn Taymiyya’s Circle,” in: Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Yossef Rapoport and Shahab Ahmed, Studies in Islamic philosophy iv. (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010), 23–52.). Dhahabi similarly, including on his knowledge and attitude to others. But did they criticism on anthropomorphism? Also what about scholars who praised him like Ibn Hajar, Ibn al-Humam (if I remember right), and Ali al-Qari (if I remember right)? Ala al-Din al-Bukhari was criticised for his takfir. And the scholars I mentioned apparently did not exclude him from Sunnism. This is an incentive enough to take a lenient approach.

I admit I don't know much about this Ibn Qutaybah - please bring statements from him (in Arabic) that I can use to discern his views - to my understanding he was a scholar who delved into Kalam whilst remaining faithful the traditionalist/ Athari camp in Usul - please correct this understanding if it is wrong. I have never read any of his works and do not have access to them, I've just read what some scholar wrote regarding him. Allahu Alam.

b. Difference between Tashbih and Tajsim. Jiha and Corporealısmç

He is a proliferate early traditionalist, contemporary of Ahmad b. Hanbal and for that time on the same rank with him among traditionalists. He is regarded as the forerunner (along with İbni Abdi’l-Berr, İbni Ebî Zeyd el-Kayravani, Kadı Ebû Ya`la İbni ez-Zâğûni) of Ibn Taymiyya's literalism on sifat according Muhammad Abu Zahra, who distinguishes between Salaf's tafwid (who are identical to your definition of Atharis I assume) and Salafi literalism. Ghazzali in his Faysal talks of Asharis, Hanabila and Mutazila takfiring each other. Whereas Iljam he wrote against Hashawi corporealists (EI3 Hashwiyya). Is not there a differentiation between the Mushabbiha and the corporealists (Mujassima)? You mentioned all at once.

Miqdar (physical size), Hadd (physical limit), Maqan (place), Jiha (physical direction)

I assume Ghazzali distinguished between those. And Salafis strongly dismiss tajsim accusation on Ibn Tayymiya and call Ibn Battuta's account a lie for instance. You may still defend this claim, I will just leave it at pointing to this contradiction, without entering into a technical argumentation I am not capable of.
faysal-jiha.png
Faysal, 46. Hanbalis/Atharis identified with jiha belief by Ghazzali.

SelefMezhebi.png
This book is originally in Arabic as far as I remember. Other pages I cannot access now provide more information on early traditionalists who espoused the third opinion. He adduces the Hanbalis to Ibn Taymiyya, while showing Ibn al-Jawzi as a smaller group. He may also be drawing a line between them and Muqatil, I need to look it up against. But I am in quarantine now and cannot visit my grandfather's library haha.

Also somewhat independent of this discussion, I want to ask you about this line in Bad al-Amali:
ورب العرش فوق العرش لكن بلا وصف التمكن واتصال

It affirms "fawq", which is apparently a jiha, while denying makan. Ali al-Qari has a sharh on this, but I wonder whether there is a difference on this issue. The qasida is by a Maturidi scholar, al-Ushi. Syrian Ashari Sabuni too mentions in his tafsir that "نؤمن بأن الله على العرش كيف شاء، وكما شاء بلا حدٍّ ولا صفةٍ يبلغها واصف أو يحدها حادُّ". Would others oppose this? Because it does not block the suggestion by forwarding istila, control etc.

***

I do not approach these issues from a kalam framework, meaning I do not take a stance, rather I approach it from the historical perspective of Islam Studies. Personally I espouse Ghazzali's view in Iljam that kalam should neither be taught nor discussed. Some areas can be made use of, such as proofs of God and such, coupled with modern theories in philosophy and theology, otherwise a Koranic education is preferable. Hence, I desire an end of conflict between Salafis, mutakallimun and Sufis, as had Hasan al-Banna achieved with an activist framework.

Interestingly, you replied that

Doctrinally there is little difference between the Ash'ari, Maturidi and Athari. We disagree only in a few minor things.

which is only a later development that came about with the spread of Nizamiyya madrasas. Even Hanafi Shafii combined madrasas developed only later. In the 12th century you could still find animosity. Salafis like to narrate the story of Mufti al-Thaqalayn calling Shafiis disbelievers in the status of ahl al-kitab for their doctirne on istithna. Regardless of this particular story, this is not far fetched when considering other anecdotes I read in Islamicist histories. Tolerant scholars notwithstanding, animosity was the prevalent mood. Even in Sabuni (early 15th century) you can find respect for Asharis, but he reserves his usage of ahl al-sunna for Maturidis. This changed over time, esp. with Taftazani and Katip Celebi and the literature on the "minor differences" between Asharis and Maturidis, which were not that minor before. Imam Ashari calls For instance, Abu Hanifa Murjiite in his Maqalat, followed by al-Malati (on this see Ibrahim Hakki Inal, ‘The Presentation of the Murji’a in Islamic Literature’ (ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2002), https://search.proquest.com/docview/...rigsite=summon).

[Muhammad Hasan]

Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem,

I have tried to write a reply twice before but went off in a long tangent.

My first attempt I started discussing Tafwid, the differences between Early Ash'ari/Maturidi Tafwid and what is done by some Azhari Ash'ari today, and I was meaning to speak on why we can Affirm Uluww and that Allah is Fawq without being a direction, and the Salaf weren't using it as such (and I was going to quote Aqeedah Tahawiyyah, Fiqh al-Absat etc.)

My second attempt I went into a long tangent attacking you for trying to reconcile between doctrines showing you have no care Truth and forgotten this is a matter of Din and talking about Allah carelessly etc. I eventually started typing some accusations that you had clearly not studied Kalam and that you were woefully unaware that pretty much everything you say has an answer in normal Sunni scholarship and that it doesn't matter that certain groups oppose each other historically, and I brought the example of al-Bukhari calling Abu Hanifah a Murji etc.

Nevertheless I digress, I think in this final attempt I just quote what you have said and try a succinct reply that just ends up going on and on. I apologise before hand as it does get lengthy but this was not my intention. I do get quite angry at you near the end - please forgive me - I was very tired when I wrote this and just wanted to finish writing it. Nevertheless many of the points I am making a valid points against your movement and the likes of Ibn al-Bannah etc.

1 - Ibn Taymiyyah's Reception

Hanbali relation to Ibn Taymiyya.

Ibn Rajab, to my knowledge, mentioned Hanbali criticism of him for indulging in kalam (Bori, Caterina, “Ibn Taymiyya wa-jamāʿatuhu: Authority, Conflict and Consensus in Ibn Taymiyya’s Circle,” in: Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Yossef Rapoport and Shahab Ahmed, Studies in Islamic philosophy iv. (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010), 23–52.). Dhahabi similarly, including on his knowledge and attitude to others. But did they criticism on anthropomorphism? Also what about scholars who praised him like Ibn Hajar, Ibn al-Humam (if I remember right), and Ali al-Qari (if I remember right)? Ala al-Din al-Bukhari was criticised for his takfir. And the scholars I mentioned apparently did not exclude him from Sunnism. This is an incentive enough to take a lenient approach.

First I need a sanity check.

Please demonstrate for me what you know of Athari Aqeedah and read the two threads I linked above. First one is short, second one is quite long. I just need to confirm you actually know what my conception of an Athari is, and that you know it exists and is what most Hanbalis throughout history have argued. Please quote to me some Athari works where place, corporeality is negated etc. Explain what Ibn Qudamah's method is in interpeting the Sifat al-Khabariyyah (I explain it in the first post).

I want you to confirm why I don't believe either Ibn Jawzi or Ibn Taymiyyah are upon the way of the Athari.

As for your claims of the scholars they can all be proven to be incorrect.

Secondly, please quote Ibn Rajab's view on Muqatil bin Sulayman from Bayan Fadl Ilm al-Salaf ala Ilm al-Khalaf. Now what exactly does he say regarding Ibn Taymiyyah in Dhayl Tabaqat al Hanabila 2/394? What were the issues the Salaf condemned?

For Dhahabi criticising his doctrine watch the following lecture (its in English): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cayhWK8JxaA&list=PLA9B8A94DF5131E37&am p;index=1

Essentially you can find criticisms in the work Bayan Zaghl al-Ilm. The scholar above also refute baseless allegations that he didn't write it (mentions in other works etc.)
Ad-Dhahabi loves Ibn Taymiyyah as his teacher and so his criticisms of him are put in as kind a way as possible but they are criticisms of him e.g. he was upon the Madhab of the Salaf and then left this etc. He makes doctrinal, theological criticisms.

Ibn Hajar condemns Ibn Taymiyyah (also Ibn Hajar might praise someone at one time in a specific area but that doesn't tell you the full picture). The following is not a translation I have verified myself but I trust the scholar writing it - and you can check it up if you have access to the work referenced:

Translated by G F Haddad from Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani's biography of Ibn Taymiyya in al-durar al-kaamina fi a`yaan al-mi'at al-thaamina [The Hidden Pearls Concerning the Famous People of the Eighth Century] Hyderabad: Daa'irat al-ma`aarif al-`uthmaaniyya, 1384 H, vol. 1:144-160.

An enquiry [of his position] was conducted with several scholars [in Cairo] and a written statement was written against him, in which he said: "I am Ash`ari," and his handwriting is found with what he wrote verbatim, namely: "I believe that the Qur'an is a meaning which exists in Allah's Essence (mi`na qaa'imun bi dhaat Allaah), and it is an Attribute from the pre-eternal Attributes of His Essence (wa huwa Sifatun min Sifaati dhaatihi al-qadeema), and that it is uncreated (wa huwa ghayru makhlooq), and that it does not consist in the letter nor the voice (wa laysa bi Harfin wa la Sawt), and that His saying: "The Merciful established Himself over the Throne" is not taken according to its external meaning (laysa `ala zaahirihi), and I don't know in what consists its meaning, nay only Allah knows it, and one speaks of His "descent" in the same way as one speaks of His "establishement" (wa al-qawlu fi al-nuzooli kal-qawli fi al-istiwaa')."
It was written by Ahmad ibn Taymiyya and they witnessed over him that he had repented of his own free will from all that contravened the above. This took place on the 25th of Rabee` al-awwal of the year 707 and it was witnessed by a huge array of scholars and others. [p. 148.]

(Najm al-Din Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Qawi) al-Toofi (al-Hanbali) said: "He used to bring up in one hour from the Book and the Sunna and language and speculation (a quantity of material) which no-one could bring up in many sessions, as if these sciences were before his very eyes and he was picking and choosing from them at will. A time came when his companions took to over-praising him and this drove him to be satisfied with himself until he became proud before his fellow human beings, and became convinced that he was a scholar capable of independent reasoning (istash`ara annahu mujtahidun). Henceforth he began to answer each and every scholar great and small, past and recent, until he went all the way back to `Umar (r) and faulted him in some matter. This reached the ears of the Shaykh Ibraaheem al-Raqiyy who reprimanded him. Ibn Taymiyya went to see him, apologized, and asked for forgiveness.
"He also spoke against `Ali (r) and said: He made mistakes in seventeen different matters...

"Because of his fanatic support of the Hanbali school he would attack Ash`aris until he started to insult al-Ghazali, at which point some people opposed him and would almost kill him...
"They ascertained that he had blurted out certain words concerning doctrine (Dabatu `alayhi kalimaatin fi al-`aqaa'id mugheera) which came out of his mouth in the context of his sermons and legal decisions, and they mentioned that he had cited the tradition of Allah's descent (to the nearest heaven), then climbed down two steps from the minbar and said: "Just like this descent of mine" and he was categorized as an anthropomorphist (wa nusiba ila al-tajseem).

"They also mentioned his refutation of whoever uses the Prophet (s) as a means (man tawassala bi al-nabi sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) or seeks help from him (aw istaghaatha)...
"People were divided into parties because of him. Some considered him an anthropomorphist [mujassim] because of what he mentioned in 'al- `aqeeda al-Hamawiyya' and 'al-`aqeeda al-waaSiTiyya' and other books of his, such as Allah's hand, foot, shin, and face being litteral attributes of Allah (Sifaatun Haqeeqiyyatun lillaah) and that He is established upon the Throne with His Essence (wa annahu mustawin `ala al-`arshi bi dhaatihi). It was said to him that were this the case He would necessarily be subject to spatial confinement (al-taHayyuz) and divisibility (al-inqisaam). He replied: "I do not concede that spatial confinement and divisibility are (necessarily) properties of bodies (anaa laa usallimu anna al-taHayyuz wa al-inqisaam min khawaSS al- ajsaam)," whereupon it was adduced against him (ulzima) that he held Allah's Essence to be subject to spatial confinement.


[Note: Ibn Taymiyya nowhere explicitly rejects limit and dimension for Allah. In fact he says in his answer to Razi ('al-Ta'sis') that the rejection of limit (Hadd) and dimension (qadr) for Allah is nowhere found in the Book and the Sunna (as quoted in Kawthari's 'Maqaalaat' p. 351), whereas the Sunni `aqeedah explicitly states: "The Glorious and Exalted Lord is above and beyond sharing in the properties of having directions or spatial limits: thoughts cannot measure Him, locations cannot contain Him, dimensions cannot encompass Him" (Imam al-Juwayni in 'Lam` al-adillat fi qawaa`id `aqaa'id ahl al-sunna' [The Radiance of Proofs Concerning the Bases of the Beliefs of Ahl al-Sunna]). Ibn Taymiyya even says that there are two kinds of tashbeeh [likening of God], one of which "whose meaning it would be improper to disallow" (Beirut edition of 'Majmoo` fataawa shaykh al-islam...' 3:172, and again in the 'Ta'sis' that "the Book, the Sunna, and the Consensus nowhere say that all bodies are necessarily created, nor that Allah Himself is necessarily not a body" (quoted in Kawthari p. 350).]


"Others considered him someone who conceals unbelief [zindeeq] due to his saying that the Prophet (s) is not to be sought for help (laa yustaghaathu bihi) and the fact that this amounted to diminishing and impeding the establishing of the greatness of the Prophet (s)...
"Others considered him a hypocrite [munaafiq] because of what he said about `Ali:... that he had been forsaken (makhdhoolan) everywhere he went, had repeatedly tried to acquire the khilafa and never attained it, fought out of lust for power rather than religion, and said that "he loved authority while `Uthman loved money." He would say that Abu Bakr had declared Islam in his old age, fully aware of what he said, while `Ali had declared Islam as a boy, and the boy's Islam is not considered sound upon his mere word... In sum he said ugly things such as these, and it was said against him that he was a hypocrite, in view of the Prophet's (s) saying (to `Ali): "Only a hypocrite would show you hatred." [p. 153-155]

So Ibn Hajar is reportedly saying that he is either an anthropomorphist, a disbeliever or a hypocrite.

Take your pick.

As for Ibn al-Humam, I doubt it, but see if you can find a primary reference and show me a scan or something. I don't mind if you bring Arabic or a translation, as I doubt someone would want to change what Ibn al-Humam is saying.

As for Mulla Ali Qari he defended him initially thinking Ibn Taymiyyah was advocating the same thing as him (Tafwid al-Ma'na), but later he changed his opinion on him, due to his views on visiting graves. Anyway, Mulla Ali Qari confirms in his Mirqat that the one who believes in a direction (jiha) for Allah is a Kafir. If you read his commentary of Fiqh al-Akbar, then you can see his creedal views are in complete opposition to Ibn Taymiyyah as well.

He ascribed believing Allah is in a place, shape etc. to the Hashwiyyah in that work. This is the same for ad-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar etc. - they reject such beliefs.

The contention becomes does Ibn Taymiyyah fall into what the scholars throughout history have called a heretic, with multiple groups (Maturidi, Ash'ari, Athari even the Hazmiyyah) ageeing on this - even when they don't use/ abandon Ilmul Kalam?

It does not matter if these groups I mention above attack each other. The primary concern is, is Ibn Taymiyyah falling into Tasbih? or affirming that the six directions contain Allah etc. Is he affirming corporeality? All of those groups reject that. Their differences with each other have always been minor - fighting over a minor difference doesn't make it a minor difference - An-Nasafi was prepared to make Tabdi' of the Ash'aris over the rather semantic issue of Takwin.

So the scholars you mention arguably do remove him from Sunnism, and more importantly they mention certain views as heretical views - and Ibn Taymiyyah does fall into that. So we should exclude him from Sunnism (not even going into his other errors, e.g. defending the eternity of Jahannam etc. which goes against a consensus mentioned by Ibn Hazm even).

2 - Ibn Qutaybah's views

He is a proliferate early traditionalist, contemporary of Ahmad b. Hanbal and for that time on the same rank with him among traditionalists. He is regarded as the forerunner (along with İbni Abdi’l-Berr, İbni Ebî Zeyd el-Kayravani, Kadı Ebû Ya`la İbni ez-Zâğûni) of Ibn Taymiyya's literalism on sifat according Muhammad Abu Zahra, who distinguishes between Salaf's tafwid (who are identical to your definition of Atharis I assume) and Salafi literalism. Ghazzali in his Faysal talks of Asharis, Hanabila and Mutazila takfiring each other. Whereas Iljam he wrote against Hashawi corporealists (EI3 Hashwiyya). Is not there a differentiation between the Mushabbiha and the corporealists (Mujassima)? You mentioned all at once.

The fact that Qadi Abu Ya'la is mentioned, gives me doubts as to how for his views could be said to be a "forerunner" to Ibn Taymiyyah. What does that mean? So he does not hold Ibn Taymiyyah's views but views that easily become Ibn Taymiyyah's? I mean isn't that what Athari Aqeedah is? It's meant to be a scripturalist school who even accept the Khabar Ahad reports in Aqeedah, saying they give certainty if they are of the authenticity of Bukhari and Muslim etc. I can see easily how Athari aqeedah can be misread into anthropomorphism.

There are differences technically in the terms Hashwiyyah, Mujassimah, Mushabihah, Muqatiliyyah etc. but these are also generically used to refer to corporealists.

Hashwiyyah originates from those anthropomorphists in Hasan al-Basri's day.

Mujassimah is generally an anthropomorophist who - you guessed it - affirms a Jism in particular. I'm sure you understand concept like Jism, Arad and Jawhar. Some of the Mushabihah did not say Allah is a Jism, rather they said he is a Jawhar etc.

Mushabihah is the generic term for someone who does Tasbih (I think this was also used by the Salaf like Abu Hanifah).

Muqatiliyyah refers to the follows of Muqatil bin Sulayman as opposed to the Jahmiyyah, followers of Jahm bin Safwan. The term was coined by Abu Hanifah to my knowledge. They were polar opposites and Ahlus Sunnah is in the middle.

There are other terms like Karramiyyah - followers of Muhammad bin Karram who Ibn Taymiyyah calls a Sunni.

Mulla Ali Qari also uses another term in his Sharh that I forget off the top of my head - Najarriyyah or something (or maybe I am confusing that with something else).

---

At this point I got angry because the post was becoming long and I hit a button on my mouse that took me off the page and lost me some paragraphs I wrote. So I've condensed my comments below.

---

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/mihie/OneDrive/Documents/filedata/fetch%3Fid=12741468&d=1605312321&type=medi um[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/mihie/AppData/Local/Temp/lu1452436iljk.tmp/lu1452436iljp_tmp_c83dbc2977318b9a.gif[/IMG]
This book is originally in Arabic as far as I remember. Other pages I cannot access now provide more information on early traditionalists who espoused the third opinion. He adduces the Hanbalis to Ibn Taymiyya, while showing Ibn al-Jawzi as a smaller group. He may also be drawing a line between them and Muqatil, I need to look it up against. But I am in quarantine now and cannot visit my grandfather's library haha.

Ok speeding through, the quote from al-Ghazali before this which I haven't brought as I am lazy, is explained quite simply that the Hanabilah did not hold that view that they are ascribing above as a direction, and that al-Ghazali was reporting that from them based off of how the Hanabilah interpret such reports (they do Tafwid al-Ma'na which involves affirming the wording) - misinterpreting affirmation of Uluww and Allah being Fawq as affirmation of a physical direction.

However al-Ghazali himself could have solved this problem of incongruence with their doctrine with the methodology he developed in another work where he gives the steps to go through in affirming/interpreting a statement. I will see if I can find it and quote it later.

Coming onto this that you have brought, first I do not know what it actually says - I can't read turkish.

Nevertheless going off of what you said, it doesn't really make much sense.

Are you saying he puts Ibn Taymiyyah with the Hanabilah? I mean that's impossible if you actually read the works of these Hanbalis. Ibn Hamdan quite literally denies Maqan, Ibn Qudamah quite explicitly affirms Tafwid al-Ma'na and others like Ibn al-Bannah (early Hanbali) are also very explicit on their rejection of anthropomorphism. Moreover in his Lum'ah, Ibn Qudamah is quoting Imam Ahmad himself.

As for "Ibn Jawzi being the smaller group" - ? What? What has Ibn Jawzi got to do with this?

We are discussing Athari aqeedah - Ibn Jawzi is not an Athari... He is a Hanbali in fiqh who departed from the school in these issues and the Hanabilah criticised him.

Its as if you think I am being so simplistic as to call whatever aligns with Ash'ari views Athari - you think that I think the likes of Ibn Jawzi and Ibn Akil are Athari as they align with the views of the Ash'ari - that is not how we determine Athari views! We determine Athari views from the Atharis themselves - this is the same mistake the Taymiyyan sect makes.

Did Ibn Qudamah believe in the same thing as Ibn Taymiyyah?

You know what - since you are so hellbent on quoting academia, I will play into your game and show you the same westerners you worship and wish to take philosophy and governance from, also say Ibn Taymiyyah was not upon the Madhab of the former Athari - this is not just some Ash'ari/Maturidi claim that the Hanabila who sit with them also agree with.

The Academic is a non-Muslim westerner, so I am not even relying on mainstream Islamic scholarship to make this claim anymore. He is in the same field of 'Islamic Studies' you claim to be interested in. Listen to how he responds to my question regarding Ibn Taymiyyah from 14:45. (Ignore the fact I did not write "Ibn" for Ibn al-Bannah). He says that Ibn Qudamah had a different theology to him (which he identifies as a quietism), and he would not agree with Ibn Taymiyyah's argument that his views are from Ahmed bin Hanbal - giving the example of Kalam Allah.

Ibn Qudamah himself negates Hadd (limit) and Ghaya (boundary) for Allah, quoting Imam Ahmad.

But I mean this claim that he was upon the Maddhab of the Athari is ridiculous as you had Athari scholars like Ibn Hamdan who died in Ibn Taymiyyah's childhood who even negated Makan, Jism etc. Ad-Dhahabi himself said he was upon the way of the Salaf (the Athari). How can Ibn Taymiyyah be in line with the Athari when the Athari in his own time were teaching things he wasn't?

So no, Ibn Taymiyyah was not an Athari. What differentiates the Athari from the Ash'ari is their views on Allah's Kalam (consisting of letters etc.) - which the Ash'ari at times attacked as a "Hurufi" doctrine, their view that Tawil is a reprehensible innovation (referring to Tawil Ijmali historically as the likes of some differentiated between Tawil of the Ash'ari and Ta'til of the Jahmi) and also their pointed dislike of Ilm-ul-Kalam - in fact they prohibit it even to this day (Look up people like Shaykh Abu Ja'far al-Hanbali, Shaykh Yusuf bin Sadiq, Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Wahid)

And yet they are happy to negate Hadd (limit), Ghaya (boundary), Makan (place), Jism (body), Jawhar (substance) and Arad (accident) for Allah. Yes they view those terms as innovated - but they reject what they connote too and emphasise the Ayah that says there is nothing like Allah.

They say Allah is above the throne but they do not mean in a direction - that is their affirmation of the Sifat of Uluww, and this is something the earlier scholars of the Ash'ari and Maturidi affirmed, and even the later Maturidi who would be very precise in their language when criticising the Salafi movement.

Also somewhat independent of this discussion, I want to ask you about this line in Bad al-Amali:
ورب العرش فوق العرش لكن بلا وصف التمكن واتصال

It affirms "fawq", which is apparently a jiha, while denying makan. Ali al-Qari has a sharh on this, but I wonder whether there is a difference on this issue. The qasida is by a Maturidi scholar, al-Ushi. Syrian Ashari Sabuni too mentions in his tafsir that "نؤمن بأن الله على العرش كيف شاء، وكما شاء بلا حدٍّ ولا صفةٍ يبلغها واصف أو يحدها حادُّ". Would others oppose this? Because it does not block the suggestion by forwarding istila, control etc.

No - where is the word Jiha used? It affirms Fawq yes, even I affirm fawq and say Allah is fis' Sama as he has said in the Qur'an. And we affirm the young girl pointing up. That doesn't mean what you think it does (in a physical place in a physical direction up from the throne).

It says in Aqeedah Tahawiyyah:

مُحِيطٌ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَفَوْقَهُ وَقَدْ أَعْجَزَ عَنِ الْإِحَاطَةِ خَلْقَهُ

But in the same work he says:

وَتَعَالَى عَنِ الْحُدُودِ وَالْغَايَاتِ وَالْأَرْكَانِ وَالْأَعْضَاءِ وَالْأَدَوَاتِ لَا تَحْوِيهِ الْجِهَاتُ السِّتُّ كَسَائِرِ الْمُبْتَدَعَاتِ

In fact if you check works like Fiqh al-Absat, you will find the same thing, and what is reported from Imam al-Maturidi, that Abu Hanifah affirmed Uluww but not as a Makan or Jiha - and he explicitly negates Makan in the work (and moreover we know he negates Jiha as At-Tahawi was narrating the Aqeedah of Abu Hanifah and Shaykhayn). (Regarding attribution long story short it is reliably attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah as a criticism of a Hanafi as "Murji" is typical in earlier history where Imam Bukhari himself accused Imam Abu Hanifah of being a Murji. Some of the scholars have written long tracts explaining this - but I will simply explain it is because the Hanafis say Iman does not increase or decrease - only Taqwa does. The Hadith you quote against racism is good evidence for this.)

Al-Bayhaqi and Imam al-Maturidi and the scholars explain that when the Salaf used such terminology they did so to refer to the Tanzih of Allah - i.e. Allah is absolutely above of things.

Ask yourself - what does "transcend" mean? You will say "above and beyond" - this is quite literally what the Salaf said, they said he was fawq alal-Arsh, Ba'in min Khalqihi. But obviously the above here is not referring to a physical direction, rather a metaphysical aboveness i.e. transcendence.

So yes, we affirm Fawq, and we affirm Uluww, and they are not Jiha.

which is only a later development that came about with the spread of Nizamiyya madrasas. Even Hanafi Shafii combined madrasas developed only later. In the 12th century you could still find animosity. Salafis like to narrate the story of Mufti al-Thaqalayn calling Shafiis disbelievers in the status of ahl al-kitab for their doctirne on istithna. Regardless of this particular story, this is not far fetched when considering other anecdotes I read in Islamicist histories. Tolerant scholars notwithstanding, animosity was the prevalent mood. Even in Sabuni (early 15th century) you can find respect for Asharis, but he reserves his usage of ahl al-sunna for Maturidis. This changed over time, esp. with Taftazani and Katip Celebi and the literature on the "minor differences" between Asharis and Maturidis, which were not that minor before. Imam Ashari calls For instance, Abu Hanifa Murjiite in his Maqalat, followed by al-Malati

I mean no, it is not a development.

When I say they have few differences, I mean even when they were butchering each other in their literature they had few diffrences. They have the same differences then as they have now. Also saying the Nizamiyyah Madrassah helped bring them together is laughable - which Nizamiyyah madrassah taught Hanbali Usul? Ibn Hamdan was schooled in which Nizamiyyah Madrassah?

In fact do you know who is teachers were? They were Majd ad-Din and Fakruddin Ibn Taymiyyah, Taqiuddin's grandfather and father. Majd ad-Din holds a very important place in the fiqhi school, alongside Ibn Qudamah, Taqiuddin and Ibn Rajab.

The Hanabilah were not part of the Nizamiyyah system, and there was no change in beliefs for these people - what happened is they learned to accept their small differences as they realised their main criticisms of the heretics that even the Salaf criticised, didn't apply to each other. You keep bringing up this history of them opposing each other and I keep telling you I don't care - I already know that. You should seriously sit with or listen to or read some actual scholars and learn this stuff yourself - its not controversial.

I mentioned in a post a long time ago the example of An-Nasafi - you seem to think I am not aware of this stuff. No I am, and mainstream scholarship is, and yet mainstream scholarship does not accept anthropomorphisms in the manner espoused by modern day Salafis - the Athari support us in this as they are not corporealists, they negate such things.

I can even give you further more simpler examples. Forget al-Ash'ari (by the way their are some doubts as to whether he considered Abu Hanifah a Murji and GF Haddad talks about this), Imam al-Bukhari who we all agree is a Sunni Muslim, he calls Abu Hanifah a Murji and does not narrate Hadith from him!

So we should reject Abu Hanifah?

No - Bukhari misinterpreted Abu Hanifah's doctrines which are not the doctrines of Irja (saying Iman does not increase, decrease is not the same as Irja - I explained Irja on that other friend with the Khariji brother). Many of the scholars of the Kullabite and Athari camp did that. That does not mean Maturidi/Hanafi creed has evolved to become more compatible with Ash'arism - rather what has happened is both groups have realised their differences are not such that they fall into the two main heresies in this field - Ta'til and Tasbih, nor that they fall into other such heresies.

In otherwords they have learnt to understand each other - and their were earlier tolerant scholars like this (I cited Imam an-Nawawi before).

Where do we draw the line?

So showing that "Hey look these guys hated each other before but now they accept each other as Sunnis" is meaningless to me. So what? So we should adopt heresies by including it in Ahlus Sunnah? Clearly not - where are you drawing the line? You believe in Islam and believe its the truth so where is the line where you say something is not orthodox or acceptable?

You think "these lot naturally accept each other now so for the sake of unity we should excuse and accept other heretics as Sunnis" - that is ridiculous. The point is that the Ash'ari, Maturidi, Athari are not considered heretics by us today or even by the more objective, less polemical and more enlightened people of their own times. All three schools can be traced to the Salaf with Isnad.

A heretic is the one who calls to innovation - that which was opposed by those who came before them.

If I accepted your call - which is based on a blindness and unwillingness to accept objectivity and dogmatic truth, then we should also consider even the Falasifah such as Ali Ibn Sina, the Mu'tazila like al-Jahiz, the Jabariyyah and Jahmiyyah like Jahm bin Safwan. Why is it not orthodox to state then that Jannah and Jahannam shall come to an end based off of the Qu'ran? Why don't we affirm the doctrines of the Hululiyyah - the ones who believe Allah can incarnate? Why don't we then accept the Shia and Ibadi as Sunni too? Why don't we accept the Jews and the Christians?

Where does it stop?

"But the Jews and Christians call to Shirk and Kufr" - what do you think these pseudo-Salafis are calling to? They write books with "Ithbat al-Hadd" in the title! Yasir Qadhi believes Allah comes dows physically and writes an article doing Tajsim comparing him to the moon!

This is a matter of belief - how can there be unity if we don't worship the same God?

Because if you reflect on it - that is what this issue is about - they worship a different god to us. They worship a 3 dimensional creature sitting on the throne with a physical face, eyes, hands, feet etc. who moves from place to place. I.e. they worship a creation!

I don't worship such a creature. That isn't Allah. Allah is exalted above such a thing. Allah has the power to create what they worship and far exalted is he above such a thing.

Be glad that we don't make takfir of them for worshipping Zeus upon his throne up above!

If we were having this discussion in the past - the Ulama like Shaykh Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari would declare their doctrines Kufr. Imam al-Qurtubi would say, "What is wrong with you - how do you tolerate this - how are these people Muslims?" Ibn al-Bannah (al-Athari) would say they a disbelievers.

When they are teaching what is in reality a form of Kufr and I am making so many excuses for them and am really pushing the bar in what is acceptable to accept as a mere innovation without disbelief - you are coming a long and telling me we should admit these people into Orthodoxy! Astaghfirullah!

Haven't I done enough? Isn't an innovator within Islam not acceptable enough? What do you think I don't respect and love the Ulama like Ibn Taymiyyah and even al-Zamakhshari and even Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas? Of course I do. Ibn Hajar brought opinions praising Muqatil's Tafsir.

But we do not follow them in their errors.

The Sahabah and Salaf are far removed from these!

What defines Sunnism?

Sunnah is the way of the Prophet Alayhis Salam and the Sahabah. It is the way of As-Salaf as-Salihin - the righteous predecessors.

Did RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam believe there is something above and below Allah? Rather he said there is nothing above him and there is nothing below him. An explicit statement from him is not enough to solve this issue? What about the verses "there is nothing like him" or "there is nothing comparable to him"? Why are we even discussing this??

Some people denied Allah's command in the Qur'an to not follow the Ayat al-Mutashabihat.

It is the orthodox, traditional Islam that is the correct interpretation of Islam. Islam is the truth, and Sunni Islam is the preserved version of the truth.

That interpetation is broad but there are some things that the vast majority of scholars have attacked throughout history - even groups which differed with themselves maintained such things are not acceptable.

Sunnism is not an open door club we admit anyone into.

You want unity for political reasons. Then why don't you unite with the Jews and Christians. Go become a Communist or something if that's what you truly want.

We unify on the truth and teach the truth.

I have said before I am willing to accept them as Muslim brothers and sisters. You can fight alongside them in Jihad. But we will not be teaching their doctrines to our children as acceptable opinions - because they are false and not acceptable. We will be questioned why we allowed them to insult Allah. I don't care if you say X person from the Salaf held their views - we are with As-Salaf As-Salihin. Wasil Ibn 'Ata was one of the Salaf - do we follow him?

Allah transcends all things, and necessarily does. This is affirmed by Scripture and Reason for those who use it.

Reason and Philosophy

Sunni Islam is the only way which conforms to Reason. You wish for us to change that. You don't care about the Islamic intellectual heritage - you prefer the way of the westerner. The vast majority of the westerners are disbelievers. We will not follow their path. Their tall buildings are signs of their arrogance not progress.

The intellectual decline of the Muslims is such that we have people like you arguing for democracy, the following of western philosophy, and the reform of Islam.

What was wrong with Ilm-al-Kalam that you need to follow western philosophy - al-Ghazali and others abandon it because it takes them to a realm far removed from the layperson and there is fear if they laypeople reas such things without studying and because they haven't used it and don't need it anymore - and it leads to arrogance in the heart. He did not leave it because of any flaws in it. Ilm al-Kalam is a tool.

The Western Philosophy you call to contains rational mistakes and you people will cause the rise of atheism in the future if you follow your path in adopting their philosophy - because people will find mistakes in their proofs and arguments and think that disproves the beliefs being proven. Also it leads to false notions of Allah and leads to the adoption of Kufr beliefs like natural causation, which also contradict reason.

Go read the works of Mustafa Sabri. They were made against your people.

You're the sort of person who agrees with the statement of Abduh, "I went to the West and I saw Islam but didn't see any Muslims" - rather he went to the west and saw his desires!

In all of this discussion we have been just discussing Ibn Taymiyyah's error in Ilahiyyat - but he also made errors in other fields to (e.g. defending the view Jahannam will end). How can we accept such a thing?

So answer me this - how and where do you draw the line between what is considered Sunni and what is considered non-Sunni but within Islam?

[Muhammad Hasan]

And Salafis strongly dismiss tajsim accusation on Ibn Tayymiya and call Ibn Battuta's account a lie for instance.

Who does this and why should they do it? Ibn Taymiyyah just walked down steps - which shows literal/physical descent which they affirm. (And yes that is Tajsim).

Calling an account a lie is not acceptable according to Islamic standards. Proof Ibn Battuta or his student is a liar according to the standards of the Muhadithin and then we can say that.

[Muhammad Hasan]

Also Al-Ghazali in the work you quoted mentions it is Kufr to believe in a Jism for Allah - is that your position too?

(I.e. when he left Kalam he did not leave any Sunni beliefs like denying corporeality).

[Abu Sulayman]

I do not approach these issues from a kalam framework, meaning I do not take a stance, rather I approach it from the historical perspective of Islam Studies. Personally I espouse Ghazzali's view in Iljam that kalam should neither be taught nor discussed. Some areas can be made use of, such as proofs of God and such, coupled with modern theories in philosophy and theology, otherwise a Koranic education is preferable. Hence, I desire an end of conflict between Salafis, mutakallimun and Sufis, as had Hasan al-Banna achieved with an activist framework.

I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) meant that 'Ilm al-Kalam should not be taught or discussed. This is a typical "Salafi" misunderstanding and just shows how superficial they're in their reading.
The work that you're referring to is Iljam al-'Awam 'an 'Ilm al-Kalam, so the title already tells you that it's about why LAYMEN should stay away from the 'Ilm al-Kalam.

What the Ikhwan first and foremost achieved with this so called "call to unity" is spreading "Salafism" among the people. Some did so knowingly and some unknowingly.

Anyways there is a huge difference between classical Islam and "Salafism" and we should never ever accept their beliefs or their deviations from the correct way.

[Muhammad Hasan]

I will play into your game and show you the same westerners you worship

Please forgive me for writing this - I was not seriously accusing you of 'worshipping the westerner' - that is an accusation of Shirk and inappropriate to make against a Muslim, however errant they are - I was referring to the fact that you seem to assume western opinions or views on things are superior merely for existing, not actually analysing them critically yourself.

[YahyaIbnSelam]

I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) meant that 'Ilm al-Kalam should not be taught or discussed. This is a typical "Salafi" misunderstanding and just shows how superficial they're in their reading.
The work that you're referring to is Iljam al-'Awam 'an 'Ilm al-Kalam, so the title already tells you that it's about why LAYMEN should stay away from the 'Ilm al-Kalam.

Abu Sulayman 1. You are right, that is what I had meant. I do not refuse the Kalam tradition entirely, yet I do not see any benefit in teaching it as general education in its detailed traditional form. It should be sorted out by scholars; that which is relevant and useful should be preserved in curricula.

2. Ikhwan did not spread Salafism, to the contrary, they reconciled an already growing tradition with other. Their forerunners, Rashid Rida, did by lending them legitimacy. Yet Wahhabi-Salafism foremost spread with Saudi money. And it had already found support with Hanbalis of Syria and the Alusis in Iraq. Even Ottoman governor of Basra was Wahhabi in the early 19th century, Mamluk Pasha Suleiman the Little (r. 1807–10).

Muhammad Hasan brother you have misunderstood me on some points and there is no point in levelling accusations. Hasan (no ibn) al-Banna is an activist imam. To my view the mujaddid of our century. He was not a modernist or Salafi as you assume. Sheikh Mustafa Sabri outlived him, and he has a positive appraisal of him afaik. Ali Ulvi Kurucu, who is a famous Turkish non-Salafi also lived in Egypt during that era, and praised him. Sheikh Banna is a figure agreed upon. May Allah have mercy on him. During his leadership, Sufis and Salafis came together both in Syria and Egypt. Sheikh Mustafa Sabri also had books published in the Salafi bookstore of Muhibbuddin al-Khatib... did you know that? Also, the sheikhulislam is far less zealous in his adherence to traditional views as you are. And he is also a deviant according to you, because he espoused the Jabriyya's view in his Mawqiful Bashar, even accusing the Maturidiyya of being the most corrupt (afsad) madhhab on Qadar. I do not agree with him, but I just want to show you how fast sb may exit your Sunnism. [To relieve myself of any further accusation, I am neither modernist in fiqh, nor Salafi in theology. I am an ordinary Muslim following Hanafi ijtihad. I am also not against being Maturidi, Ashari, Athari or Salafi]

1) Islamic Studies is beneficial in several aspects, which is maybe why it has been adopted in the East. These are a. critical approach to history and texts, embracing a neutral perspective, both in narration and analysis, which is especially needed in Ikthilaf studies b. including non-Arabic and non-Muslim sources in history and enlarging the scope of materials (artefacts, architecture etc.) c. comparison with other traditions, as both interact d. coupling the study of theological sources with the study material phenomena with politics, sociology, area studies etc., which is needed to understand our society and for jurists to treat novel cases. Its mere being "western" is no argument. Logic is Greek too. If you have any criticism, you should elaborate it.

2) Ghazzali... what I intended to say about him was that he desired to bring together Muslims and absolve them from theological conflict, especially rejecting takfir. I do not know about his statements concerning Sunnism. Yet there in Faysal he argues that every new saying may be considered bida, and that it shouldn't be publicised when the public is anticipated to turn against it. Thus he has a very pragmatic view of bida: only that which disturbs the public and causes conflict is to be considered bida.

He did not reject kalam altogether, but he left it for Sufism (zuhd and ibada), where he found his yaqin and itminan, just like Razi and to an extent his teacher Juwayni, who had combined Sufism with Kalam from the start on. Rahimahumullah.

3) Hanbalis (Atharis) and Salafis. You seem to have misunderstood me on this point. I did not try to equate these groups. Muhammad Abu Zahra, maybe the greatest Muslim expert on this, divided people into three groups: Mutakallimun, Anti Tawil Traditionalists (Atharis who made Tafwid al Mana and the Iraqi Ibn al-Jawzi is among them) and thirdly, Literalist Salafis.

You see the citation pic I posted from Ghazzali. He ascribes the view of Fawq (which is a Jiha, right?) to Hanbalis. You say it is not a jiha because it is understood metaphorically, not in a physical sense. I am note sure whether a. Hanbalis undestood it this way and b. whether mutakallimun unanimously consented to a metaphorical use of this sentence. You give some examples for the latter that they did, yet why should Ghazzali treat this if it were unanimously accepted? So either a. or b. of your assumptions wrong. Either Hanbalis did not view it metaphorically, at least they did not feel the need to explain that, or mutakallimun did not accept the use of fawq, regardless of how it was understood. This is my assumption. There was certainly a conflict over this (treated here Toru, Ümüt. ‘Eş‘arî Âlimlerin Nazarında Hanbelîlik ve Hanbelîler (İhtilaflar ve İthamlar)’. Amasya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 10 (22 June 2018): 101–44. https://doi.org/10.18498/amauifd.382672.) and Asharis and (Athari) Hanbalis criticised each other.

What has Ibn Jawzi got to do with this?

We are discussing Athari aqeedah - Ibn Jawzi is not an Athari... He is a Hanbali in fiqh who departed from the school in these issues and the Hanabilah criticised him.

I wonder how you don't count Ibn al-Jawzi among the Athari Hanabila? Are you saying he is a Salafi? That would be odd, because I have seen Salafis rejecting him for tafwid al-mana.

4) Reception of Ibn Taymiyya. For this I relied foremost on Bori, Caterina, “Ibn Taymiyya wa-jamāʿatuhu: Authority, Conflict and Consensus in Ibn Taymiyya’s Circle,” in: Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Yossef Rapoport and Shahab Ahmed, Studies in Islamic philosophy iv. (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010), 23–52. And Bori, Caterina. ‘Ibn Taymiyya (14th to 17th Century): Transregional Spaces of Reading and Reception’. The Muslim World (Hartford) 108, no. 1 (2018): 87–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/muwo.12230.

I had not read about Ibn Hajar's refutation of him, thanks for that. I will reassess that issue and write back later.

5.) Earlier conflicts between the groups. The Nizamiyya united Hanafis and Shafiis, whereas Hanbalis were pushed to the margins, even though the Abbasid caliphs were Hanbali in creed. Yet you seem to be right on this issue, several earlier scholars of both camps had already acknowledged each other. I was under the influence of a dramatical German book by Nagelman. This study is more rigorous and detailed: Haidar, Yahya Raad. ‘THE DEBATES BETWEEN ASH’ARISM AND MĀTURĪDISM IN OTTOMAN RELIGIOUS SCHOLARSHIP: A HISTORICAL AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDY’. Ph.D., Australian National University, 2016. https://openresearch-repository.anu....sis%202017.pdf. It ascribes favourable opinions to many pre-Nizamiyya scholars on the Hanafiyya, with the exception of Ashari himself and Baqillani. Nonetheless, both accounts are complementing each other. It appears that the populace in the 11th century had not come to terms on theology yet , while greater scholars were already trying to achieve a consensus. You see, there are also "Western" works supporting your claims :)

P.S: I really do not understand why people get angry on such issues. You are no different from Salafis on this. And praiseworthy scholars were unlike you both. I witnessed this with my reading of Ghazzali, who is more objective and rational than everybody else. As for your great claim that I do not have any concern for truth like agnostics, this is true only from your rigid perspective. Truth is that which Allah has sent down, where there is no concession. I wonder what you say on the Musawwiba in Fiqh like Baqillan, who view every opinion as equally true? Yes, I tend to the view that kullu mujtahidin musib, even in theology. But this is as long as there is no qati evidence. And I am following Ghazzali on this, who says zahir of sources should be followed unless there is burhan to overturn it, otherwise it is kufr to change the zahir which is the truth, as the philosophers did. As for bida, I do not see how a new issue may turn into a bida when there is not priorly seal to it. If, however, every new discussion is a bida, then all sects are bida including the mutakallimun, with the exception of Atharis. To my view, bida is turning against the community and this is evident from the saying of the Prophet, as he mentions bida in the context of sticking to the companions and obeying the Imam and not turning against him.

Sunnism is studying the traditions and inferring knowledge that is reasonably in accordance with it. The Mutazila were not acquainted with tradition and the Shia forged traditions of their own.

[Muhammad Hasan]

, Anti Tawil Traditionalists (Atharis who made Tafwid al Mana and the Iraqi Ibn al-Jawzi is among them)

No he really isn't.