Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Upbringing and Salafism

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

  • #16
    Also, the sheikhulislam is far less zealous in his adherence to traditional views as you are.
    If you are referring to his views on Democracy, then he is mistaken on those though that alone does not take you out of Ahlus Sunnah as that is a matter of fiqh, not of Iman and Kufr.

    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.
    Please quote this. (So he says "The Jabariyyah say x and I agree with the Jabariyyah" - where x is the view reported of the Jabariyyah such as Jad bin Dirham etc.). Anything that is your inference will be rejected.

    Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
    "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
    Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

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

    Comment


    • #17
      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.
      No Ibn Jawzi was not an Athari, nor was he a Salafi - why do you think it is either or?
      Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
      "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
      Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

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

      Comment


      • #18
        Reception of Ibn Taymiyya. For this I relied foremost on Bori, Caterina, โ€œIbn Taymiyya wa-jamฤสฟatuhu: Authority, Conflict and Consensus in Ibn Taymiyyaโ€™s Circle,โ€ in: Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Yossef Rapoport and Shahab Ahmed, Studies in Islamic philosophy iv. (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010), 23โ€“52. And Bori, Caterina. โ€˜Ibn Taymiyya (14th to 17th Century): Transregional Spaces of Reading and Receptionโ€™. The Muslim World (Hartford) 108, no. 1 (2018): 87โ€“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.
        And I rely on Sunni Muslim scholarship not what some orientalist thinks.
        Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
        "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
        Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

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

        Comment


        • #19
          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. โ€˜THE DEBATES BETWEEN ASHโ€™ARISM AND Mฤ€TURฤชDISM IN OTTOMAN RELIGIOUS SCHOLARSHIP: A HISTORICAL AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDYโ€™. 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 :)
          Who cares if the westerner supports my claim?

          I don't need the White Man of the West to vindicate my views. If he agrees with the truth (or in non-certain matters what I understand is the truth) then good for him. If he doesn't, then I'm not here to babysit the ignorant.
          Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
          "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
          Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

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

          Comment


          • #20
            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.
            Surely I am not like the great scholars, may Allah raise their stations. In fact I am not even as knowledgeable as the true student of knowledge of today.

            Yes one may adopt Aqeedah which is congruent to the Ash'ari or the Maturidi or the Athari.

            I don't want to get into technicallities, but technically one should not do Taqlid in Aqeedah.

            As for bida, I do not see how a new issue may turn into a bida when there is not priorly seal to it.
            There was a Priorly Seal, Ibn Taymiyyah contradicts the views that even the Sahabah hold (e.g. as reported of Imam Ali Radiyallahu An), and they were the views of the Salaf as-Salihin - and I mean people we agree upon - not people who the Salaf we agree upon called deviants. Ibn Taymiyyah's views contradict the Qur'an. His views contradict the Hadith.

            Do you wish for me to prove this to you? I will just bring Dalil, letting it speak for itself, no interpetation or comment necessary.
            Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
            "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
            Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

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

            Comment


            • #21
              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.
              The Mu'tazila were not acquainted with the tradition?? That is clearly not true. In fact they could and did evidence their views from the 'tradition'.

              But if I go by your definition then neither the Taymiyyans nor the Mu'tazila count, as the Taymiyyan's inferences are not "reasonably in accordance" with the traditions, nor were the Mu'tazila. Do you say any interpretation of the Sunnah according to what is apparent (obvious) must be admitted into orthodoxy? We can test such a claim.

              Regardless your definition is arbitrary and sounds like something you have come up with yourself. The definition according to Ahlus Sunnah is that Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jama'ah is defined as the path within Islam of RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was Salam and his Sahabah.

              It is the path of those who are pious who came after them and those pious who came after them. It is the path of as-Sawad al-Adham. It is the path of the Jama'ah throughout Islamic history. If someone institutes something new that goes against that path then it is an innovation at minimum.

              We do not blindly follow those after the Sahabah who claim to be on that path. We ask for evidences from Quran, Sunnah and Reason (which Allah calls to in the Qur'an).

              Who led Zayd bin Amr to Tawhid but Allah? And he guided him with Reason at a time his people would not use Reason. He is the proof of the Maturidi.
              Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
              "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
              Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

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

              Comment


              • #22
                1. For Ibn al-Jawzi I rely on Muhammad Abu Zahra as I said. Can you explain further what you mean? Where did he differ with "Atharis", other Hanabila.

                2. History is a neutral science and Muslim scholars have lagged on this. Your attitude towards Islamic Studies is non-scholarly, bigoted. If you had lived in the 10th century, you would have objected to Kalam and Mantiq. Al-Hikmatu daallatul mumin. Won't comment on this anymore.

                3. Mutazila relied on Koran, not on Sunna. They did not have muhaddithun. This is a known matter. My definition of Sunnism relies on the hadith "ma ana alayhi wa ashabi". And I espouse this view: https://youtu.be/r05ROPFgo7Y

                4. What's your take on this? He is a Maliki scholar learned in the Wahhabi tradition

                Last edited by YahyaIbnSelam; 17-11-20, 03:00 PM.
                ู‚ู„ ุขู…ู†ุช ุจุงู„ู„ู‡ ุซู… ุงุณุชู‚ู…

                Comment


                • #23
                  Do you think Muqatil is doomed to hell? And Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Karram and our imam Abu Bakr al-Razi al-Jassas?
                  ู‚ู„ ุขู…ู†ุช ุจุงู„ู„ู‡ ุซู… ุงุณุชู‚ู…

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
                    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. 1807โ€“10).
                    1. I believe that learning Mantiq is essential for every serious student of knowledge, because it helps to think systematically and correctly.

                    2. I know that the Shaykh Hassan al-Banna was not a "Salafi" and I don't doubt his good intentions, but his movement unknowingly helped the spread of "Salafism". Just because the number of these "Salafis" was growing it does not mean that Sunnis should have become more tolerant towards them and call to "unity" with them.

                    As for the spread of "Salafism", then it's connected to the Saudi money, but also to the deception and lies of the "Salafis" and the spread of ignorance among the people regarding their religion and also the tolerance of some Sunnis towards them! I don't see what makes a "Salafi" Shaykh that much different from a Rafidhi Shaykh. Both of them are calling towards deviation and heresy and have no problem in lying to their followers.
                    Them having no problem to lie to their followers is enough for me not to want any unity with them.
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 18-11-20, 10:28 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Abu Sulayman Salafis share the same sources with Sunnis, that's a great difference. And I still am of the opinion that you exaggerate the 'deviancy', especially with regards to theology. Everyone believes in the verse laysa ka mithlihi shay.

                      Muhammad Hasan
                      ุนู† ู…ุนุจุฏ ุจู† ุฎุงู„ุฏุŒ ุนู† ุนุจุฏ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุจู† ูŠุณุงุฑุŒ ุนูŽู†ู’ ู‚ูุชูŽูŠู’ู„ูŽุฉูŽ -ุงู…ู’ุฑูŽุฃูŽุฉู ู…ูู†ู’ ุฌูู‡ูŽูŠู’ู†ูŽุฉูŽ-: ุฃูŽู†ู‘ูŽ ูŠูŽู‡ููˆุฏููŠู‘ู‹ุง ุฃูŽุชูŽู‰ ุงู„ู†ู‘ูŽุจููŠู‘ูŽ ุตูŽู„ู‘ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ูˆูŽุณูŽู„ู‘ูŽู…ูŽ ููŽู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ: ุฅูู†ู‘ูŽูƒูู…ู’ ุชูู†ูŽุฏู‘ูุฏููˆู†ูŽุŒ ูˆูŽุฅูู†ู‘ูŽูƒูู…ู’ ุชูุดู’ุฑููƒููˆู†ูŽุ› ุชูŽู‚ููˆู„ููˆู†ูŽ: ู…ูŽุง ุดูŽุงุกูŽ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ูˆูŽุดูุฆู’ุชูŽุŒ ูˆูŽุชูŽู‚ููˆู„ููˆู†ูŽ: ูˆูŽุงู„ู’ูƒูŽุนู’ุจูŽุฉู. ููŽุฃูŽู…ูŽุฑูŽู‡ูู…ู’ ุงู„ู†ู‘ูŽุจููŠู‘ู ุตูŽู„ู‘ูŽู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุนูŽู„ูŽูŠู’ู‡ู ูˆูŽุณูŽู„ู‘ูŽู…ูŽ ุฅูุฐูŽุง ุฃูŽุฑูŽุงุฏููˆุง ุฃูŽู†ู’ ูŠูŽุญู’ู„ููููˆุง ุฃูŽู†ู’ ูŠูŽู‚ููˆู„ููˆุง: ูˆูŽุฑูŽุจู‘ู ุงู„ู’ูƒูŽุนู’ุจูŽุฉูุŒ ูˆูŽูŠูŽู‚ููˆู„ููˆู†ูŽ: ู…ูŽุง ุดูŽุงุกูŽ ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุซูู…ู‘ูŽ ุดูุฆู’ุชูŽ) ุฑูˆุงู‡ ุงู„ู†ุณุงุฆูŠ ููŠ "ุงู„ุณู†ู†" (ุฑู‚ู…/3773).
                      The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam listens to a Jew in matters of religion... How can we reject engaging with disbelievers in the field of sciences were we share the same premises and epistemologies that result from physical conditions? And logic is just one part to it.

                      As for the Sheikhulislam, I may show you some passages later. But your conditions evince double standards. Why should somebody say I am Jabri? Do Salafis say we are Muqatiliyya? No and you still judge them accordingly. Mustafa Sabri Efendi claims Imam al-Ashari forhimself while stating that Baqillani, Isfarayini and other imams deviated from his teachings. And he says "al insanu...mudtarrun fi iradatih" which I have memorised and which needs no further explanation. He says man has no control over his affairs, but he is still responsible (mukallaf) which he says distinguishes him from Jabriyya because they supposedly held that man is not responsible. Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari in his small refutation of the sheikhulislam even tells that following such a doctrine is following Jahm b. Safwan.
                      Moreover, sheikh Mustafa Sabri also mentions Western scientists as an auxiliary to his argumentation, which would certainly irritate you.
                      ู‚ู„ ุขู…ู†ุช ุจุงู„ู„ู‡ ุซู… ุงุณุชู‚ู…

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
                        Abu Sulayman Salafis share the same sources with Sunnis, that's a great difference. And I still am of the opinion that you exaggerate the 'deviancy', especially with regards to theology. Everyone believes in the verse laysa ka mithlihi shay.
                        They share the same souces? Yet they are willing to make all kind of claims that are IN DIRECT OPPOSITION to these very same sources.

                        An example: They will claim that the Prophets - peace be upon them - did not call to the Lordship of God, but rather only His Divinity (because in their imagination polytheists accept the Lordship of God completely and without any partners whatsoever; these "Salafis" are oblivious to the fact that Lordship and Divinity necessitate each other and can not be separated from each other). While we find that it's mentioned in the Book of Allah ta'ala that Yusuf - peace be upon him - stated the following when he was in prison:

                        { ูŠูŽุง ุตูŽุงุญูุจูŽูŠู ุงู„ุณูู‘ุฌู’ู†ู ุฃูŽุฃูŽุฑู’ุจูŽุงุจูŒ ู…ู‘ูุชูŽููŽุฑูู‘ู‚ููˆู†ูŽ ุฎูŽูŠู’ุฑูŒ ุฃูŽู…ู ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุงู„ู’ูˆูŽุงุญูุฏู ุงู„ู’ู‚ูŽู‡ู‘ูŽุงุฑู }

                        { O my fellow-prisoners! Are divers lords better, or Allah the One, Almighty? }

                        [Al-Qur`an al-karim 12:39 with English interpretation]

                        This means that they have a completely wrong way in looking at the religious texts. They are superficial in their understanding and lack basic comprehension skills.

                        Add to this: They have their al-Albani who has weakened Ahadith as it suits them to even deny authentic and good reports.


                        Regarding the verse you mentioned: What do you say about a person who regards it possible for his Lord to be a 3-dimensional being? Does he really believe in the Aya you mentioned? Would you regard him a Sunni?


                        Here is what real Atharis say regarding Tajsim:

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                        Allah is not composed of parts and the three dimensions do not apply to Him

                        Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) said in his 'Aqida poem al-Durra al-Mudhiyya:

                        ูˆู„ูŠุณ ุฑุจู†ุง ุจุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ูˆู„ุง /// ุนุฑุถ ูˆู„ุง ุฌุณู… ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุฐูˆ ุงู„ุนู„ุง

                        Our Lord is not a substance / particle (Jawhar) nor /// [is He] an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism), Exalted is He who is [Most] High


                        - end of quote -




                        In his Lawami' al-Anwar - which is the explanation of his poem - he clarified his statement "Our Lord is not... a body":

                        ูˆู„ุง ) ) ู‡ูˆ ุณุจุญุงู†ู‡ : ( ( ุฌุณู… ) ) ูˆู‡ูˆ ู…ุง ุชุฑูƒุจ ู…ู† ุฌุฒุฆูŠู† ูุตุงุนุฏุง ูˆุนู†ุฏ ุจุนุถ ุงู„ู†ุธุงุฑ ู„ุง ุจุฏ ู…ู† ุชุฑูƒุจู‡ ู…ู† ุซู„ุงุซุฉ ุฃุฌุฒุงุก ู„ุชุชุญู‚ู‚ ุงู„ุฃุจุนุงุฏ ุงู„ุซู„ุงุซุฉ ุฃุนู†ูŠ ุงู„ุทูˆู„ ูˆุงู„ุนุฑุถ ูˆุงู„ุนู…ู‚ ุŒ ูˆุนู†ุฏ ุงู„ุจุนุถ ู…ู† ุซู…ุงู†ูŠุฉ ู„ูŠุชุญู‚ู‚ ุชู‚ุงุทุน ุงู„ุฃุจุนุงุฏ ุนู„ู‰ ุฒูˆุงูŠุง ู‚ุงุฆู…ุฉ ุŒ ู‚ุงู„ ุงู„ุณุนุฏ : ...ุง
                        ู‚ุงู„ ุงู„ูƒุฑู…ุงู†ูŠ ููŠ ุดุฑุญ ุงู„ุฌูˆุงู‡ุฑ : ...ุง
                        ูู‚ูˆู„ู‡ " ูŠู…ูƒู† " ู…ุดุนุฑ ุจุฃู† ู…ู†ุงุท ุงู„ุฌุณู…ูŠุฉ ู„ูŠุณ ูุฑุถ ุงู„ุฃุจุนุงุฏ ุจุงู„ูุนู„ ุญุชู‰ ูŠุฎุฑุฌ ุงู„ุฌุณู… ุนู† ุงู„ุฌุณู…ูŠุฉ ุจุฃู† ู„ุง ูŠูุฑุถ ููŠู‡ ุงู„ุฃุจุนุงุฏ ุจุงู„ูุนู„ ุจู„ ู…ุฌุฑุฏ ุฅู…ูƒุงู† ุงู„ูุฑุถ ุŒ ูˆุฅู† ู„ู… ุชูุฑุถ ุฃุตู„ุง ูƒุงู ุŒ ูˆุชุตูˆูŠุฑ ูุฑุถ ุงู„ุฃุจุนุงุฏ ููŠ ุงู„ุฌุณู… ุจุนุฏ ุชุฃู„ูŠู ู…ุง ูƒุงู† ุŒ ูˆู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุทูˆู„ ุŒ ูˆุจุนุฏ ุขุฎุฑ ู…ู‚ุงุทุน ู„ู‡ ุนู„ู‰ ุฒูˆุงูŠุง ู‚ุงุฆู…ุฉ ูˆู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุนุฑุถ ุŒ ูˆุจุนุฏ ุขุฎุฑ ู…ู‚ุงุทุน ู„ู‡ู…ุง ูƒุฐู„ูƒ ูˆู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุนู…ู‚ ุŒ ูู‚ูˆู„ู‡ ุนู„ู‰ ุฒูˆุงูŠุง ู‚ุงุฆู…ุฉ ู„ูŠุณ ู„ู„ุงุญุชุฑุงุฒ ุจู„ ุจูŠุงู† ุงู„ูˆุงู‚ุน ุŒ ูุฅู† ุญู‚ูŠู‚ุฉ ุงู„ุฌุณู… ู„ุง ูŠูƒูˆู† ุฅู„ุง ูƒุฐู„ูƒ
                        ูˆู„ู…ุง ู†ูู‰ ูƒูˆู† ุงู„ุจุงุฑูŠ ุฌู„ ูˆุนุฒ ุฌูˆู‡ุฑุง ุฃูˆ ุนุฑุถุง ุฃูˆ ุฌุณู…ุง ุ› ู„ุงุชุตุงู ุงู„ุฃูˆู„ ุจุงู„ุฅู…ูƒุงู† ูˆุงู„ุญู‚ุงุฑุฉ ุŒ ูˆุงู„ุซุงู†ูŠ ู„ุงุญุชูŠุงุฌู‡ ุฅู„ู‰ ู…ุญู„ ูŠู‚ูˆู… ุจู‡ ุŒ ูˆุงู„ุซุงู„ุซ ู„ุฃู†ู‡ ู…ุฑูƒุจ ููŠุญุชุงุฌ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ุฌุฒุก ูู„ุง ูŠูƒูˆู† ูˆุงุฌุจุง ู„ุฐุงุชู‡ ูˆู„ุง ู…ุณุชุบู†ูŠุง ุนู† ุบูŠุฑู‡ ุŒ ูˆููŠ ุถู…ู† ู…ุง ู†ูุงู‡ ุฑุฏ ุนู„ู‰ ุจุนุถ ูุฑู‚ ุงู„ุถู„ุงู„ ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ุฌุณู…ุฉ ูƒู…ุง ุชู‚ุฏู…ุช ุงู„ุฅุดุงุฑุฉ ุฅู„ู‰ ุฐู„ูƒ ููŠ ุตุฏุฑ ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ูƒุชุงุจ ุŒ ุฃุนู‚ุจ ุฐู„ูƒ ุจู‚ูˆู„ู‡ ( ( ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ) ) ูˆุชู‚ุฏุณ ( ( ุฐูˆ ุงู„ุนู„ู‰ ) ) ููŠ ุฐุงุชู‡ ูˆุตูุงุชู‡ ุงู„ู‚ุฏุณูŠุฉ ุนู…ุง ูŠู‚ูˆู„ ุงู„ุธุงู„ู…ูˆู† ุนู„ูˆุง ูƒุจูŠุฑุง

                        "[N]or" is He - glory be to Him - "a body (Jism)"; and [body] is that which is composed from two parts or more, and according to some polemicists it is necessary for it to be composed of three parts [at least], so that the three dimensions (al-Ab'ad al-Thalatha) - I mean length [or height], width [or breadth] and depth - are fulfilled, and according to some [it is necessary for it to be composed] of eight parts so that the intersection of the dimensions upon right angles are fulfilled.
                        Al-Sa'ad said: "..."
                        Al-Kirmani said in explanation of the substances: "..."
                        His statement "[where] it is possible" gives the impression that the limit for corporeality (Manat al-Jismiyya) is not [whether] dimensions can be established by action such that a body does not get regarded as corporeal if dimensions can not be established regarding it by action, rather the possibility of establishing [dimensions] even if it can not be established at all is enough and the depiction of [the possibiliy of] establishing dimensions regarding a body after it being composed in whatever way; that is the length [or height], and another dimension that is intersected to it on a right angle and that is the width [or breadth], and another dimension that is intersected to both [mentioned dimensions upon a right angle] and that is the depth. So his statement "upon right angles" is not out of cautiousness, but rather in order to make the reality [of a body] clear, because the reality of body is not except like this.
                        When [the author of the poem] (he's intending himself) negated that the Maker (al-Bari) - jalla wa 'azz - is a substance (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism), [then this was] due the description of the first (i.e. substance or particle) with being possible [in existance] and insignificant [in size], and the second (i.e. accident) because it is in need for a locus to subsist in, and the third (i.e. body) because it is composed (murakkab) [of parts], so that it is in need of a part and is therefore not essential in his essence nor free of need of something else.
                        That which was negated [by the author of the poem] contains a response against some of the deviant groups from among the corporealists (Mujassima) as already pointed to in the beginning of this book. [The author of the poem] followed this by his statement "Exalted is He" and sanctified "He who is [Most] High" in His divine self / essence (Dhat) and [perfect] attributes (Sifat) above what the oppressors claim.

                        - end of quote -



                        From this quote we can conclude with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that Imam al-Saffarini believes God to be transcendent from being a 3-dimensional being or being composed of parts.

                        The question that remains here: Do the modern day "Salafi" scholars agree with the above or not? (They do not as shall be shown.)


                        Now compare this with the "Salafi" position:

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post


                        Ibn 'Uthaymin's claim: al-Saffarini is wrong and declaring God to be transcendent from being a body is not allowed


                        Ibn 'Uthaymin (d. 1421 AH) first spoke regarding the wording which is found in the poem of Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH), so he stated in his "commentary" (read: attempt of refutation!) upon al-'Aqida al-Saffariniyya (i.e. al-Durra al-Mudhiyya):

                        ู‚ูˆู„ู‡ : ( ูˆู„ูŠุณ ุฑุจู†ุง ุจุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ูˆู„ุง ุนุฑุถ ูˆู„ุง ุฌุณู… ) : ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ูƒู„ุงู… ู…ู† ุงู„ู…ุคู„ู ูŠุญุชู…ู„ ู…ุนู†ูŠูŠู† :... ุฃู…ุง ุงู„ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ุฃูˆู„ : ูู‡ุฐุง ุตุญูŠุญ ูˆู‡ูˆ ุฃู† ู†ู†ููŠ ุงู„ู‚ูˆู„ ุจุฃู†ู‡ ุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ุŒู„ุฃู†ู‡ ู„ูŠุณ ู„ู†ุง ุฃู† ู†ู‚ูˆู„ : ุฅู†ู‡ ุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ุŒ ูˆู„ุง ู„ู†ุง ุฃู† ู†ู‚ูˆู„ : ุฅู†ู‡ ู„ูŠุณ ุจุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ุŒูˆุฃู…ุง ุงู„ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ุซุงู†ูŠ : ูˆู‡ูˆ ุงู„ู‚ูˆู„ : ุจุฃู†ู‡ ู„ูŠุณ ุจุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ุŒ ูู‡ุฐุง ุบูŠุฑ ุตุญูŠุญ ุŒูˆุธุงู‡ุฑ ูƒู„ุงู… ุงู„ู…ุคู„ู ู‡ูˆ ุงู„ุซุงู†ูŠ ุŒูŠุนู†ูŠ ุฃู† ุงู„ู…ุคู„ู ุฑุญู…ู‡ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ูŠุฑู‰ ุฃู† ู…ู† ุนู‚ูŠุฏุฉ ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุฌู…ุงุนุฉ ุฃู†ู‡ู… ูŠู‚ูˆู„ูˆู† : ( ุฅู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ู„ูŠุณ ุจุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ูˆู„ุง ุนุฑุถ ูˆู„ุง ุฌุณู… ) ุŒูˆู„ุง ุดูƒ ุฃู† ู‡ุฐุง ุงู„ู†ููŠ ู„ูŠุณ ุจุตุญูŠุญ ูˆู„ู… ูŠู‚ู„ ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ุจุฐู„ูƒ ุŒ ูˆู„ูŠุณ ู‡ุฐุง ู…ุฐู‡ุจู‡ู… ุŒู„ุฃู†ู‡ู… ู„ุง ูŠุฌุฒู…ูˆู† ุจู†ููŠ ุดูŠุก ุฃูˆ ุฅุซุจุงุชู‡ ุฅู„ุง ุจุฏู„ูŠู„ ูˆู‡ุฐุง ู„ูŠุณ ููŠู‡ ุฏู„ูŠู„ ู„ุง ุฅุซุจุงุช ูˆู„ุง ุจู†ููŠ

                        [As for] his statement (i.e. al-Saffarini) that "Our Lord is not a substance / particle (Jawhar) nor /// [is He] an accident ('Aradh) or a body (Jism)", then this statement from the author can have two meanings:..
                        As for the first way [to understand it]: Then it's correct and that is that we reject the statement that He's a substance (Jawhar), because it is not allowed for us to say that "He's a substance", and likewise it's not allowed for us to say that "He's not a substance".
                        As for the second way [to understand it]: Then it's the statement that "He's not a substance", then this is not (!) correct, and the apparent from the saying of the author is the second.
                        This means that the author - may Allah have mercy upon him - is upon the position that the belief of Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a is that they say [and believe that] "Allah is indeed not a substance nor [is He] an accident or a body", and there is no doubt that this negation is not correct and the Ahl al-Sunna did not say this, nor is this their way (Madhhab), for they do not declare to be sure regarding negation of something or its affirmation except with a proof while there is no proof regarding this [issue], not [for its] affirmation nor [for its] negation.

                        - end of quote -

                        It should be noted here that the statement of Imam al-Saffarini can actually have only one meaning and that is the second way that Ibn 'Uthaymin mentions. But at least he admits here that the author intended the second meaning, so let's overlook this.
                        What we can not overlook here is his claim that the Ahl al-Sunna did not say this. It seems for Ibn 'Uthaymin only the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) is from the Ahl al-Sunna, while all the Hanabila - and the non-Hanabila anyways - who have stated the same as Imam al-Saffarini stated - like al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) in al-Mu'tamad, Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH) in Tabaqat al-Hanabila, Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) in Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in, Imam 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH) in al-'Ayn wal Athar, Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH) in Qala`id al-'Iqyan, Imam 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH) in Najat al-Khalaf and many others - are "not upon the way of Ahl al-Sunna" in this.


                        Ibn 'Uthaymin then went on and referring to the explanation of these terms and said (so this time he's speaking regarding the meaning and not just the terms!):

                        ุฃู…ุง ุนู† ุชูุณูŠุฑ ุฌูˆู‡ุฑ ูˆุนุฑุถ ูˆุฌุณู… ููƒุงู„ุขุชูŠ : ุงู„ุฌูˆู‡ุฑ : ู…ุง ู‚ุงู… ุจู†ูุณู‡ ุŒูˆุงู„ุนุฑุถ : ู…ุง ู‚ุงู… ุจุบูŠุฑู‡ ุŒูˆุงู„ุฌุณู… : ุงู„ู‚ุงุฆู… ุงู„ู…ุฌุณู… ุŒ ูุงู„ู…ุคู„ู ูŠุฑู‰ ุฃู† ู…ู† ุนู‚ูŠุฏุชู†ุง ุฃู† ู†ู†ููŠ ู‡ุฐู‡ ุงู„ุซู„ุงุซุฉ ุนู† ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนุฒ ูˆุฌู„ ุŒ ูˆู„ูƒู† ู‡ุฐุง ู„ูŠุณ ุจุตุญูŠุญ ุŒูˆู„ูŠุณ ู…ู† ู…ุฐู‡ุจ ุฃู‡ู„ ุงู„ุณู†ุฉ ูˆุงู„ุฌู…ุงุนุฉ

                        As for the explanation of [the expressions] substance (Jawhar), accident ('Aradh) and body (Jism), then it is as follows:
                        A substance (Jawhar): That which subsists in itself.
                        An accident ('Aradh): That which subsists in others.
                        A body: The corporeal [thing or being] subsisting [in itself[.
                        So the author (i.e. al-Saffarini) is on the position that it's from our beliefs to deny these three regarding Allah ta'ala - 'azza wa jall -, but this is not correct and not from the way (Madhhab) of Ahl al-Sunna wal Jama'a.

                        - end of quote -

                        It should be noted here that his definition of substance and accident is way too broad and not complete (!) and not in accordance with what Imam al-Saffarini said, but let's concentrate on the explanation of body - which is correct - even though he does not use the terms used by Imam al-Saffarini (as quoted ABOVE).
                        So according to Ibn 'Uthaymin it's "not from the way of Ahl al-Sunna" to deny that God is a "corporeal [thing or being] subsisting [in itself]", nor is it allowed to affirm this.


                        To make it short: Ibn 'Uthaymin does not know our Lord! He does not know what he's worshipping and what not! He claims that this ignorance is the correct way, but the Hanabila quoted in this thread said all the exact opposite!
                        So let no one try to claim that the "Salafis" agree with the Hanabila on Tanzih and Tajsim, for they EXPLICILTY reject the statement of mainstream Hanabila as shown here.



                        PS: Ibn 'Uthaymin is the same person who explicitly claimed that "there is some [sort of] of similarity (!) [between the Creator and the creation]" (see HERE), and this claim is what is against the Madhhab of Ahl al-Sunna in reality and shows even more that he does not know the Creator, Exalted is He above what his likes claim!
                        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 18-11-20, 11:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Abu Sulayman There is nothing unusual in this quote. He says we neither affirm nor reject it, which is the way of literalists (or Salafis today) like Ibn Qutayba, as Muhammad Abu Zahra explains. They defy engaging with such vocabulary. As for the quotes you made from Ibn Uthaymin, they are clearly contextual and not surprising. His examples for similarity (hayat, wujud etc.) clearly shows what he intends. A Mutazili may also come to you and say you are falling into tashbih and shirk for affirming that Allah has attributes which are turning into separate entities, whereas Allah is only One. You will respond that this is not tashbih and that attributes are not independent of him etc.

                          We should not exaggerate on this. Allah taala also says "innallaha la yastahyi an yadriba mathalan ma baudatan fama fawqaha", whereas disbelievers had seen this to be improper. This is what he means, even though we may object to his particular application.

                          The only real issue before Muslim unity is takfir. You may refute each others' theological views, but you should have love towards each other. As the hadith reads, you have not believed until you love each other. And Muslims should not stay in conflict for more than three days.
                          Last edited by YahyaIbnSelam; 18-11-20, 11:26 PM.
                          ู‚ู„ ุขู…ู†ุช ุจุงู„ู„ู‡ ุซู… ุงุณุชู‚ู…

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
                            Abu Sulayman There is nothing unusual in this quote. He says we neither affirm nor reject it, which is the way of literalists (or Salafis today) like Ibn Qutayba, as Muhammad Abu Zahra explains. They defy engaging with such vocabulary. As for the quotes you made from Ibn Uthaymin, they are clearly contextual and not surprising. His examples for similarity (hayat, wujud etc.) clearly shows what he intends. A Mutazili may also come to you and say you are falling into tashbih and shirk for affirming that Allah has attributes which are turning into separate entities, whereas Allah is only One. You will respond that this is not tashbih and that attributes are not independent of him etc.

                            We should not exaggerate on this. Allah taala also says "innallaha la yastahyi an yadriba mathalan ma baudatan fama fawqaha", whereas disbelievers had seen this to be improper. This is what he means, even though we may object to his particular application.

                            The only real issue before Muslim unity is takfir. You may refute each others' theological views, but you should have love towards each other. As the hadith reads, you have not believed until you love each other. And Muslims should not stay in conflict for more than three days.
                            In the first quote Ibn 'Uthaymin was speaking about vocabulary, but in the second he was speaking about the meaning of this vocabulary. He left the meaning of being a 3-dimensional being open. So there is a serious problem.

                            As for his claim that there is some similarity between the creator and the creation: He has given different examples, which clearly show that he indeed believes that there is some sort of similarity in the reality of the the Creator and the creation.
                            The ugliest example is the one where he mentions the body parts of animals and claims that the "face of a horse" is not like the "face of a cat" (but they're similar right?) and this while speaking about the divine attributes. Is this acceptable to you? Even if we put everything aside: This is disrespectful to say at least.

                            As for Takfir: I don't do Takfir upon "Salafis" or the Shi'a, but I do believe that their Mashayikh are evil people and callers to hellfire and I do not respect them and I would not be surprised if many of them would be regarded as disbelievers in the hereafter.
                            Zaydis and Ibadhis are much more respectable than these two other groups, who have become like a cancer for this Umma.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                              In the first quote Ibn 'Uthaymin was speaking about vocabulary, but in the second he was speaking about the meaning of this vocabulary. He left the meaning of being a 3-dimensional being open. So there is a serious problem.
                              Their thinking is "It has not been mentioned which way it is then it is an open possibility so we do not hold an opinion either way" (Ignoring or reducing the purport of certain evidences). This is based off of the flawed assumption that something is possible without investigating whether it is. E.g. Imam Ahlus Sunnah declared the people who do not take a position on whether the Qur'an is created or not as innovators, precisely because they leave the door open to falsehood (this is innovation not disbelief). And this is despite their being no clear, definitive evidence from the Qur'an or Sunnah that the Qur'an is uncreated in fact a deviant can even find the opposite to the position of Ahlus Sunnah.

                              I.e. they do what the Ash'ari call Tawaqquf (staying silent on a matter and allowing belief on it either way due to their being no affirmation/ negation in the text).

                              We should think - do we say the Agnostic who says, "I do not know if Allah exists and so hold no position and both are possible" is correct? No, reason refutes him there. This is as saying "I do not know whether the derivative of Sin X is the plus/minus the squareroot of 1 - Sin2X or not, so hold no position and both are possible" - he has not learnt about something that is a fact and does not know the proof behind it and assumes that his not knowing means something cannot be known and out of his ignorance he takes an actual position (saying both are possible) without proof.

                              He then opposes whatever evidence is given against him, despite this leading to contradictions, or simply refuses to hear the line of reasoning. Like the Mushriks of Makkah who closed their hearts to the Truth because they decided it without reasoning themselves and they defended their position taken from not reasoning.

                              And the Agnostic Atheist is just like that.
                              Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                              "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                              Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

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

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
                                We should think - do we say the Agnostic who says, "I do not know if Allah exists and so hold no position and both are possible" is correct? No, reason refutes him there. This is as saying "I do not know whether the derivative of Sin X is the plus/minus the squareroot of 1 - Sin2X or not, so hold no position and both are possible" - he has not learnt about something that is a fact and does not know the proof behind it and assumes that his not knowing means something cannot be known and out of his ignorance he takes an actual position (saying both are possible) without proof.

                                He then opposes whatever evidence is given against him, despite this leading to contradictions, or simply refuses to hear the line of reasoning. Like the Mushriks of Makkah who closed their hearts to the Truth because they decided it without reasoning themselves and they defended their position taken from not reasoning.

                                And the Agnostic Atheist is just like that.
                                This is not a valid analogy, otherwise it would require takfir of Salafis, because Allah's existence is known with certainty, both rationally and by revelation, whereas the interpretation of attributes and the application of laysa ka mithlihi shay is not as certain. This does not mean one opinion cannot be stronger than the other, though. That is your (Asharis and Salafis) point of argumentation.

                                Abu Sulayman You are right, such a comparison is not appropriate to me either. But why dissect the glitches of other people? Isn't that a video recording?
                                ู‚ู„ ุขู…ู†ุช ุจุงู„ู„ู‡ ุซู… ุงุณุชู‚ู…

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X