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

  • #31
    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post

    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?
    No, it is known rationally that Allah cannot have dimension - that is the point of contention. Also I mentioned earlier on that there are some Taymiyyans whose view on this matter are in line with Sunni beliefs (they affirm Allah is beyond place, dimension etc.) It would remain to be seen however as to their other beliefs (e.g. affirmation of secondary causation etc.) whether they are completely in line.

    Read this.
    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


    • #32
      Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

      No, it is known rationally that Allah cannot have dimension - that is the point of contention. Also I mentioned earlier on that there are some Taymiyyans whose view on this matter are in line with Sunni beliefs (they affirm Allah is beyond place, dimension etc.) It would remain to be seen however as to their other beliefs (e.g. affirmation of secondary causation etc.) whether they are completely in line.

      Read this.
      What if we say Allah is free from hudood and ghayaat and above the creation, distinct from his creation?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

        What if we say Allah is free from hudood and ghayaat and above the creation, distinct from his creation?
        By the way, if you wish we can have and continue this discussion.

        I would accept your statement as it was if I knew you had my understanding of those terms. E.g. if a Mufawwid Athari comes up and says that I accept his statement.

        For you I would just investigate a little bit to ensure we have the same understanding:

        Define Hudood, define Ghayaat, and define being above the creation.

        If you say what you have said believing Allah is free from place, dimension, spatial direction (which in 3D space is length, width and height), then we accept your statement. (I.e. either as an acceptance of Uluww without saying it is a physical, spatial up, or in line with the early generations who saw two attributes in dichotomy Fawq and Daht - Trancendence and Imminance e.g. Imam Ibn Kullab.)

        If you find yourself unable to negate length, width and height - then what you have said is meaningless as you don't actually negate Hudood.

        If you think length, width and height is necessary or possible for Allah then you are irrational. Also this (dimensions being necessary for him) is clear disbelief and the belief of the Karramiyyah etc.

        Also keep your eye on this thread.
        Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 20-11-20, 03:44 PM.
        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


        • #34
          *If you cannot define him being above the creation this is accepted as well (a correct position) - just say "I leave the meaning of it to Allah"
          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


          • #35
            I would accept your statement as it was if I knew you had my understanding of those terms. E.g. if a Mufawwid Athari comes up and says that I accept his statement.
            As in, as you have shown apprehension to negation of corporeality in the past, I am unsure that you understand what you have said in the correct manner. If someone said what you said with no prior statements from them giving us doubts to their beliefs - then this is accepted as we all know the obvious meaning of Hudood and Ghayat. (limits and boundaries)
            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


            • #36
              Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

              As in, as you have shown apprehension to negation of corporeality in the past, I am unsure that you understand what you have said in the correct manner. If someone said what you said with no prior statements from them giving us doubts to their beliefs - then this is accepted as we all know the obvious meaning of Hudood and Ghayat. (limits and boundaries)
              The scholars that said that Allah has a hadd meant the hadd is above the throne, above the creation.

              This is something that we cannot comprehend, nor is it likening Allah to his creation, so i don't see how it's tajseem.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
                *If you cannot define him being above the creation this is accepted as well (a correct position) - just say "I leave the meaning of it to Allah"
                Similar to the way we say Allah hears, his hearing cannot be described, but we hear, yet it's not tajseem.

                You only fall into tajseem if you try to comprehend it or imagine it.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post
                  The scholars that said that Allah has a hadd meant the hadd is above the throne, above the creation.
                  Imam Ahlus Sunnah, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Rahimullah Alay, was one of the people in particular who said he is above the throne without Hadd.

                  He negated Hadd for Allah multiple times, when those of his era like Uthman bin Sa'id (whose work Ibn Taymiyyah quotes) are reported to affirm Hadd.

                  You admit then that the Aqeedah of those who say he is above the throne with Hadd is not the same as the Aqeedah of those who say 'above the throne with Hadd'?

                  Imam Ahlus Sunnah negated Hadd, as affirmation of is the most literal form of Tajsim (beyond Tamthil etc.) Those who oppose him on this are Heretics, and I don't care if they are from the early generations like Uthman bin Sa'id and Muqatil bin Sulayman. Wasil Ibn 'Ata was the student of Hasan al-Basri - he was one of the Salaf - but we agree he's a heretic. Merely being early does not make you more orthodox. We are with As-Salaf As-Salihin. This matter of negation of Hadd is mentioned even from the Sahabah...

                  However, I would appreciate it if these individuals simply disassociate themselves with the Athari - as they are not Atharis and they are distorting that which they are against. Why don't they claim they are Sunnis but say that Ibn Qudamah etc. were deviants? Why don't they disassociate themselves from Imam Ahlus Sunnah? They disagree with him on this key issue and yet they ascribe themselves to him.

                  This is something that we cannot comprehend, nor is it likening Allah to his creation, so i don't see how it's tajseem.
                  I mean it is Tajsim in and of itself.

                  Having a Hadd is literally saying he is a creation. It is also making a false comment on his nature and the nature of all things (requiring them to be physical, bounded things as we see in the world around us).

                  I ask you this - can Allah create something of the same delimitation as him? If you say he is unable to do then you limit him from creating something rationally possible. If you say he is able to then you admit that he is identical to something he can create.

                  That which has Hadd is necessarily a creation. Allah is not a creation. Therefore Allah does not have a Hadd.

                  Exalted is he above what they associate with him.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                    Imam Ahlus Sunnah, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Rahimullah Alay, was one of the people in particular who said he is above the throne without Hadd.

                    He negated Hadd for Allah multiple times, when those of his era like Uthman bin Sa'id (whose work Ibn Taymiyyah quotes) are reported to affirm Hadd.

                    You admit then that the Aqeedah of those who say he is above the throne with Hadd is not the same as the Aqeedah of those who say 'above the throne with Hadd'?

                    Imam Ahlus Sunnah negated Hadd, as affirmation of is the most literal form of Tajsim (beyond Tamthil etc.) Those who oppose him on this are Heretics, and I don't care if they are from the early generations like Uthman bin Sa'id and Muqatil bin Sulayman. Wasil Ibn 'Ata was the student of Hasan al-Basri - he was one of the Salaf - but we agree he's a heretic. Merely being early does not make you more orthodox. We are with As-Salaf As-Salihin. This matter of negation of Hadd is mentioned even from the Sahabah...

                    However, I would appreciate it if these individuals simply disassociate themselves with the Athari - as they are not Atharis and they are distorting that which they are against. Why don't they claim they are Sunnis but say that Ibn Qudamah etc. were deviants? Why don't they disassociate themselves from Imam Ahlus Sunnah? They disagree with him on this key issue and yet they ascribe themselves to him.



                    I mean it is Tajsim in and of itself.

                    Having a Hadd is literally saying he is a creation. It is also making a false comment on his nature and the nature of all things (requiring them to be physical, bounded things as we see in the world around us).

                    I ask you this - can Allah create something of the same delimitation as him? If you say he is unable to do then you limit him from creating something rationally possible. If you say he is able to then you admit that he is identical to something he can create.

                    That which has Hadd is necessarily a creation. Allah is not a creation. Therefore Allah does not have a Hadd.

                    Exalted is he above what they associate with him.
                    What do you think of this:

                    http://www.saaid.net/Doat/almuwahid/12.htm

                    This is where we argue over semantics, what if I say that Allah is not limited by hudood as we understand hudood as creation but is above the arsh.....and whether you call this a hadd or not dooes not matter. Theres many statements from the salaf saying that Allah is above the throne....and we know what above means even if we say it has multiple meanings.

                    What you need to understand is that Allah has described himself in words that his creation can understand, where exactly do you draw the line of tajseem?

                    Similar to how we say Allah hears, and we hear, so we know what hearing is but Allahs hearing is nothing like ours nor can we imagine/comprehend it so it's not tajseem.

                    I would answer that to ask can Allah create another Allah is an irrational question because it just shows you don't understand Allah.
                    Last edited by TheHaqq; 21-11-20, 11:45 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                      What do you think of this:

                      http://www.saaid.net/Doat/almuwahid/12.htm

                      This is where we argue over semantics, what if I say that Allah is not limited by hudood as we understand hudood as creation but is above the arsh.....and whether you call this a hadd or not dooes not matter. Theres many statements from the salaf saying that Allah is above the throne....and we know what above means even if we say it has multiple meanings.

                      What you need to understand is that Allah has described himself in words that his creation can understand, where exactly do you draw the line of tajseem?

                      Similar to how we say Allah hears, and we hear, so we know what hearing is but Allahs hearing is nothing like ours nor can we imagine/comprehend it so it's not tajseem.

                      I would answer that to ask can Allah create another Allah is an irrational question because it just shows you don't understand Allah.
                      I also say it is irrational (the divine power does not relate to impossibilities), but if someone said "Allah has a Hadd" then it is rationally possible to create a thing with the same Hadd.
                      Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 21-11-20, 12:20 PM.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                        What do you think of this:

                        http://www.saaid.net/Doat/almuwahid/12.htm
                        Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, an authority of the Athari/Hanbali and master in Hadith sciences only quotes from Imam Ahmad his negation of Hadd. The person has not quoted the chains (or even the works containing chains or just secondary reference) for the claim of those who reportedly affirmed Hadd, and it is possible that many of those are weak.

                        Who is Imam al-Darimi? Is it Uthman bin Sa'id? His works contain Kufr and he is according to some a Mujassim (one brother on here gave the defence that things were added to his works Allahu Alam).

                        I am unfamiliar with some of the others quoted besides, but it is apparent that all these quotations of the Salaf like Abdullah bin Mubarak are not from well known sources but (to me) obscure figures of the Hanbali school. Abu Bakr al-Khallal was an early authority of the Hanbalis. To my knowledge, everything quoted in support of Hadd is from works of otherwise obscure Hanabila.

                        Also what you have quoted works against you - are you admitting the great Muhaddith Ibn Hibban negated Hadd (limit) for Allah? So you admit that then? Interesting.

                        It is known there were early figures in the Hanbali school who entered into Tajsim - the likes of Ibn Manda etc.

                        Finally I note nothing quoted in there has any references. I wonder why...
                        Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 21-11-20, 12:46 PM.
                        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


                        • #42
                          This is where we argue over semantics, what if I say that Allah is not limited by hudood as we understand hudood as creation but is above the arsh.....and whether you call this a hadd or not dooes not matter. Theres many statements from the salaf saying that Allah is above the throne....and we know what above means even if we say it has multiple meanings.

                          What you need to understand is that Allah has described himself in words that his creation can understand, where exactly do you draw the line of tajseem?

                          Similar to how we say Allah hears, and we hear, so we know what hearing is but Allahs hearing is nothing like ours nor can we imagine/comprehend it so it's not tajseem.

                          I would answer that to ask can Allah create another Allah is an irrational question because it just shows you don't understand Allah.
                          If someone was to say "The limitation (Hadd) of Allah is that he must be transcendent (i.e. Fawq al-Arsh in the wording of the Salaf) and cannot be imminant (i.e. Daht al-Arsh)" Then that is not rationally speaking a limitation - that is a logical necessity. He is the creator, he cannot be a creation or in-dwell in the creation or be subject to place, time, dimension etc. Such a person has erred in the use of language. It is like saying "Allah is limited as he is incapable of creating a square-circle"

                          But it is clear that what those people who affirm a Hadd for Allah admit contingecy. It also contradicts what is said by the Sahabah and what is known by reason. Moreover at this point are you not necessitating Tajsim in the mind of the Layperson you teach this to? And your scholars do not negate dimensions, directions, size, place etc. They go into semantics to hide their Tajsim.

                          They say he has a literal Hand to the layperson but they leave out saying how. Does the layperson not think this means a physical protrusion?

                          If I tell you "Don't think of a pink Elephant" - what is the first thing you will think of?

                          When I learnt their Aqeedah at one point - I myself was under the impression that since they only negate the modality they meant to say Allah has a Hand (physicallity) not like our Hand - affirming limits and boundary (Hadd) for Allah.



                          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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                            What do you think of this:

                            http://www.saaid.net/Doat/almuwahid/12.htm

                            This is where we argue over semantics, what if I say that Allah is not limited by hudood as we understand hudood as creation but is above the arsh.....and whether you call this a hadd or not dooes not matter. Theres many statements from the salaf saying that Allah is above the throne....and we know what above means even if we say it has multiple meanings.

                            What you need to understand is that Allah has described himself in words that his creation can understand, where exactly do you draw the line of tajseem?

                            Similar to how we say Allah hears, and we hear, so we know what hearing is but Allahs hearing is nothing like ours nor can we imagine/comprehend it so it's not tajseem.

                            I would answer that to ask can Allah create another Allah is an irrational question because it just shows you don't understand Allah.
                            The proof for me we are not upon the same beliefs as me is you have not once negated a physical place, physical direction, physical dimension etc. for Allah. You have not once negated size, boundary etc. You struggle to deny Hadd and hold onto it. Quoting the negation of Hadd by earlier authorities, Shaykh Abu Jafar al-Hanbali says, "it is clear the god of the Salafis is not the same as our God" (quoting from memory, non-verbatim)

                            Follow the path of Imam at-Tahawi and negate contingencies for Allah. Then we have no doubt over your views - and this is the path of Imam Ahmad and the Salaf. This is the path reported of Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah:

                            Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said: "Whoever thinks that our God has limits does not know his Creator, whom he should worship."

                            - Hilyatu Awliya of Imam Abu Nu'aym al-Isfahani 72/1
                            And also reported of him:

                            Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah Said,
                            "Allah was not in a place, and is now as he was,"

                            - Al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq of Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, p. 333
                            (Also quoted in other works of Aqeedah e.g. Aqeedah Nasafiyyah etc.)


                            Allah is the transcendent God, there is not Lord or Divinity but Him, Huwa Rab al-'Ala.
                            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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                              Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi, an authority of the Athari/Hanbali and master in Hadith sciences only quotes from Imam Ahmad his negation of Hadd. The person has not quoted the chains (or even the works containing chains or just secondary reference) for the claim of those who reportedly affirmed Hadd, and it is possible that many of those are weak.

                              Who is Imam al-Darimi? Is it Uthman bin Sa'id? His works contain Kufr and he is according to some a Mujassim (one brother on here gave the defence that things were added to his works Allahu Alam).

                              I am unfamiliar with some of the others quoted besides, but it is apparent that all these quotations of the Salaf like Abdullah bin Mubarak are not from well known sources but (to me) obscure figures of the Hanbali school. Abu Bakr al-Khallal was an early authority of the Hanbalis. To my knowledge, everything quoted in support of Hadd is from works of otherwise obscure Hanabila.

                              Also what you have quoted works against you - are you admitting the great Muhaddith Ibn Hibban negated Hadd (limit) for Allah? So you admit that then? Interesting.

                              It is known there were early figures in the Hanbali school who entered into Tajsim - the likes of Ibn Manda etc.

                              Finally I note nothing quoted in there has any references. I wonder why...
                              Ye I'm surprised there's no reference.

                              Well my view is, using the term hadd is fine depending on what you intend, just like using the word jism is fine depending on what you intend.

                              Similar to affirming a hand for Allah, yes the Quran says it, but does that mean it cannot be interpreted in a tajseemi way? Of course not.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
                                If someone was to say "The limitation (Hadd) of Allah is that he must be transcendent (i.e. Fawq al-Arsh in the wording of the Salaf) and cannot be imminant (i.e. Daht al-Arsh)" Then that is not rationally speaking a limitation - that is a logical necessity. He is the creator, he cannot be a creation or in-dwell in the creation or be subject to place, time, dimension etc. Such a person has erred in the use of language. It is like saying "Allah is limited as he is incapable of creating a square-circle"
                                But it is clear that what those people who affirm a Hadd for Allah admit contingecy. It also contradicts what is said by the Sahabah and what is known by reason. Moreover at this point are you not necessitating Tajsim in the mind of the Layperson you teach this to? And your scholars do not negate dimensions, directions, size, place etc. They go into semantics to hide their Tajsim.
                                They say he has a literal Hand to the layperson but they leave out saying how. Does the layperson not think this means a physical protrusion?
                                If I tell you "Don't think of a pink Elephant" - what is the first thing you will think of?
                                When I learnt their Aqeedah at one point - I myself was under the impression that since they only negate the modality they meant to say Allah has a Hand (physicallity) not like our Hand - affirming limits and boundary (Hadd) for Allah.
                                Right, see this is the issue now, I agree with you to an extent........

                                Let's take the example of Allah hears. Allah hears, and we hear.

                                What is hearing?:
                                Hearing, or auditory perception, is the ability to perceive sounds by detecting vibrations, changes in the pressure of the surrounding medium through time, through an organ such as the ear. The academic field concerned with hearing is auditory science. Sound may be heard through solid, liquid, or gaseous matter.

                                Yet Allah's hearing is nothing like his creations hearing, so does this definition apply to Allah? No, because there is nothing like him.....So the question arises, what even is Allah's hearing?

                                Well that's the thing, we don't know and would never understand it but we know what it means for the creation to hear so we have an indication of what it means.....and that is where we stop, we cannot comprehend it.

                                Do you agree?

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X