Tuesday, December 25, 2012

"The Top of the Minaret is closer to Allah than it's Bottom" ?




Wahhabi/Salafi
Aqidah

"The top of the minaret is closer to Allah than its bottom"

ثم أكد المعارض دعواه في أن الله في كل مكان بقياس ضل به عن سواء السبيل
فقال ألا ترى أنه من صعد الجبل لا يقال له أنه أقرب إلى الله
فيقال لهذا المعارض المدعي ما لا علم له من أنبأك أن رأس الجبل ليس بأقرب إلى الله تعالى من أسفله لأنه من آمن بأن الله فوق عرشه فوق سماواته علم يقينا أن رأس الجبل أقرب إلى الله من أسفله وأن السماء السابعة أقرب إلى عرش الله تعالى من السادسة والسادسة أقرب إليه من الخامسة ثم كذلك إلى الأرض كذلك روى إسحاق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي عن ابن المبارك أنه قال رأس المنارة أقرب إلى الله من أسفله وصدق ابن المبارك لأن كل ما كان إلى السماء أقرب كان إلى الله أقرب وقرب الله إلى جميع خلقه أقصاهم وأدناهم واحد لا


---


Quote:

^  Bassam Zawadi:

Quote:
" Devastating Anti-Ashari Claim of Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak (d. 181 A.H.)
(OUCH, this is going to hurt the Asharis)

Please bear in mind who Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak is.
Moving on to the narration at hand....
'Uthman Ad-Daarimi in his refutation to Al-Marisi states:

Quote:
ﮫﻠﻔﺳأ ﻦﻣ ﷲا ﻰﻟإ بﺮﻗأ ةرﺎﻨﻤﻟا سأر لﺎﻗ ﮫﻧأ كرﺎﺒﻤﻟا ﻦﺑا ﻦﻋ ﻲﻠﻈﻨﺤﻟا ﻢﯿھاﺮﺑإ ﻦﺑ قﺎﺤﺳإ ىور
Ishaq bin Ibraheem Al-Handhali narrated that Ibn Al-Mubarak said:

 The top of the minaret is closer to Allah than it's bottom.

The Isnad:
Ishaq bin Ibraheem Al-Handhali (d. 238 A.H.) (who is more famously known as Ishaq bin Rahawaih) was born in 161 A.H. and he used to report from Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak.
Ishaq's reliability needs no presentation.
'Uthman ad-Daarimi was born before 200 A.H. and he used to report from Ishaq.
Ad-Daarimi's reliability requires no presentation as well.

Conclusion: The isnad is saheeh.

The Matn:
 Do I really need to explain how this demonstrates how Ibn Al-Mubarak believed in the very literal 'Uluww of Allah?

He says that the top of the minaret is closer to Allah than the bottom. How much clearer could it get?
Even if he is wrong in making this claim, that doesn't matter.
You know why?

What matters is that this example of his (whether right or wrong) clearly demonstrates that he at least believed in the very literal 'Uluww of Allah.

The Shame & Deception of GF Haddad:
GF Haddad a few years ago came out with this book (which by the way has been addressed over here).
On page 213 of the book, under footnote no. 371 GF Haddad tries to paint 'Uthman ad-Daarimi as an  anthropomorphist.

Guess what?

He cites the statement of Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak as a proof of this alleged anthropomorphism. But what's the problem? The problem is that GF Haddad doesn't state that this is the statement of  Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak, rather he makes it out to be that this is the statement of ad-Daarimi!!!
What sheer dishonesty!!! He clearly didn't have the guts to label ibn Al-Mubarak as an  anthropomorphist.
I have attached a picture of GF Haddad's words. Clearly, you could see how he failed to mention that  those were the words of ibn Al-Mubarak!

Oh Asharis and Maturidis Bid ibn Al-Mubarak Farewell:
It really hurts deep down inside to see such a pillar of the Hanafi madhab utter such "blasphemous" and "anthropomorphic" words, doesn't it? It kills you deep down inside, right?

With what has been demonstrated in this post and demonstrated over here and here as well, you could kiss ibn Al-Mubarak good bye, since he is one radical "Wahhabi Hanafi"!
---

Devastating Anti-Ashari Claim of Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak (d. 181 A.H.)
(OUCH, this is going to hurt the Asharis)



Ibn al Mubarak rahimahullah's statement is to be understood according to his other statements regarding Allah's Elevation. His other statements point to a literal elevation/uluw and not metaphorical.

Ibn Al-Mubarak (d 181 H.) : Ali Ibn al-Hasan Ibn Shaqeeq reported: I asked Abdullah Ibn al-Mubarak: 
“How are we to know our Lord –Azza wa Jal-? ”
He replied: «He is over the seventh Heaven over His Throne. We do not say as the Jahmiyyah say: that He is here on the earth.» (8) Sahih.
In another narration he said: «That He is above the seventh Heaven, on the Throne, separate from His creation.» (9) Its grading: Hasan.
_______
(8) “As-Sunnah “ by Abdullah bin Ahmad (1/111) with a sahih chain.
(9) Ar-Rad `Ala alJahmiyyah by Ad-Darimi (40) with a hasan chain. 

Read Full thread Here

----------------


^Answer/Reply:


^ Wahhabi/ Salafi Bassam Zawadi has demonstrated once again his “skills” in “authenticating” narrations. 

One wonders if he has studied this noble Science with any recognized scholar of Hadith, or is he self taught as per the methodology of the Albani’ite way of accepting and rejecting narrations?! Namely, being auto didactic!

Moving onto the sanad and matn that he presented with pomp and boastfulness from his Imam in creed, viz. Uthman al-Darimi:

Though the sanad appears flawless on the surface, there is indeed an illa (hidden defect) that was apparent to some of those who knew either Hadith, or were recognised as being representatives of the Ash’ari school in creed from centuries ago. Specifically speaking, the illa is centred on Ishaq’s preservation of narrations from Ibn al-Mubarak.

As for Uthman al-Darimi and his creed then this has been exemplified here:


Wahhabi Bassam may take note of Hafiz al-Dhahabi’s statement on al-Darimi in his Kitab al-Uluw (p. 194):

Wahhabi Bassam mentioned:
“ Ishaq bin Ibraheem Al-Handhali (d. 238 A.H.) (who is more famously known as Ishaq bin Rahawaih) was born in 161 A.H. and he used to report from Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak. Ishaq's reliability needs no presentation.”
-----------

He also mentioned a link to a biography of Imam Ibn al-Mubarak in his opening lines as well as mentioning in his heading that Ibn al-Mubarak passed away in the year 181 AH.
From chronological analysis there is no doubt that Ishaq ibn Rahawayh could have not only met Ibn al-Mubarak but also heard from him directly. 






But the question for the likes of ^Bassam Zawadi is

How old was Imam Ishaq when he heard what he is said to have narrated from Imam Ibn al-Mubarak, and how meticulous was he in what he heard?!

Let us try to provide an answer from someone that is an acknowledged Hafiz of
hadith, namely, Allama Shamsud-Din al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH), followed up by his Ash’arite pupil, Allama Tajud-Din al-Subki (d. 771 AH).

Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi mentioned a short biography of Imam Ishaq ibn Rahawayh in
his Ta’rikh al-Islam (4/276) as follows:

The crucial bit from the above note on Ibn Rahawayh are the last two lines which
mentioned that he was born in 161 AH, and then al-Dhahabi said:

“.., but then he abandoned relating from him because he wasn't proficient in taking from him, as is obligatory.”

The word – dictionaries. In the famous dictionary known as Mukhtar al-Sihah (p. 35) by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Razi (d. 666 AH), it mentioned it as follows:

This means that Ishaq did not hear specifically in the year 170 AH but in a time frame that is anything between 173 to 179 AH. Exactly how much time he spent with ibn al-Mubarak is not precisely specifiable from the words of al-Dhahabi, but it indicates that Ishaq ibn Rahawayh was aged possibly between 12 to 18 when he heard from ibn al-Mubarak. 
The narration from a person at that age is acceptable if he was precise in transmitting what he received, but in this specific instance, al- Dhahabi has clarified in a crystal clear manner that Ishaq himself abandoned narrating what he heard from Ibn al-Mubarak, as he was not proficient (mutqin) in what he was actually receiving from Ibn al-Mubarak at a youthful age in the early part of his career as a Muhaddith.

In the renowned Lane’s Lexicon (1/214) the word  several meanings from classical dictionaries as can be viewed below: on page 6 and 7 Here

Going by the indication in the Mukhtar al-Sihah that way of translating al-Dhahabi’s words would be as follows:

"And he heard from Abdullah bin Al-Mubarak in one of the years between 173 to 179, but then he abandoned relating from him because he was not proficient in taking from him, as is obligatory. He departed in Kalb al-'Ilm in the year (1)84 AH."

Additionally, al-Dhahabi’s Ash’arite pupil, Tajud-Din al-Subki has said very much the same in his notice on Ishaq ibn Rahawayh in his famous work on Shafi’i scholars till his age, known as, Tabaqat al-Shafiyya al-Kubra, as can be seen in the following link: Here

Quote from the opening lines of the last link:

Conclusion:

The narration is not verified to be Sahih as it can not be established to be accurately preserved, especially when Imam Ishaq ibn Rahawayh himself  abandoned narrating from Imam Ibn al-Mubarak, due to not being proficient at  narrating something that he heard in his youth. Such a narration is Ghayr  Mahfuz.
Indeed, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh would transmit narrations more accurately from the students of Ibn al-Mubarak as can be seen from the Muqaddima to Sahih Muslim:

Meaning:

Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Hanzali narrated to us saying - I heard some of the companions of Abdullah (ibn al-Mubarak) say – Ibn al-Mubarak said, “What an excellent man is Baqiyya (ibn al Walid). If only he did not use the Kunya (agnomen) in place of their name, and the name in place of the nickname. In the past he narrated to us from Abu Sa’eed al-Wuhazi, and when we looked into this it was (referring to) Abdul Quddus.”

Even if the report from Imam Ibn al-Mubarak was sound then one may remind the
bona fide Salafi to take heed of the following words of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH) as recorded by the Hanbali Imam, Abdar Rahman Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH) in his Kitab Akhbar al-Sifat (p. 137, Swartz edn, and the latter said it is also  recorded in Tabaqat al-Hanabila by Ibn Abi Ya’la, 1, 329, 5-7):

“Ahmed was once asked a question (regarding a point of law), and in response composed a legal brief (fatwa). Someone pointed out to him that the views which he had set forth (in his fatwa) did not accord with those of ibn al-Mubarak, to which he responded, The views of ibn al-Mubarak did not come down from heaven.’”

Ibn al-Jawzi has also said in the Akhbar al-Sifat (p. 203):
“It is astonishing that anyone should attempt to base the divine attributes on statements derived from the Followers (tabi’in); [furthermore, this saying] may not actually reflect their views though it may meet the criteria of sound transmission, for they may merely have been passing on what they had derived from the Ahl al-Kitab, as in the case of Wahb b. Munabbih.”

As for what he claimed regarding GF Haddad and the quote on p. 213 of his work
known as “ The Refutation of Him [Ibn Taymiyya] who attributes direction to Allah,” then what is noticeable is that these words do not appear to be his in full.

The corroboration for this claim can be found by looking at the following link which mentioned the quote from al-Darimi regarding the minaret etc:

The bottom of the last link stated that the quote from al-Darimi emanated from
the following source:

“Reproduced with permission from Shaykh M. Hisham Kabbani's The Repudiation of "Salafi" Innovations (Kazi, 1996) p. 86-89.”

Thus, it may be that GF Haddad merely relied on one of his Shuyukh known as Hisham Kabbani, when writing the footnote (no. 371) of his above named book, without going back and checking the actual source work by al-DarimiOne thing that was mentioned in the last link that the likes of Bassam Zawadi need to consider are other evidences that are associated to this matter when discussing the views of al-Darimi:

"According to the author the tall man is closer to Allah than the short one, and so is the one who flies a plane in comparison to those on the ground. The nearest to Him would then be the astronauts. 

However, this is contrary to the teaching of our religion, whereby Allah's servant is closest to Him when in prostrationand prostration is abasement not elevation. 

Allah explicitly equated prostration with proximity to Him when He ordered:
 "Prostrate and draw near" (96:19).

 And the Prophet revealed that no Muslim uses the Prophet Yunus' prayer:
la ilaha illa anta subhanaka inni kuntu min al-zalimin (21:87) except it is answered, yet Yunus spoke it in the belly of the whale, deep under the sea. 4

Furthermore, Wahhabi Bassam should hold off gloating and conceitedness in public with such absurd superciliousness until he rectifies with clarity the following point that emanated from this pen in the following link nearly three years back: Here

The pdf article in the last link mentioned the following on p. 2-3:



“One of ^Harris’s ilk posting under the name  Bassam Zawadi mentioned the narration from  Mujahid (ra) on the following link: Here

Al Waleed - Muhammad bin Amaar - Yahya -Shibil - Ibn Abi Najeeh - Mujahid said in regards to Allah's statement wa qarabnaahu najeeya (19:52): Between the fourth heaven (or he said) seventh heaven, and between the Throne there are 70,000 veils. These are veils of light and veils of darkness. Musa kept getting closer until there was between him (i.e. Musa) and Him (i.e. Allah) a single veil. 
So when he saw His (i.e. Allah) place and heard the chirping of the Pen [He said My Lord allow me to look at you].

The wording “fourth heaven” is found only in Tafsir al-Tabari as will be mentioned below and not in al-Azama of Abu al-Shaykh or later by al-Bayhaqi in his al-Asma wal Sifat. The translator of the Arabic wording also failed to mention that the above version stating:

“Between the fourth heaven (or he said) seventh heaven.” - Is found only in Tafsir al-Tabari without stating “He saw His place.”!

Besides this point the Arabic quote that Bassam provided doesn't mention anything about the Fourth Heaven but Seventh heaven alone (as highlighted above). Thus, it seems that either Bassam or someone he may have taken it from has mixed up part of al-Tabari’s wording with what is found in al-Azama of Abu al-Shaykh! If they did this by mistake one wonders why the person didn’t mention that al-Tabari’s version has no mention of the key word, “Makan”?!


 Will the likes of ^Harris accuse the likes of Bassam of tampering with the wording of the above narration or will they flatter themselves with excuses?”

As for Bassam Zawadi’s facetious proclamation:

Oh Asharis and Maturidis Bid ibn Al-Mubarak Farewell:
It really hurts deep down inside to see such a pillar of the Hanafi madhab utter such "blasphemous" and "anthropomorphic" words, doesn't it? It kills you deep down inside, right? With what has been demonstrated in this post and demonstrated over here and here as well, you could kiss ibn Al-Mubarak good bye, since he is one radical "Wahhabi Hanafi"!

The two links he gave in the last paragraph mentioned the following two
narrations from Ibn al-Mubarak:

Ali ibn al-Hasan said: 'I asked `Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, "How (kayf) do we know our Lord?"
He replied, "Above (fi) the seventh heaven on His Throne. We do not say what the Jahmis say:
He is here on earth" This was said to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal who then said "This is what we say as well".

And –

sh. Ibn Taimiayyah rahimahu Allah quoted:
ﻖﯿﻘﺷ ﻦﺑ ﻦﺴﺤﻟا ﻦﺑ ﻲﻠﻋ لﺎﻗو :ﺪﺒﻌﻟ ﺖﻠﻗ ﻦﺑ ﷲا لﺎﻗ ؟ﺎﻨﺑر فﺮﻌﻧ اذﺎﻤﺑ كرﺎﺒﻤﻟا :ﮫﻘﻠﺧ ﻦﻣ ﻦﺋﺎﺑ ﮫﺷﺮﻋ ﻰﻠﻋ ﮫﺗاﻮﻤﺳ قﻮﻓ ﮫﻧﺄﺑ .ﺖﻠﻗ لﺎﻗ ؟ﺪﺤﺑ : ﮫﻤﻠﻌﯾ ﺪﺤﺑ
ﻮھو ،ﮫﺟو ﺮﯿﻏ ﻦﻣ ﮫﻨﻋ ﺖﺑﺎﺛ كرﺎﺒﻤﻟا ﻦﺑا ﻦﻋ رﻮﮭﺸﻣ اﺬھو ،هﺮﯿﻏ ﺔﻤﺋﻷا ﻦﻣ ﺪﺣاو ﺮﯿﻏو ﮫﯾﻮھار ﻦﺑ قﺎﺤﺳإو ﻞﺒﻨﺣ ﻦﺑ ﺪﻤﺣأ ﻦﻋ ﺖﺑﺎﺛ ﺢﯿﺤﺻ ﺮﻈﻧ.
rough translation:
And Ali bin al Hasan bin Shaqiq said: I said to Abdullah bin al Mubarak how do we know our Lord? he said: That he is above the heavens upon His throne, separate from His creation. I said: with a limit? He said: with a limit that no one knows but Him.
And this is famous from Ibn Mubarak.... and it is ... correct confirmed from Ahmad bin Hanbal , Is-haq bin Rahwaih and other Imams.
---

In the first link, Bassam, bragged by stating:
“The Asharis are clearly bothered by this narration. GF Haddad said in his new book "The Refutation of him (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) who attributes direction to Allah":

Quote: "Al-Kawthari pointed out that nowhere in the Qur'an and Sunna are the terms "in the seventh heaven" applied to Allah Most High nor the term "on His Throne" other than exactly as the verse of istiwa' said and that that report from Ibn al-Mubarak is therefore munkar regardless of its chain."

Ha! Notice that they disregard this narration simply because they dont' agree with its meaning. Surely if they were able to attack the chain, they would have, but they couldn't.”
--

Response:

What is bizarre and astounding is how Bassam mentioned GF Haddad’s published
work ‘The Refutation of Him [Ibn Taymiyya] who attributes direction to Allah’

but  failed to quote the full reference and content of the actual footnote!!

Indeed, what GF Haddad quoted from al-Kawthari is found on p. 245, footnote no.
415.

What Bassam failed to tell his readers is what was quoted before the verdict
of al-Kawthari! Namely, the clarification of the Ash’arite Hadith Master, Imam al-
Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH), regarding these narrations at hand!

Indeed, what was quoted by GF Haddad in the named footnote is identical to what he mentioned back in 2003, as can be seen in the following link which addressed the likes of Bassam from a retrospective angle:

Quote:
Imam al-Bayhaqi said in al-Asma' wal-Sifat (Kawthari ed. p. 426-427; Hashidi ed.  2:334-336):
As for the report to which cling those who believe that Allah Most High has a direction, whereby `Ali ibn al-Hasan said: 'I asked `Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, "How (kayf) do we know our Lord?" He replied, "In the seventh heaven on His Throne." I said, "The Jahmiyya also say He is such." He said, "We do not mean it like the Jahmiyya. We mean He Himself (huwa huwa)." I said, "With a limit (bi-hadd)??" He said, "Yes, by Allah, with a limit!"' [Narrated mostly in anthropomorphist works: `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad's al-Sunna, `Uthman ibn Sa`id al-Darimi's al-Radd `ala al- Marisi and al-Radd `ala al-Jahmiyya, al-Dhahabi's al-`Uluw, and Ibn Taymiyya's Hamawiyya.] - `Abd Allah only meant by 'limit' the limit dictated by transmission (hadd al-sam`), namely, that the truthful report stated that {He established Himself on the Throne} (20:5), so He is on the Throne as He related. By saying this, he meant to belie the Jahmiyya who claimed that He is in every place. His other report confirms this, and Allah knows best.

From `Ali ibn al-Hasan ibn Shaqiq: 'I heard `Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak say, "We know our Lord to be above (fawq) seven heavens, [He established Himself over His Throne], distinct (ba'in) from His creation, and we do not say as the Jahmiyya said, that He is right here' - and he pointed to the ground (hahuna fil-ard)."' By the term 'distinct' he means, as he explained directly afterwards, to negate the claim [of intermixing (imtizaj)] of the Jahmiyya, NOT to suggest direction on the opposite side. He means what the Law said in absolute terms, and Allah knows best.
Al-Kawthari pointed out that nowhere in the Qur'an and Sunna are the terms "in the seventh heaven" applied to Allah Most High nor the term "on His Throne" other than exactly as the verse of istiwa' said and that that report from Ibn al-Mubarak is therefore munkar regardless of its chain.”

Thus, the answer to what Bassam brought forth from Imam ibn al-Mubarak has been provided by Imam al-Bayhaqi, and the reader may ponder over why Bassam deliberately left out mentioning these points when he surely saw it in the work he mentioned above when quoting just the verdict of al-Kawthari alone! Indeed, justice and fairness is rare. Wallahu a’lam.

Peace and blessings be upon our Master Muhammad صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم

---

Abul Hasan, London, UK
27th Dhul Hijja 1433 AH/12-11-12


(Edited by ADHM)

 ---


The closest that a servant is to his Lord is when he is in prostration.

(Muslim)



" Allah (ta’ala) has not revealed to anyone closer to Him than Yunus in the belly of the whale in the darkness of the ocean"



--
From Imam al-Qurtubi's tafsir:

قال ابن العربي: أخبرني غير واحد من أصحابنا عن إمام الحرمين أبي المعالي عبد الملك بن عبد الله بن يوسف الجويني: أنه سئل عن الباري في جهة? فقال: لا، هو يتعالى عن ذلك. قيل له: ما الدليل عليه? قال: الدليل عليه قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: لا تفضلوني على يونس بن متى فقيل له: ما وجه الدليل في هذا الخبر? فقال: لا أقوله حتى يأخذ ضيفي هذا ألف دينار يقضي بها دينا. فقام رجلان فقالا: هي علينا. فقال لا يتبع بها اثنين؛ لأنه يشق عليه. فقال واحد: هي علي. فقال: إن يونس بن متى رمى بنفسه في البحر فالتقمه الحوت، فصار في قعر البحر في ظلمات ثلاث، ونادى "لا إله إلا أنت سبحانك إني كنت من الظالمين" [الأنبياء: 87] كما أخبر الله عنه، ولم يكن محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم حين جلس على الرفرف الأخضر وارتقى به صعدا، حتى انتهى به إلى موضع يسمع فيه صريف الأقلام، وناجاه ربه بما ناجاه به، وأوحى إليه ما أوحى بأقرب إلى الله تعالى من يونس في بطن الحوت في ظلمة البحر


Translation [Ibn Ahmad]:


Ibn Al-‘Arabi said: I have been informed by more than one of our colleagues about the incident pertaining to the Imam of the two Holy Mosques, Abi Al-Ma’ala ‘Abd Allah bin Yusuf Al-Juwayni, when he was asked about The Creator being in a direction. He said, No! He transcends that. It was then said to him: What is the proof for this? He said: The proof for this is the saying of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم): “Do not give preference to me over Yunus Bin Mata (عليه السلام).” Then it was said to him: What is the level of proof in this report? He said: I will not disclose it until my guest takes the following: 1000 dinars in order to repay outstanding loans. Two men then stood up and said: we will take up this task. He said: this task should not be undertaken by two, because they will split the financial obligation. Then an individual (amongst them) said: Then I will (personally) take up the task.

Thereafter, the Imam proceeded to narrate the hadith and he said: Yunus bin Mata flung himself into the ocean and the whale swallowed him up, and he was thereafter surrounded by three layers of darkness at the very bottom of the ocean. He cried out: “There is no god except You, be You glorified. No doubt I have been amongst the transgressors.” (Al-Ambiya, 87). This is as Allah (ta’ala) has reported it in the Qur’an. And Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) was not present when (Yunus) sat in the green meadows and ascended high above them until he reached a place where he heard the squeaking of pens, and his Lord entrusted him with that which the lord entrusts. He thereafter sent revelation unto him (and) Allah (ta’ala) has not revealed to anyone closer to Him than Yunus in the belly of the whale in the darkness of the ocean.

---

Q:
What is an acceptable interpretation of the statement of Abdullah Ibn al-Mubarak related by Uthman al-Darimi in his refutation of al-Marisi:
روى إسحاق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي عن ابن المبارك أنه قال رأس المنارة أقرب إلى الله من أسفله
Ishaq bin Ibraheem Al-Handhali narrated that Ibn Al-Mubarak said: The top of the minaret is closer to Allah than it’s bottom.

A:
Ishaq b. Rahuyah and Ibn al-Mubarak were great Imams and they both knew very well that the Prophet (upon him blessings and peace) said the closest the servant is to his Lord is in sujud (Bukhari and Muslim). 

Therefore, either this statement was never said or it is interpreted figuratively, e.g. minara to mean the human body and the top meaning the mind. 
Furthermore, it is known that ‘Uthman al-Darimi’s book is problematic and, finally, as 
Imam Ahmad said:

 “Ibn al-Mubarak did not descend from heaven.”


---

More info Here:



---

                                                      

---

THE REFUTATION OF HIM (IBN TAYMIYYAH)
BY IBN JAHBAL

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Worshiping something with size or shape is blatant idol worship






Worshiping something with size or shape is blatant idol worship 




There is no difference between someone who believes that Aļļaah is a body, and says “but I don’t know how,” and a hindu that only worships one idol that he has not seen yet, and says about it “I don’t know how.”

Both are worshiping something physical that they don’t know the shape of, but that has a shape; they are two things of the same kind.

 Al-Qurtubīy in his commentary in the Qur’ān narrates from his Shaykh Ibn Al-’Arabīy, the famous ĥadiitħ scholar of Andalus, regarding those who say Allāh has a body:

 “The sound verdict is that they are blasphemers, because there is no difference between them and those that worship idols and pictures. ” (4/14).

Note that the meaning of “body” or “jism” in Arabic  is something with size.
For more on this, see “The difference between the Wahabi creed and Islam” and do not miss the comments here and here if you want to an exposure of the word games this sect employs.

---

Allaah’s attribute of non-resemblance to creation

Aļļaah is not attributed with attributes like those of creation. He must be attributed with non-resemblance to creation. This is the meaning of the statement in the Quran:
ليس كمثله شيء
Meaning: “He absolutely does not resemble anything at all in any way” (Asħ-Sħuuraa, 11)

Created things may differ from one another. However, their uniqueness towards one another is not like Aļļaah’s attribute of non-resemblance to creation.

It must be understood that Aļļaah is not different from creation in the same way that created things differ from one another [1].

 Otherwise He would resemble His creation in the attribute of non-resemblance to creation.
It becomes important then to have a look at how created things may achieve uniqueness from one another. For example, if two entities differ, this difference will be detectable through one of our five senses as follows:

1.            Eyes: color and shape
2.            Hearing: sound
3.            Touch: temperature, softness, wetness, heaviness
4.            Taste: sourness, bitterness, sweetness, and other qualities of taste.
5.            Smell: sharpness, mildness, and other qualities of smell.

Created uniqueness then, is through shape, color, sound and other physically tangible qualities as mentioned here [2].

There are also two other ways created things may differ from one another, even if they are identical in all of the senses mentioned above. Namely, they may differ in space and in time. There may even be other ways of created uniqueness, but that is not important here. What is important is the following:

Aļļaah’s attribute of non-resemblance to creation involves denying that He is something that has color, shape or any other physically tangible quality. It also involves denying that He is in space or time.


[2] Another way of saying this is that such qualities involve possibilities. That is, they are not necessarily the way they are in the mind’s eye; one could have imagined them to be different. This is true for all things that may change. Such things need specification of their aspects, such as:

Which shape?


What color?

What sound?

What place?

At what time? Etc.

This means that they need a Creator to bring them into existence according to specification. See also the article: Bodies have limits but not Allaah.



---

Clarity on the different sayings about the Qur’aan


To bring absolute clarity to the deviant claim of Aļļaah’s Eternal Speech, the Qur’aan, being created.

There are 3 main sayings:

Sunnis, the Ashˆariyys and Maaturiidiyys, say that the Qur’aan is the eternal Speech of AļļaahThis Speech is an eternal attribute of Aļļaah and is not created, i.e. not brought into existence. It is not letters or sounds, and is not something sequential or divisible into parts.

“The book of the Qur’aan, which is letters and words, expresses some of what Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech refers to. That is why it is called “Aļļaah’s Speech.”

Note again that Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech is not divisible. It is what it refers to that is divisible, just as Allaah’s attribute of Will is not divisible; it is what it refers to that is divisible.

The Muˆtazilah say that Aļļaah’s Speech is letters and sounds that He brought into existence not in Himself, because it is impossible that something should come into existence in Him.
They also claim that speech can only be sounds and letters. For this reason, they say that Aļļaah does not have an eternal Speech, and that the Qur’aan is created.

The Hashawiyyah, like the wahabis, say that Aļļaah’s Speech is letters and sounds that He brought into existence in Himself. They disagree with the Muˆtazilah only on where it emerged, not on the claim that it was brought into existence.

Issue: The meaning of the word “Qur’aan

Muˆtazilites say: They say the Qur’aan is the Arabic expression that is printed in books.

Wahabis say: They say the Qur’aan is the Arabic expression that is printed in books and was brought into existence in Aļļaah himself.

Sunnis say: The Qur’aan is Aļļaah’s eternal attribute of Speech that is not letters, sounds or words, because what is not created cannot consist of parts or be composed in any sense. However, it is also used to refer to the words that express some of what Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech refers to. Like when it is said, “please get me the Qur’aan on the bookshelf.”


Issue: Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech

Muˆtazilites say: They say that Speech is not an eternal attribute of Aļļaah, because Speech cannot be other than letters and sounds.

Wahabis say: They say that Speech is an eternal attribute of Aļļaah, in that it is a series of statements without a beginning brought into existence bit by bit.

Sunnis say: Speech is an eternal attribute of Aļļaah that is not brought into existence. It is not letters and sounds, but an eternal attribute by which Aļļaah tells, orders and forbids.

Issue: Letters and sounds

Muˆtazilites say: Letters and sounds cannot be beginninglessly eternal. Not a single one of them, and not a series of them.

Wahabis say: They say letters and sounds can be in a beginningless series of continuous speech.

Sunnis say: Letters and sounds cannot be beginninglessly eternal. Not a single one of them, and not a series of them.

Note that the wahabi belief that Aļļaah’s speech is a speech of letters and sounds that is brought into existence bit by bit without a beginning is identical to their saying about the world being beginninglessly eternal. The only difference between what they call created and uncreated speech, is the claimed place of its emergence into existence.

---


The Wahabi Box Theory of Emergence



(WBTE)

The below article is written to clarify what the wahabis are aiming at in some of their writings. This is needed, since they almost never really define their terms, or clarify what exactly the different viewpoints are in meaning (as opposed to wording).

 What I have written below aims to clarify what they are aiming at in one particular word game


their concept of
bringing into existence” vs. “creating”.

Before delving into this discussion two fundamental points should be clear regarding the belief of Muslims:
  1. Muslims believe that everything that has a beginning must have been created by Aļļaah, i.e. brought into existence by His Will and Power. This includes every and any beginning of any      kind, such as a movement or thought, or a change in shape or color.                                                           To claim that any beginning of any kind was not created by Aļļaah is to commit shirk, and makes one a non-Muslim.
  2. Muslims believe that Aļļaah is not in a location, because He is not a body, not something that fills space. He exists without being in space, or in a location in any sense. He is neither in a specific location, nor everywhere. This belief is clarified here in terms of the reasons why this belief is of great importance. However, the following point should be extra clear:
The wahabis falsely believe that Aļļaah has a location. Sometimes they say they do not believe that Allah is a body, but this is just a play with wordsBeing in a location means being limited to that location, and that necessitates having borders and therefore either being a small dot, or something larger. 

This is issue is important, because every Muslim must believe that Aļļaah does not resemble His creation. Moreover, believing Aļļaah to be limited in any sense is an invitation to atheism, because the proof of Aļļaah’s existence is based on the existence of bodies.

 This is why wahabis are often against learning the detailed proofs of Aļļaah’s existence, as has been discussed here.

Having made the above points clear, let us get back to the main topic: the wahabi understanding of the concept of bringing into existence and the word creating.
In short, the wahabi theory is that there are two types of things that have a beginning, i.e. events:
  1. Whatever Aļļaah brings into existence in the world. These are called “created” or “brought into existence”.
  2. Whatever Aļļaah brings into existence, as they falsely believe, in Himself. I.e. in the entity that they worship that is limited to a specific location “up there” and claim is “Aļļaah”. This is the type of event they are referring to when they say that “not everything that has a beginning is created.”
To sum up the wahabi position:
  1. If something is brought into existence in the world, then this can be called both “brought into existence” and “created”.
  2. If something is brought into existence in the thing they falsely believe to be Aļļaah, then this is called “brought into existence”, but it is not “created”.
In other words, according to the wahabis, whether something brought into existence is called “created”, or not, is only a matter of the location of this new existence. I.e. it is a matter of which box it emerges in. This is what I have called“The Wahabi Box Theory of Emergence”.

There is a very serious problem with this pathetic play with words. It means they believe that Aļļaah is a location for created events. Yes, I said “created” events. 
After all, the essential meaning of creating is that Aļļaah brings into existence by His Power and according to His Will. Where the thing or event comes into existence makes no difference to the essence of this meaning. I.e. bringing something into existence is to create, no matter where it comes into existence, and believing that Aļļaah is partially created is another blasphemous belief.
The Arabic language does not allow for the wahabi understanding of the word “create”, where it is restricted to only specific locations. Besides being quite obvious, this has been discussed more fully in this article.

The correct Islamic understanding is that:
  1. When one says that Aļļaah brings something into existence, it means that He brings it into existence by His Will and Power.
  2. When one says that Aļļaah creates something it also means that He brings it into existence by His Will and Power.
  3. Where the event brought into existence emerges makes no difference whatsoever to the use of the two phrases “Aļļaah creates” or “Aļļaah brings into existence”.
Why do the wahabis play these word games?
 It is because they know they cannot say that anything is created in Aļļaah. It will be too obvious to lay people that they are wrong. They thrive on being vague and imprecise.

---



SALAFI AQIDAH (IN A NUTSHELL)
---
SALAFI GOD
---
---
---
THE PSEUDO-SALAFI SAYS:
---
---
THE REFUTATION OF HIM (IBN TAYMIYYAH)
---
---
TIME-SPACE-PLACE-DIRECTION-LIMIT
PART1 – PART2 –PART3

(Edited by ADHM)