The difference between the Wahabi creed and Islam

---

The difference between the Wahabi creed and Islam

by Shaykh Abu Adam

Part1

I am often asked to make a list of things that are different between the wahabi creed (i.e. that of their leaders) and Islam.

The core difference is that when wahabis say that Aļļaah does not resemble His creation, they mean that He is different in the same way as created things differ from one another, like in the case of fingerprints.

Everybody has different fingerprints.

So when they say Aļļaah has a hand, but “not like ours,”
they mean that it has different physical characteristics, such as color, number of fingers, or print, or something like that.

This is true, because they believe Aļļaah is something that can be pointed at in a direction and has a limit, i.e. a shape and size.

For simplicity, let us call it a body, because a body is anything with a size and shape, even if many wahabis do not like this word.

All creations as observed by our eyes, have a shape, and differ only in the form of the shape, and in size. Since the wahabis believe that their god is a body, their belief is that he is only different in bodily characteristics, such as the exact form and size.

This means that he would be part identical to creation, and part different; the way created things differ.

On the other hand, Sunnis say that the reality of Aļļaah’s existence absolutely does not resemble that of His creation.

They do not believe that Aļļaah is different from His creation merely in the way created things differ from one another. For this reason, Sunnis say that the reality of Aļļaah’s existence is not bodily. That is, He must be without size or shape.

Another way to express the Sunni belief in Aļļaah’s non-resemblance to creation is to say that Aļļaah is clear of resemblance to whatever needs specification.

The reality of Aļļaah’s existence cannot require specification. This is because requiring specification means being dependent on something else to be specified by.

In other words, it means being dependent upon a creator to provide specification and existence according to the specification.

Bodily existence, which entails size and shape, is in need of specification of its size and its shape, because no shape or size has a higher priority for existence intrinsically. No size is more likely to exists than any other without influence from other than it. Likewise, no shape is more likely to exist than any other without influence from other than it. It needs therefore to have specification from other than it.

Anything that has bodily existence must therefore be a creation, and cannot be the Creator.

That is why the Salaf, though they did not explain in detail, always stated that Aļļaah’s attributes are without a how, that is, without specification, that is, without shape or change. Due to the closeness to the time of prophethood, they had great minds, and a profound understanding of the religion, They understood that Aļļaah is not limited or having boundaries, or less than perfect in any sense, and that He is therefore not in a direction or changing. They expressed all this with the simple phrase: “without a how,” They took this phrase from the quranic:

“He absolutely does not resemble anything.”

That is, the reality of His existence does not resemble that of creation.

In conclusion, the wahabi belief is that Aļļaah differs from creation the way creation differ from one another. They believe that His existence is bodily, like that of creatures.
This is the most fundamental difference between Sunnis and wahabis.

The other core difference, their unique concept of shirk, is really a consequence of this.

Let me explain…

When human beings worship a 3 dimensional shape, they feel a need to somehow make it different than other objects. The reason is that the essential reality of the existence of what they worship, is the same as all other things around them. After all, a 3 dimensional shape is just a 3 dimensional shape with respect to its kind of existence, i.e. bodily existence. Thus, this difference that they seek can only be in terms of:

-what is seen, i.e in appearance, i.e. in shape, size or color, or location

-some unseen characteristic claimed, or

-how one behaves towards this object.

That is why you will find a buddhist or anemist (those who worship trees and other objects found) makes sure to decorate his idol, gives it a weird shape, such as several heads, and if he is rich he’ll buy one made from gold.

You will also find him putting it in a special location in his house.

This takes care of appearance. He will claim that the idol has godly power, or knowledge, or the like, to attempt to rationalize its worship. Then he will behave with special ceremonial rites in its physical presence. A lot of attention is paid then to the idol’s location, ceremonial behavior related to this location, and ornamentation to distinguish it from other object.

This is to contribute to the illusion that it is essentially different from other objects, and make it seem plausible that it is a god.

The wahabis are the same,

because just like ordinary idol worshipers, they worship what is essentially a

3 dimensional thing.

However, their object of worship is not present, so they will simply say regarding its appearance, “not like other objects, and we do not know how.”

This way they leave it open, and can tell a buddhist,

“our object is so much better than yours,”
and when asked “how?”

They will say,

“we do not know, but it the best that can be.”

In the appearance aspect of location,
their special location is

“above the world in direction.”

---

Here they have exceeded all other idol worshipers by choosing a really, really special location that cannot be reached by the senses.

But they are at a conceptual loss for what on earth Aļļaah’s oneness would mean, as it is not an absolute to them. After all, any single physical object is “one” in count, but not in kind, and since they believe He is an object, the meaning of “one” that would be worth being zealous about becomes quite foggy, and they have quite a dilemma. All they can do is say that only the body they call Aļļaah (but is actually not Him) deserves worship, while the other objects/bodies do not. But what would be their bases for this claim?

They cannot claim this based on the reality of the existence of their object of worship, because it is a body, and there are very many bodies around with the same mode of existence.

They cannot claim distinction based on unseen characteristics, because if omnipotence, omniscience and eternal existence could be attributes of a 3 dimensional being, then there is no way to rationally prove that one such thing could have them, while another not. That is, basing it on the claim that this object has all sorts of unseen characteristics, such as power, would not satisfy them in their search for the meaning of oneness that would make them different from other idol worshipers. After all, all idol worshipers claim their idols have all sorts of powers, so this wouldn’t make them special, or different in an essential way.

This is especially when compared to religions with an identical belief regarding the reality of the creator’s existence, namely bodily existence, such as the christians, and especially the jews.

In practice, however, wahabi’s have achieved an advantage over other object worshipers, because they could break physically present idols, and claim that their (o so conveniently absent) object is unbreakable, and no competing idol worshipers would be able to prove them wrong, even if they themselves cannot prove that they are right.

In these ways, the wahabis can make themselves feel superior in the distinguishing game of idol worship (like when Hindus claim their idols are better than those of Bhuddists and vice versa). However, this is all very weak by itself, because it is based on the physical absence of their idol, and the existence of such a fantastic idol is impossible to prove. This is because physical objects cannot be proven to exist except by observation. The proofs for the existence of a creator that Muslims use do not help them, because they are all based on the idea that what has a size and shape and changes needs a creator, which means that their idol would need one also.

This is where their concept of shirk comes to play; they needed something to make them really different in their claim to be uniquely monotheist. They felt a need to make their worshiped object different than other objects in a more tangible way. After all, they are a people that do not think much of non-tangibles. They, or rather Ibn Taymiyyah, invented the concept of Aļļaah’s oneness being a matter of our behavior, a matter of who can be called for help and who cannot. This is their equivalent to the Buddhists ceremonious behavior around where the idol is placed, to their own physically absent idol, in order to distinguish it from other bodies. They made it the only body that can be called for help, regardless of whether one believes the called upon to have actual and real independent power or not.

All the other differences they argue for, such as their saying that all scripture texts must be understood literally, are inconsistent ideas that they use only when it suits their purpose. After all, if it suits their purpose they will go against all Arabic dictionaries in their understanding of a word, as is the case with (خلق) kħalaqa – to create, and (أحدث) aĥdatħa – to bring into existence. This is when they say that Aļļaah’s attribute of Speech is muĥdatħ but not makħluuq. An interpretation does not get more far-fetched than that, and yet they will cry “deviance!” if someone chooses a meaning from the dictionary, if it does not agree with their belief that Aļļaah is a body.

---

Part2

The difference between

wahabi creed and Islaam

What the scholars said about their belief

Further to the point that those who believe Aļļaah to be a body i.e. occupy a location are not Muslims, as mentioned in “The difference between the Wahabi creed and Islam”, here are some quotes by well known scholars testifying to that:

Al-ˆAsqalaaniyy said they are not Muslims:

قال حذاق المتكلمين ما عرف الله من شبهه بخلقه أو أضاف إليه اليد أو أضاف إليه الولد فمعبودهم الذي عبدوه ليس هو الله وإن سموه به (فتح الباري, ابن حجر العسقلاني, دار المعرفة – بيروت ، 1379, 3 / 359)

The brilliant kalaam scholars said: “The one that likened Aļļaah to His creation, or ascribed a hand to Him (i.e. in the sense of a part or limb) or a child; what he worships is not Aļļaah, even if he called it Aļļaah.

An-Nawawiyy and Al-Qaađii ˆIiaađ said they are not Muslims:

قوله صلى الله عليه و سلم ( فليكن أول ما تدعوهم إليه عبادة الله فإذا عرفوا الله فأخبرهم إلى آخره ) قال القاضي عياض رحمه الله هذا يدل على أنهم ليسوا بعارفين الله تعالى وهو مذهب حذاق المتكلمين في اليهود والنصارى أنهم غير عارفين الله تعالى وان كانوا يعبدونه ويظهرون معرفته لدلالة السمع عندهم على هذا وان كان العقل لا يمنع أن يعرف الله تعالى من كذب رسولا قال القاضي عياض رحمه الله ما عرف الله تعالى من شبهه وجسمه من اليهود أو اجاز عليه البداء أو أضاف إليه الولد منهم أو أضاف إليه الصاحبة والولد وأجاز الحلول عليه والانتقال والامتزاج من النصارى أو وصفه مما لا يليق به أو أضاف إليه الشريك والمعاند في خلقه من المجوس والثنوية فمعبودهم الذى عبدوه ليس هو الله وان سموه به اذ ليس موصوفا بصفات الاله الواجبة له فاذن ما عرفوا الله سبحانه فتحقق هذه النكتة واعتمد عليها وقد رأيت معناها لمتقدمى أشياخنا وبها قطع الكلام ابوعمران الفارسى بين عامة اهل القيروان عند تنازعهم في هذه المسألة هذا آخر كلام القاضي رحمه الله تعالى. (المنهاج شرح صحيح مسلم بن الحجاج , النووي , دار إحياء التراث العربي , 1392, 1 / 199-200)

The saying of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) “let the first you call them to be the worship of Aļļaah, then when they know Aļļaah tell them…” etc.

Al-Qaađii ˆIiaađ (رحمه الله) said: “This (i.e. the foregoing statement of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم)) indicates that they (the Christians) do not know Aļļaah, and this is the saying of the brilliant kalaam scholars regarding the jews and the Christians; that they do not know Aļļaah (تعالى) even if they worship Him (i.e. call what they worship by His name) and making it appear as if they know Him, based on what they narrate amongst themselves, even though it is not impossible in the mind’s eye that someone who disbelieves in a messenger does know Aļļaah.”

Al-Qaađii ˆIiaađ (رحمه الله) said: The one that likened Aļļaah to His creation, or believed Him to be bodily among the jews and Christians, or believed that He gains knowledge over time, or claimed He has a child, or a female companion and a child, or said he could exist in created things, or move from one place to another, or be mixed with creation, among the Christians or attributed to Him what is not befitting, or associated with Him a partner or opponent in creating among the Magians an dualists; what they worship is not Aļļaah, even if they called it that. This is because it is not attributed with the attributes that are necessarily His. Accordingly, they do not know Aļļaah (سبحانه), so realize this point well, and depend on it, and I have seen this point made by our predecessor shaykhs.”

Ar-Raaziyy said they are not Muslims:

الدليل دل على أن من قال إن الإله جسم فهو منكر للإله تعالى وذلك لأن إله العالم موجود ليس بجسم ولا حال في الجسم فإذا أنكر المجسم هذا الموجود فقد أنكر ذات الإله تعالى فالخلاف بين المجسم والموحد ليس في الصفة بل في الذات فصح في المجسم أنه لا يؤمن بالله أما المسائل التي حكيتموها فهي اختلافات في الصفة فظهر الفرق وأما إلزام مذهب الحلولية والحروفية فنحن نكفرهم قطعاً فإنه تعالى كفر النصارى بسبب أنهم اعتقدوا حلول كلمة اللَّهِ في عيسى وهؤلاء اعتقدوا حلول كلمة اللَّهِ في ألسنة جميع من قرأ القرآن وفي جميع الأجسام التي كتب فيها القرآن فإذا كان القول بالحلول في حق الذات الواحدة يوجب التكفير فلأن يكون القول بالحلول في حق جميع الأشخاص والأجسام موجباً للقول بالتكفير كان أولى (مفاتيح الغيب – دار الكتب العلمية, 16 /24)

“Proofs tell us that the who says that God is a body is a disbeliever in God (who is greatly above and clear of flaws). The reason is that the God of the World exists, and He is not a body, or stationed in a body. So if the one who believes that God is a body denies this non-bodily existence, then he has disbelieved in God Himself. This means that the disagreement between the one that believes that God is a body, and the monotheist (i.e. in the Islamic sense, namely that God does not have a partner, part or a like in His self of attributes), is not based on a disagreement regarding attributes, but regarding the self (i.e. the identity of the one attributed with godhood.) It is sound to say then, that the one who believes that God is a body does not believe in Aļļaah….

As for the ĥuluuliyyah (those who believe that Aļļaah settles in created things, such as the sky or a human body) and ĥuruufiyyah (those who believe that Aļļaah’s attribute of kalam/speech consists of letters and sounds) sects, we say that they are unequivocally disbelievers. This is because Aļļaah declared the christians blasphemers for believing that Aļļaah’s speech entered into Jesus, whereas the ĥuruufiyyah believe that it settles in the tongue of all those who recite Qur’aan, and in all physical things that the Qur’aan was written on. Accordingly, if the belief in its settlement in one single body (Jesus) is blasphemy, then it is even more blasphemous to believe that it settles in all shapes and bodies.”

As-Subkiyy calls them idol worshipers:

As-Subkiyy in his Tabaqaatu-sħ-Sħaafiˆiyyatu-l-Kubraa says regarding scripture texts that appear to be referring to bodily attributes:

طبقات الشافعية الكبرى : إنما المصيبة الكبرى والداهية الدهياء الإمرار على الظاهر والاعتقاد أنه المراد وأنه لا يستحيل على الباري فذلك قول المجسمة عباد الوثن الذين في قلوبهم زيغ يحملهم الزيغ على اتباع المتشابه ابتغاء الفتنة عليهم لعائن الله تترى واحدة بعد أخرى ما أجرأهم على الكذب وأقل فهمهم للحقائق طبقات الشافعية الكبرى ج 5 ص 192

“the saying of the mujassimah (anthropomorphists), worshipers of the idol, makes them always focus on ambiguous aayahs.”

Al-Qurţubiyy and Ibn Al-ˆArabiyy

الصحيح القول بتكفيرهم ، إذ لا فرق بينهم وبين عباد الأصنام والصور.

Similarly, Al-Qurtubīy in his commentary in the Qur’ān narrates from his Shaykh Ibn Al-’Arabīy regarding the, 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.”

(Tafsiir Al-Qurţubiyy, 4/14).

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

Comments Part1

Quote:

^Um Abdullah M. says: “An article full of claims and accusations without a shred of proof for those accusation, plz show us proof that “wahhabis” believe what you said, and I mean your claim that they believe Allah is

- a body

- 3 dimensional shape

- that the difference between Allah’s Attributes and that of creation is in color, size … etc. and it must be explicit.”
--------------------------------------------

Shaykh Abu Adam says:

OK, but I am curios, why do you need proof that they believe that Allaah is a body AND a 3 dimensional shape?

Is there a difference between being a body and being 3-dimensional, and if so, what is it?

I think it is important to clarify this for me to answer in a way that you can understand.

Note for now, however, that it is not the words that are important here, but the meanings. What is normally understood from the word “body” is something with size, and it is necessarily 3 dimensional for the intents and purposes here (without getting into planes and strings, because they are not relevant here).

Having said that, there is no doubt that anyone who believes Allaah to be in a location, believes that Allaah is 3 dimensional, because something in a location is either going to be in all locations, or in a specific location. If it is in a specific location, then it is going to have a boundary defining its location, which means that it has a size according to the size of the location, which means that it is a body.

Ibn Taymiyyah

That is why you find Ibn Taymiyyah says that Allaah has 6 boundaries, namely, up, down, front back and 2 sides. To not call this a “body”, or “3-dimensional” is just playing word games, which the wahabis love, as did Ibn Taymiyyah, but I hope you don’t have any more time for it than I do.

Ibn Taymiyyah said:

بيان تلبيس الجهمية في تأسيس بدعهم الكلامية – (1 / 438) فهذا القول الوسط من أقوال القاضي الثلاثة هو المطابق لكلام أحمد وغيره من الأئمة وقد قال إنه تعالى في جهة مخصوصة وليس هو ذاهبا في الجهات بل هو خارج العالم متميز عن خلقه منفصل عنهم غير داخل في كل الجهات وهذا معنى قول أحمد “حد لا يعلمه إلا هو” ولو كان مراد أحمد رحمه الله الحد من جهة العرش فقط لكان ذلك معلوما لعباده فانهم قد عرفوا أن حده من هذه الجهة هو العرش فعلم أن الحد الذي لا يعلمونه مطلق لا يختص بجهة العرش

“This moderate saying among the three sayings of Al-Qaađii Abuu Yaˆlaa is the one that agrees with what Aĥmad says and others among the imaams. He [i.e. Aĥmad ibn Ĥanbal – and this is a lie, Aĥmad believed what Muslims believe, but that is another matter (Trans.)] has stated,

‘Aļļaah is in a particular direction, and He is not spread out in all directions. Rather, He is outside the world, distinct from His creation, separate from it, and He is not in every direction.’

This is what Aĥmad, may Aļļaah have mercy upon him, meant when he said,

‘He has a limit that only He knows.’

If Aĥmad had meant the direction towards the ˆArsħ (Throne) only, then this would be known to Aļļaah’s slaves, because they know that Aļļaah’s limit from this direction is the ˆArsħ, so we know then that the limit they do not know is unqualified, and is not specified for the direction of the ˆarsħ.” (Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/438)

Of course, Ahmad did not say that Allaah has a limit, but I am quoting Ibn Tayimiyyah.

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

^Um Abdullah M. says:

“Wahhabis” do not believe that Allah is in a location like you have described , they don’t believe that Allah has boundaries like a 3 dimensional object, from six directions.

They believe in 2 different boundaries, one is Allah being seperate from His creation, Allah does not mix with creation, nor creation with Allah, Exalted be He.

The other boundary (if that is the correct word to use) is the distinction of Allah from His creation, what distincts Allah’s Attributes from that of creation (this is the hadd that Ibn Taimiyyah said is mutlaq), so the other hadd is about the reality/kayfiyyah of the Attributes, this is the hadd/boundary/distinction that we do not have knowledge about.

If you still insist on Ibn Taimiyyah believing that Allah has 6 directions, then you should easly find a clearer statement by him on that, since we have many of his books available today, and most of them discuss issues of aqeedah, especially the the topic of Allah’s Attributes.

You also have many books by contemporary “wahhabi” scholars on aqeedah, especially the topic of sifat, if they truely believe in this (i.e. 6 directions, 3 dimensional ..etc.), then you shouldn’t have a problem finding a clear statement by them that Allah has 6 directions, or that Allah s a body, or that He has a 3 dimensional shape (Exalted be Allah).

One last thing, when you find a statement by any scholar that is not very clear, or could be interpreted different ways, then it should be interpreted in light of other statements by that scholar, in order to understand it correctly, and not accuse him of something he did not intend. [end of quote]

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

Reply

Shaykh Abu Adam says:

Um Abdullaah

You said, “Wahhabis do not believe that Allah is in a location like you have described , they don’t believe that Allah has boundaries like a 3 dimensional object, from six directions.”

Comment: These are word games as I expected, “not in a location like you have described,” is not a denial of location, but an attempt to escape. Like I said, “something in a location is either going to be in all locations, or in a specific location.”

Wahabi’s believe that Allaah is above the Arsh in the sense that he can be actually pointed at. This is a specific location, and this means they believe He has a shape, at least on one side, and that He has depth, width and height (i.e. is 3-dimensional) to infinity from there, i.e is a body of infinite size, or has limits in other directions as well.

There may be some of them that believe Aļļaah to be spread out in all other directions, as is one of the sayings of the anthropomorphist Abuu Yaˆlaa, as we shall see below, but this is not the saying of Ibn Taymiyyah, as we shall also see.

---

Um Abdullah said, “Wahhabis believe in 2 different boundaries, one is Allah being separate from His creation, Allah does not mix with creation, nor creation with Allah, Exalted be He.”

Comment: If Aļļaah is not in a location in their belief, then why do they believe in a boundary?

Something is either said to exist in a location or not. If it is in a location, then it needs a boundary to be separate. If it is not in a location, then it is nonsense to speak of a boundary because what is not in a location cannot be mixed with what is in a location, because mixing is about being in the same location.

---

Um Abdullah said: “The other boundary (if that is the correct word to use) is the distinction of Allah from His creation, what distincts Allah’s Attributes from that of creation (this is the hadd that Ibn Taimiyyah said is mutlaq), so the other hadd is about the reality/kayfiyyah of the Attributes, this is the hadd/boundary/distinction that we do not have knowledge about.”

Comment: You say this boundary is unknown, which implies that the other one is known.

What is it, if it is not a boundary of location, is there another kind of boundary?

Please stop playing games.

Second, if the wahabis don’t know, as you put it “what distincts Aļļaah’s attributes from that of creation,” then this is means they do not admit that Aļļaah is not bodily, otherwise they could say like Muslims, namely that He does not resemble what has a beginning, and is therefore not a body and not bodily and does not change.

Um Abdullah said: “If you still insist on Ibn Taimiyyah believing that Allah has 6 directions, then you should easily find a clearer statement by him…”

Comment: Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement is very clear. He says that the “known boundary is in the direction of the Arsh,”

i.e. that what he worships has a lower limit/ underside that can be pointed at adjacent to the Arsh,

i.e. a physical boundary defining the specific location of what he believes is Allaah toward the created universe. If this is not clear to you, then I think you are being unreasonable.

He says that this boundary is known by everybody, and that the other limits are not known. Here is the full context and improved translation to make it abundantly clear:

Ibn Taymiyyah quotes Abuu Yaˆlaa on this issue of boundary, where Abuu Yaˆlaa says that Aĥmad’s said “Aļļaah is on the Throne without a limit” and then says:

معناه ما عدى الجهة المحاذية للعرش وهي الفوق والخلف والأمام واليمنة واليسرة (بيان تلبيس الجهمية في تأسيس بدعهم الكلامية, 1 /437 (

“It means ‘other than in the direction adjacent to the throne’, which are above, behind, front, right and left.” I.e. He is saying that Aļļaah has a limit under Him, but is unlimited and without a boundary in all other directions. I.e. He is spread out in all other directions.

Then Ibn Taymiyyah comments on this saying:

قلت: هذا الذي جمع به بين كلامي أحمد وأثبت الحد والجهة من ناحية العرش والتحت دون الجهات الخمس يخالف ما فسر به كلام أحمد أولا من التفسير المطابق لصريح الفاظه حيث قال فقد نفى الحد عنه على الصفة المذكورة وهو الذي يعلمه خلقه والموضع الذي أطلقه محمول على معنيين (أحدهما) يقال على جهة مخصوصة وليس هو ذاهبا في الجهات بل هو خارج العالم متميز عن خلقه منفصل عنهم غير داخل في كل الجهات وهذا معنى قول أحمد: حد لا يعلمه إلا هو (والثاني) أنه على صفة يبين بها عن غيره ويتميز فهو تعالى فرد واحد ممتنع عن الاشتراك له في أخص صفاته قال منعنا من إطلاق القول بالحد في غير موضع من كتابنا ويجب أن يجوز على الوجه الذي ذكرناه فهذا القول الوسط من أقوال القاضي الثلاثة هو المطابق لكلام أحمد وغيره من الأئمة وقد قال: إنه تعالى في جهة مخصوصة وليس هو ذاهبا في الجهات بل هو خارج العالم متميز عن خلقه منفصل عنهم غير داخل في كل الجهات وهذا معنى قول أحمد: حد لا يعلمه إلا هو ولو كان مراد أحمد رحمه الله الحد من جهة العرش فقط لكان ذلك معلوما لعباده فانهم قد عرفوا أن حده من هذه الجهة هو العرش فعلم أن الحد الذي لا يعلمونه مطلق لا يختص بجهة العرش. (بيان تلبيس الجهمية في تأسيس بدعهم الكلامية, 1 /437-438(

Now, note that the first saying of Abuu Yaˆlaa is that Aļļaah has an underside, but no front, back, right, left, or top, and is therefore unlimited in these directions.

Then note Ibn Taymiyyah agrees about the underside being towards the throne, saying that this is “known to Aļļaah’s slaves, because they know that Aļļaah’s limit from this direction is the ˆArsħ.” What remains to disagree with then is Abuu Yaˆlaa’s denial of boundaries in the other five directions, which Ibn Taymiyyah does saying, "Aļļaah is in a particular direction, and He is not spread out in all directions,” and Ibn Taymiyyah claims that those limits, preventing the spread in all directions, are what Aĥmad affirmed when he (according to him) said, ‘He has a limit that only He knows.’ That is why he also says elsewhere:

بيان تلبيس الجهمية في تأسيس بدعهم الكلامية – (1 / 601) فأما كون الشيء غير موصوف بالزيادة والنقصان ولا بعدم ذلك وهو موجود وليس بذي قدر فهذا لا يعقل

“That something existing should not be increasing, or decreasing, or neither increasing nor decreasing, and yet exist and not have a size – this is impossible.”

(Bayaan Talbiis Al-Jahmiyyah, 1/601)

In other words, he is of the opinion that everything that exists, including the Creator, must have a size. According to Ibn Taymiyyah then, Aļļaah has a size limited by 6 limits.

He also says:

It has been narrated through the acceptable scholars and Muslim saints (‘awliyaa’) that Muĥammad, the Messenger of Aļļaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) will be seated by His Lord on His throne with Him. (Majmuuˆu-l-Fataawaa, 4 / 374)

قال ابن تيمية في مجموع الفتاوى – (4 / 374) فَقَدْ حَدَثَ الْعُلَمَاءُ الْمَرْضِيُّونَ وَأَوْلِيَاؤُهُ الْمَقْبُولُونَ : أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يُجْلِسُهُ رَبُّهُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ مَعَهُ .

So here you see him affirming at least one side to make room for the Prophet.

--
Comments Part2
--

Quote:

“Those who liken Allah to the creation are of 2 types.

1] Those who really believe that Allahu ta’ala is in the form or image of Man, as did by the sects of Mujassima.They are ,no doubt, disbelievers.

2] Those who stick to the literal meanings of Wajh,yaad, ayn etc for Allah, by saying as is suitable to Him,without likening them to Man, as today’s Wahabis.They are only Ahlul Bid’a and not disblievers.

The 1st group worships a God of their imagination , as made clear by above great scholars of Islam as also by Imam Hujjathul Islam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali.Rah, in his ‘Iljamul Awam’.” [end of quote]

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

^Reply

Not only “in the form or image of Man.”

What Al-Ghazaaliyy said in Iljaamu-l-ˆawaam is:
أعني بالجسم عبارة عن مقدار له طول وعرض وعمق
“I mean by a body something with quantity that has length, width and depth.”

Then he says:
من عبد جسمًا فهو كافر بإجماع الأمة السلف منهم والخلف
“The one that worship a body is a blasphemer by the consensus of the nation, both early and later generations.”

Further to this:

Aţ-Ţaĥaawiyy stated {in brackets}: {This is a detailed remembrance of the belief of the People of the Sunnah and following {the Jamaaˆah}. Later he stated, as part of this remembrance,{Aļļaah is above} the status of {having limits, extremes, corners, limbs or instruments.} {The six directions} up, down, front, back, left and right {do not contain Him} because that would make Him {like all created things}.

He also agreed that believing that anything else is an insult to Islam, for he said in the same remembrance: {Whoever attributed to Aļļaah an attribute that has a meaning among the meanings that apply to humans has committed blasphemy.}

Note that he said this after having already pointed out that the six directions apply to all created things, which includes humans. In other words, the Sunni belief is that attributing a limit to Aļļaah makes one a non-Muslim.

Abu-l-Muˆiin An-Nasafiyy, who is the main authority among the Maaturiidiyys after Al-Maaturiidiyy himself states: “The one who says that Aļļaah is settled over the ˆarsħ has said either that He is like the ˆArsħ, or that the ˆArsħ is bigger, or that He is bigger. Whatever the case may be, this person is a kaafir, because He has claimed that Aļļaah has a boundary (Baĥru-l-Kalaam, 51-52).

Similarly, it was stated by Abuu Manşuur Al-Bagħdaadiy about those who say that Aļļaah has a body, or that events happen in Him or His attributes (such as hearing or seeing one thing after another as they happen to creation) : “All those who disagreed with them say that they are blasphemers, so in this respect they are the worst of all the deviant sects (‘Uşuulu-d-Diin, 338).” He also commented: “By claiming that Aļļaah has events happen to Him, they ruined for themselves the proof of the monotheists which holds that bodies are creations since they have events in them. Based on this principle of theirs, they cannot prove that the world has a beginning, and thus they have no way of knowing the Creator of the world.Consequently, they are like all others who do not know Him (‘Uşuulu-d-Diin, 337-338).” (Ed. That is, they are idolaters.)

In other words, to believe that Allaah has a boundary or size is kufr without a doubt.

Regarding your saying “2] Those who stick to the literal meanings of Wajh, yaad, ayn etc for Allah, by saying as is suitable to Him, without likening them to Man, as today’s Wahabis. They are only Ahlul Bid’a and not disbelievers.”

First, why did you not read the first post which is linked in the above article?

Please do, and see the comments also. The major wahabis affirm to Allaah a boundary, which is kufr.

Second, to be exact, this second group are blasphemers also if they mean by this that Allaah has a boundary or size. The reason why one does not make takfiir for the one that says such a phrase right away is because he might be a stupid person who is just repeating phrases he has been told, and he does not understand what they imply. He may not understand that the literal meaning is bodily, but if he understands that, then he is a kaafir, because the meaning is then “a body not like man’s”.