--
Brother Abu Sulayman said on "Ummah.com" Forum:
Quote: "on a general note (not just regarding this thread, but regarding many threads that have been opened in the last time):
It's unfortunate that this forum allows immature, overzealous and ignorant youngsters [who have been influenced by a certain deviant group that is responsible for a lot of division, hatred and even killing in this Ummah] to destroy one thread after the other and to make it impossible to discuss any issue in a respectful and academic way. It would be nice if these people would change their ways and would realize that their constant insulting, mocking and attacking of others is wrong."
---
Brother
Abu Sulayman is right in what he has experienced on this Forum
This
is another wahhabi
(salafi/ahlehadith/deobandi) platform
called: "Ummah.com" main
goal is to promote and shove down Wahhabiyyat
Najdiaat (Horn
of Satan aqidah) down
peoples throats who are unaware of their hidden agenda!
---
Imām
Bukhārī narrates in his Sahīh Collection that the Messenger of
Allāh ﷺ
said:
اصبرو
فانه لا يأتي عليكم زمان الا و الذي بعده
اشر منه
“Be
patient, verily a time will not come upon you except that the time
after it is eviler than
it.
Ibn Mas’ūd said about this hadīth:
ما ذاك بكثرة الامطار و قلتها و لكن بذهاب العلماء ثم يحدث قوم يفتون في الامور برأيهم فيثلمون الإسلام و يهدمونه
”That is not due to abundance or depletion of rain, but it is due to the disappearance of the ‘Ulamā [educated scholars] then the occurrence of a “people” [not ‘ulamā!] who give fatwā [verdicts] according to their own opinions [meaning unqualified opinions] corrupting/bending [the meaning] of Islām and destroying it”.
The wahhabi
fanatics and the Admin/Mods who
post on this Forum are NOT interested in finding out
the Truth... ? (because they believe they are upon their "truth"
and everyone else is misguided upon Bidah/shirk!)
Most
laymen blindly Google (sheikh) these (salafi
fatwas) on line and say Q&A imam sheikh ibn said so.
why?
because they believe that they are the "chosen
ones" from Mecca with the only "Truth" and
the rest of the Muslim Ummah is misguided
Mushrik upon Bidah/Shirk!
Wahhabiyyah will
by Hook or by Crook
shove down their deviant aqidah down every young Muslims throat so
that they are unable to taste its deadly poisonous teachings of
ibn abdul wahab najdi (d.1206AH)
and make them also believe without a
shadow of doubt that their "prophet" Ibn
Taymiyyah (d.728AH) got his god given right to sit on the
Throne! and most of the scholars praised him for
that!
wahhabi/salafi:
Dude, we are Not interested in what you are saying !
Here
is a Prime Example when discussing with wahhabiyyah
Thread title: The Ashari and The Maturidi: The Aqida Schools of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah
---------------Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974/1567; R. A.)
Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami defined the Sunni Muslims as follows in his book Fath al-jawad: "A Mubtadi (innovator) is the person who does not have the faith (Aqeedah) conveyed unanimously by the Ahl as-Sunnah. This unanimity was transmitted by the two great Imam's Abu'l Hasan al-Ashari (d.324/936; Rahimahullah) and Abu Mansur al- Maturidi (d.333/944; Rahimahullah) and the scholars who followed their path."
Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami also said in his book al- Fatawa al-Hadithiyya (pg. 205): "Man of bid'ah means one whose beliefs are different from the Ahl as-Sunnah faith. The Ahl as- Sunnah faith, is the faith of Abu'l Hasan al-Ashari, Abu Mansur al- Maturidi and those who followed them. One who brings forth something which is not approved by Islam becomes a man of bid'ah."
Imam Abdullah ibn Alawi al-Haddad (d. 1132 AH; Rahimahullah),
Imam al-Haddad stated in The Book of Assistance (pg. 40): "You must correct and protect your beliefs and conform to the pattern of the party of salvation, who are those known from among the other Islamic factions as the "People of the Sunnah and Jama'ah" (Ahl as- Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah). They are those who firmly adhere to the way of the Messenger of Allah (Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim), and of his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all). If you look with a sound understanding into those passages relating to the sciences of faith in the Book (Qur'an), the Sunnah, and the saying of the virtuous predecessors, whether they be Companions or followers, you will know for certain that the truth is with the party called the Ashari (NB-the Maturidi's are also upon the truth), named after the Shaykh Abu'l Hasan al-Ashari, may Allah have mercy on him, who systematized the foundations of the creed of the people of the truth, and recorded its earliest versions, these being the beliefs with the Companions and the best among the followers agreed upon."
Imam Ahmad Shihab ad-Din al Qalyubi (d.1069/1659; R. A.)
Imam al-Qalyubi wrote on the fourth volume of his marginalia to the book Kanz ar-raghibin: "One who departs from what Abu'l Hasan al-Ashari and Abu Mansur al-Maturidi (Allah's mercy be upon them) reported is not a Sunni. These two Imam's followed the footprints of Rasulullah (Peace be upon him) and his Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them all)."
Sultan al Ulama, Imam Ibn Abdus Salam said, "Agreement has formed in subscribing to al Ashari's doctrine among the Shafis, the Malikis, the Hanafis and the nobility of the Hanbalis."
The Maliki Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Musa al Mayurqi said, Ahlus Sunnah among the Malikis, the Shafis, and the majority of the Hanafis speak with the tongue of Abu Hasan al Ashari and argue by their arguments.
Ibn Subki said, "We do not know any Malikis except they are Asharis."
In all fairness, there are some exception such as Ibn Abd Al Barr and Abu Umar al Talamnaki. As for Ibn Abu Zayd, he belonged to the Ashari school which he took from Abu Bakr ibn Abd al Mumin who studied with Ibn Mujahid who was the student of Imam Ashari. Ibn Abi Zays said, "Al Ashari is a man famous for refuting the people of innovations, the Qadariyya and the Jahmiyyah and he held fast to the Sunan."
aMuslimForLife Reply:
Wahhabi (Abu Jarir ) said: Akhi the Athari is more correct.
The Athari
creed is the essence of the Ashari and Maturidi. The best expression of the
Athari creed as understood by the Ashari and Maturidi is Aqida Tahawi.
Imam al Subki (d771), the great Shafi scholar, noted that the Hanafis, Shafis, Malikis and Hanbalis are one in creed, he said,
“All of them follow the opinion of the Prophetic Way and the Majority of the scholars (Ahl al Sunnah wa al jama’ah). They worship Allah in accordance with the creed of Abu al Hasan al Ashari. None of them deviates from it, save the riffraffs among the Hanafis and Shafis who adopted the rationalist creed and those among the Hanbalis who opted for anthropomorphism. However, Allah protected the Malikis from such things, for we have never seen a Maliki except that he was Ashari in creed. In summation, the creed of Al Ashari is what is contained in the Creed of Imam Abu Jafar al Tahawi, which the scholars of the various legal scholars have endorsed and are content with as a creed…. So say to those fanatics among the sects, “Take heed, leave your fanaticism, abandon your heresies, and defend the religion of Islam.”
There are variant expression of the Athari approach in creed.
The true Athari Aqida of the Salafus Saleh:
Aqida Tahawi by Imam Tahawi,
This is the Aqida that the Asharis and Maturidis engaged in Ilm Kalam to defend this creed. The were Shafis and Hanafis who defected to the Mutazilah so there was a need to utilize Ilm Kalam.
The Anthropomorphic Athari Aqida:
as propagated by some of the later Hanbalis.
Aqida Wasatiyyah by Ibn Taymiyyah who like the Asharis and Maturidis engaged in Ilm Kalam to defend this anthropomorphic Athari creed.
Aqida
So don't pretend as if there is one Athari creed.
Because the Anthropomorphic Athari Creed is NOT more correct.
Imam al Izz Ibn Abdus Salam said, "The gross anthropomorphist (al Hashwiyya) who liken Allah to creation (al mushabbiha) are of two types:
the first make no attempt to hide their anthroporphism, "And they think that they have something to stand upon. NO indeed! They are but liars." (58:18)
The second type camouflage themselves with the school of the Salaf, hoping thereby to gain something from ill gotten property, if only scraps to take with them. "They make a show of piety before people, While going around looking for cash." Allah says, "They wish to gain your confidence with that of their people." (4:91)
Two types of anthropomorphist:
Al Mujassimah (Pure Anthropomorphist)
Al Hashwiyya (Crypto Anthropomorphist) This represents the modern Salafi sect. Their anthropomorphism is hidden it is more subtle, not so easy to detect. And then they (the Salafis) try to camouflage themselves with the school of the Salaf, saying, the Salafus Saleh took the Hand of Allah upon its apparent or literal meaning, yet are unable to present a single quote from the Salafus Saleh stating such.
For example, they say that the Hands of Allah are to be take upon its apparent meaning (ala dhahiri). Linguistically there are two ways that one can do this.
1) One has to know the true nature of Allah in order to determine which meaning of hand in the arabic language relates to Allah, this is impossible, no one knows.
2) or liken Allah to something you can relate to in creation.
These verses and hadiths related to Allah are considered the unclear and ambiguous verses and hadiths.
If we knew what was apparent, it wouldn’t be among the ambiguous verses. It is because we don’t know, that we have to remain silent concerning its meaning.
Let’s take for example:
“O Prophet! say to those who are captives in your hands:” (8:70)
Are hands to be taken literal or metaphorically? What is apparent is that it refers to the metaphorical meaning, ie power, control, possession etc, but it does NOT refer to the literal meaning, ie the limb, the body part, part etc. because we know certain things about the Prophet, . One he is a man, a human being. So we know the true nature and reality of what is a man. It is impossible that the captives would be in the literal hands of the Prophet, .
You take that same verse and change the words to this,
“O Jibriel! say to those who are captives in your hands:”
Are hands to be taken literal or metaphorically? If one is honest, we don’t know, why because, we don’t know the true nature and reality of an angel. It could be literal or metaphorically. So what is apparent isn’t clear, this would be ambiguous. If we liken angels to men, what is apparent is that we would say it is metaphorical.
So with Allah, we cannot really determine what is apparent when dealing with those verses and hadith, because we don’t know the true nature and reality of Allah.
This why tafwid is the safest position with regard to Allah, because Allah says, Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are….and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge. (7:33)
Tafwid is to affirm the wording of the text, that it is true from Allah and His Messenger and remain silent concerning the meaning.
Imam al Subki (d771), the great Shafi scholar, noted that the Hanafis, Shafis, Malikis and Hanbalis are one in creed, he said,
“All of them follow the opinion of the Prophetic Way and the Majority of the scholars (Ahl al Sunnah wa al jama’ah). They worship Allah in accordance with the creed of Abu al Hasan al Ashari. None of them deviates from it, save the riffraffs among the Hanafis and Shafis who adopted the rationalist creed and those among the Hanbalis who opted for anthropomorphism. However, Allah protected the Malikis from such things, for we have never seen a Maliki except that he was Ashari in creed. In summation, the creed of Al Ashari is what is contained in the Creed of Imam Abu Jafar al Tahawi, which the scholars of the various legal scholars have endorsed and are content with as a creed…. So say to those fanatics among the sects, “Take heed, leave your fanaticism, abandon your heresies, and defend the religion of Islam.”
There are variant expression of the Athari approach in creed.
The true Athari Aqida of the Salafus Saleh:
Aqida Tahawi by Imam Tahawi,
This is the Aqida that the Asharis and Maturidis engaged in Ilm Kalam to defend this creed. The were Shafis and Hanafis who defected to the Mutazilah so there was a need to utilize Ilm Kalam.
The Anthropomorphic Athari Aqida:
as propagated by some of the later Hanbalis.
Aqida Wasatiyyah by Ibn Taymiyyah who like the Asharis and Maturidis engaged in Ilm Kalam to defend this anthropomorphic Athari creed.
Aqida
So don't pretend as if there is one Athari creed.
Because the Anthropomorphic Athari Creed is NOT more correct.
Imam al Izz Ibn Abdus Salam said, "The gross anthropomorphist (al Hashwiyya) who liken Allah to creation (al mushabbiha) are of two types:
the first make no attempt to hide their anthroporphism, "And they think that they have something to stand upon. NO indeed! They are but liars." (58:18)
The second type camouflage themselves with the school of the Salaf, hoping thereby to gain something from ill gotten property, if only scraps to take with them. "They make a show of piety before people, While going around looking for cash." Allah says, "They wish to gain your confidence with that of their people." (4:91)
Two types of anthropomorphist:
Al Mujassimah (Pure Anthropomorphist)
Al Hashwiyya (Crypto Anthropomorphist) This represents the modern Salafi sect. Their anthropomorphism is hidden it is more subtle, not so easy to detect. And then they (the Salafis) try to camouflage themselves with the school of the Salaf, saying, the Salafus Saleh took the Hand of Allah upon its apparent or literal meaning, yet are unable to present a single quote from the Salafus Saleh stating such.
For example, they say that the Hands of Allah are to be take upon its apparent meaning (ala dhahiri). Linguistically there are two ways that one can do this.
1) One has to know the true nature of Allah in order to determine which meaning of hand in the arabic language relates to Allah, this is impossible, no one knows.
2) or liken Allah to something you can relate to in creation.
These verses and hadiths related to Allah are considered the unclear and ambiguous verses and hadiths.
If we knew what was apparent, it wouldn’t be among the ambiguous verses. It is because we don’t know, that we have to remain silent concerning its meaning.
Let’s take for example:
“O Prophet! say to those who are captives in your hands:” (8:70)
Are hands to be taken literal or metaphorically? What is apparent is that it refers to the metaphorical meaning, ie power, control, possession etc, but it does NOT refer to the literal meaning, ie the limb, the body part, part etc. because we know certain things about the Prophet, . One he is a man, a human being. So we know the true nature and reality of what is a man. It is impossible that the captives would be in the literal hands of the Prophet, .
You take that same verse and change the words to this,
“O Jibriel! say to those who are captives in your hands:”
Are hands to be taken literal or metaphorically? If one is honest, we don’t know, why because, we don’t know the true nature and reality of an angel. It could be literal or metaphorically. So what is apparent isn’t clear, this would be ambiguous. If we liken angels to men, what is apparent is that we would say it is metaphorical.
So with Allah, we cannot really determine what is apparent when dealing with those verses and hadith, because we don’t know the true nature and reality of Allah.
This why tafwid is the safest position with regard to Allah, because Allah says, Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are….and saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge. (7:33)
Tafwid is to affirm the wording of the text, that it is true from Allah and His Messenger and remain silent concerning the meaning.
--
aMuslimForLife Reply:
Wahhabi ( Abdalla94')
said: 'Pass them on without asking how' is what the Salaf
would say. You're telling me we have no understanding of the meaning so
why would the salaf say 'without asking how'?
'Pass them
on without asking how'
Transmits the text without delving into how the verse or hadith is understood.
This is based on the hadith.
نَضَّرَ اللَّهُ امْرَأً سَمِعَ مِنَّا شَيْئًا فَبَلَّغَهُ كَمَا سَمِعَ فَرُبَّ مُبَلَّغٍ أَوْعَى مِنْ سَامِعٍ
The Messenger of Allah said, “May Allah make radiant someone who hears something from us, and then conveys it as he heard it (Quran and Hadith), for it might be that someone who it is conveyed to understands better than the one who heard (it first). (Sahih-Tirmidhi 2657)
In this hadith is the proof for tafwid and tawil, as understood by the Asharis and Maturidis.
This hadith proves that not every Quranic verse and hadith was intended to be understood by every single companions.
Let's take one of these hadiths.
Abu Hurairah reports that the Messenger of Allah said: “Our Lord Descends to the lowest heaven during the last third of the night, inquiring: `Who will call on Me so that I may respond to him? Who is asking something of Me so I may give it to him? Who is asking for My forgiveness so I may forgive him?”[ Bukhari and Muslim.]
The point of the hadith isn't how Allah descends (literally or metaphorically), the point of hadith is to get Muslims to pray tahajjah.
Two facts about the Makkan phase:
1) The Prophet taught tawhid for 13 years during the Makkan phase. (And I don't believe he was explaining the meaning of the Hand, Face, and Eyes of Allah during that time as you don't find any of the companions explaining these narrations)
2) Tahajjah was obligatory during the Makkan phase.
I'm taught that the Tawhid that the Prophet was teaching was Experiential Tawhid (Tawhid Dhawqi) during the Makkan phase as expressed in the Hadith the Awilya.
The Prophet(s) said:
Allah Most High says: "He who is hostile to a friend of Mine I declare war against. My slave approaches Me with nothing more beloved to Me than what I have made obligatory upon him, and My slave keeps drawing nearer to Me with voluntary works until I love him. And when I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he seizes, and his foot with which he walks. If he asks me, I will surely give to him, and if he seeks refuge in Me, I will surely protect him" (Fath al-Bari, 11.340–41, hadith 6502);
Imam Malik said, "Knowledge does not consist in narrating much. Knowledge is but a light which Allah places in the heart."
For the Prophet said, " "He for whom Allâh desires great good, He grants him (superlative) understanding in the Religion (yufaqqihhu/yufqihhu fî al-dîn). I only distribute (ie The Quran and Sunnah) and it is Allâh Who gives (ie understanding). That group shall remain in charge of the Order of Allâh, unharmed by those who oppose them, until the coming of the Order of Allâh." (Bukhari)
I am not saying none of the companions understood it, but this understanding was not convey in the normative way, but rather, the Prophet and his companions transmitted the knowledge of how to receive these understandings from Allah.
This is why tafwid is emphasized, it is Allah who gives understanding.
"He grants wisdom to whom He pleases, and whoever is granted wisdom has indeed been granted abundant good; and none would take heed except those endowed with understanding." (2:269)
Transmits the text without delving into how the verse or hadith is understood.
This is based on the hadith.
نَضَّرَ اللَّهُ امْرَأً سَمِعَ مِنَّا شَيْئًا فَبَلَّغَهُ كَمَا سَمِعَ فَرُبَّ مُبَلَّغٍ أَوْعَى مِنْ سَامِعٍ
The Messenger of Allah said, “May Allah make radiant someone who hears something from us, and then conveys it as he heard it (Quran and Hadith), for it might be that someone who it is conveyed to understands better than the one who heard (it first). (Sahih-Tirmidhi 2657)
In this hadith is the proof for tafwid and tawil, as understood by the Asharis and Maturidis.
This hadith proves that not every Quranic verse and hadith was intended to be understood by every single companions.
Let's take one of these hadiths.
Abu Hurairah reports that the Messenger of Allah said: “Our Lord Descends to the lowest heaven during the last third of the night, inquiring: `Who will call on Me so that I may respond to him? Who is asking something of Me so I may give it to him? Who is asking for My forgiveness so I may forgive him?”[ Bukhari and Muslim.]
The point of the hadith isn't how Allah descends (literally or metaphorically), the point of hadith is to get Muslims to pray tahajjah.
Two facts about the Makkan phase:
1) The Prophet taught tawhid for 13 years during the Makkan phase. (And I don't believe he was explaining the meaning of the Hand, Face, and Eyes of Allah during that time as you don't find any of the companions explaining these narrations)
2) Tahajjah was obligatory during the Makkan phase.
I'm taught that the Tawhid that the Prophet was teaching was Experiential Tawhid (Tawhid Dhawqi) during the Makkan phase as expressed in the Hadith the Awilya.
The Prophet(s) said:
Allah Most High says: "He who is hostile to a friend of Mine I declare war against. My slave approaches Me with nothing more beloved to Me than what I have made obligatory upon him, and My slave keeps drawing nearer to Me with voluntary works until I love him. And when I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he seizes, and his foot with which he walks. If he asks me, I will surely give to him, and if he seeks refuge in Me, I will surely protect him" (Fath al-Bari, 11.340–41, hadith 6502);
Imam Malik said, "Knowledge does not consist in narrating much. Knowledge is but a light which Allah places in the heart."
For the Prophet said, " "He for whom Allâh desires great good, He grants him (superlative) understanding in the Religion (yufaqqihhu/yufqihhu fî al-dîn). I only distribute (ie The Quran and Sunnah) and it is Allâh Who gives (ie understanding). That group shall remain in charge of the Order of Allâh, unharmed by those who oppose them, until the coming of the Order of Allâh." (Bukhari)
I am not saying none of the companions understood it, but this understanding was not convey in the normative way, but rather, the Prophet and his companions transmitted the knowledge of how to receive these understandings from Allah.
This is why tafwid is emphasized, it is Allah who gives understanding.
"He grants wisdom to whom He pleases, and whoever is granted wisdom has indeed been granted abundant good; and none would take heed except those endowed with understanding." (2:269)
--
Wahhabi Prime Example:
Wahhabi Prime Example:
--
Originally Posted by Linkdeutscher said:
الاستواء معلوم والكيف مجهول والايمان
به واجب والسؤال عنه بدعة
"Al-Istiwaa
is known, and how is unknown,to have eemaan in it is obligatory and
to question it is an innovation"
--
aMuslimForLife Reply:
It is my understanding this particular narration is not
authentic, if authentic, these would be my concerns.
Istiwa is known meaning its wording known to be in the Quran and Sunnah, how it is understood is unknown.
Salafis understand the statement of Imam Malik to mean, The meaning of istiwa is known.
If this is true why did the Salafus Saleh differ on what istiwa meant?
Ibn Qayyim summarised these four explanations in his Nooniyyah saying, "And they (Ahl us-Sunnah) have four explanations for it (istiwaa)..." and then he mentioned, "and they are istaqarra, 'alaa, irtafa'a about which there is no dispute, and likewise sa'uda is the fourth. Aboo 'Ubaydah of Shaybaan has chosen this in his explanation. [21]
Of these four what meaning did the Prophet (s) teach his companions?
Imam Malik on Istiwa
A man asked Imam Malik (d. 179): “How did Allah make istiwa’ on the throne?” Imam Malik inclined his head and was silent until the sweat of fever covered his brow, then he looked up and said: “Istiwa’ is not unknown (ghayru majhul), the modality of it is inconceivable in the mind (al-kayfu minhu ghayru ma`qul); but belief in it is obligatory, and inquiring about it is a heretical innovation. You are an innovator.” And he gave orders for him to be taken out.
My Thoughts:
My methodologically challenged brothers have used this quote from Imam Malik to justify taking the unclear verses related to Allah upon it’s literal meaning (dhahir). As an Ashari, we are concerned about following the Salafus Saleh, and we regard Imam Malik’s statement and followable, however we don’t understand it in the same way that the Salafis understand Imam Malik’s statement.
Imam Malik did not say istiwa is to be taken upon the literal meaning. Nowhere in any of the quotes that I read from Imam Malik, did he say to take istiwa upon its literal meaning.
He merely said, “Istiwa is not unknown.” The way the Asharis understand this is that, Istiwa is not unknown, for it is in the Quran. For example, If you would have said to Imam Malik, “Allahu Qadim”, Imam Malik would have said,” Qadim is unknown,” meaning this wording is not known in the Quran or hadiths. Thus Imam Malik was making tafwid.
That is how we understand that statement from Imam Malik.
“Istiwaa is not unknown” and “Istiwaa is known” are not the same, while the Salafis read it as the same.
(end of post by aMuslimForLife )
-----------------
*Note: (To say that the istiwa of ALLAAH is without a how is therefore the correct way to follow Imam Malik as he said ‘The how is inconceivable’. It is not the same as saying ‘ we do not know how‘ . Imam Malik never said that.
--------------
Istiwa is known meaning its wording known to be in the Quran and Sunnah, how it is understood is unknown.
Salafis understand the statement of Imam Malik to mean, The meaning of istiwa is known.
If this is true why did the Salafus Saleh differ on what istiwa meant?
Ibn Qayyim summarised these four explanations in his Nooniyyah saying, "And they (Ahl us-Sunnah) have four explanations for it (istiwaa)..." and then he mentioned, "and they are istaqarra, 'alaa, irtafa'a about which there is no dispute, and likewise sa'uda is the fourth. Aboo 'Ubaydah of Shaybaan has chosen this in his explanation. [21]
Of these four what meaning did the Prophet (s) teach his companions?
Imam Malik on Istiwa
A man asked Imam Malik (d. 179): “How did Allah make istiwa’ on the throne?” Imam Malik inclined his head and was silent until the sweat of fever covered his brow, then he looked up and said: “Istiwa’ is not unknown (ghayru majhul), the modality of it is inconceivable in the mind (al-kayfu minhu ghayru ma`qul); but belief in it is obligatory, and inquiring about it is a heretical innovation. You are an innovator.” And he gave orders for him to be taken out.
My Thoughts:
My methodologically challenged brothers have used this quote from Imam Malik to justify taking the unclear verses related to Allah upon it’s literal meaning (dhahir). As an Ashari, we are concerned about following the Salafus Saleh, and we regard Imam Malik’s statement and followable, however we don’t understand it in the same way that the Salafis understand Imam Malik’s statement.
Imam Malik did not say istiwa is to be taken upon the literal meaning. Nowhere in any of the quotes that I read from Imam Malik, did he say to take istiwa upon its literal meaning.
He merely said, “Istiwa is not unknown.” The way the Asharis understand this is that, Istiwa is not unknown, for it is in the Quran. For example, If you would have said to Imam Malik, “Allahu Qadim”, Imam Malik would have said,” Qadim is unknown,” meaning this wording is not known in the Quran or hadiths. Thus Imam Malik was making tafwid.
That is how we understand that statement from Imam Malik.
“Istiwaa is not unknown” and “Istiwaa is known” are not the same, while the Salafis read it as the same.
(end of post by aMuslimForLife )
-----------------
*Note: (To say that the istiwa of ALLAAH is without a how is therefore the correct way to follow Imam Malik as he said ‘The how is inconceivable’. It is not the same as saying ‘ we do not know how‘ . Imam Malik never said that.
There are several
narrations of this event. However the one presented here is the most reliable
one, as it is narrated from different people in the SAME way, and in different
books. This version is authentic.
--------------
---------------
START OF
Abu Sulayman Response:
Wahhabi ( Bismil) said: why suddenly so many Aqeedah threads ?
Unfortunately many people here do not realise in what a danger they're
getting themselves when they start speaking about the divine attributes without
knowledge.
Reading a few words on islamqa or other "Salafi" websites does not mean that one has attained any real knowledge. These websites are full of inaccurate and wrong informations.
The laymen here who are constantly attacking classical positions (like Tafwidh) do not even know the Madhhab of their own Mashayikh, let alone that of those whom they regard as their opponents.
Let them think about the 7th Ayah in Surat Al 'Imran ask themselves who the people are whom Allah ta'ala describes as { those in whose hearts is perversity }?! Let them also read what Imam al-Qurtubi (d. 671 AH) said in the explanation of the mentioned Ayah: Imam al-Qurtubi on 3:7 - The Followers of the Allegorical Verses
Wahhabi(tayyiboon) said: still you are not the only ones who are Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah
No one said that.
Wahhabi (Deeni Akh) said: And why do ash'aris think that those who don't do ta'weel of the sifaat
of Allah do tajseem? they are two opposite extremes. Every Ash'ari I spoke to
automatically thought I'm from the mujassimah just because I disagreed with
ta'weel.
This shows that you've no idea what the Asha'irah say and what not.
There are scholars from the Ahl al-Sunnah who regard Ta`wil as allowed, while
other scholars (also from the Ahl al-Sunnah) disagreed (but all of them agree
regarding the correctness of Tafwidh).
The issue of Ta`wil is just an Ijtihadi difference.
The problem is that the Mujassimah (i.e. Karramiyyah and a group from among the Hanabilah) believe that God has physical attributes and is subject to changes. Do you believe that too?
The issue of Ta`wil is just an Ijtihadi difference.
The problem is that the Mujassimah (i.e. Karramiyyah and a group from among the Hanabilah) believe that God has physical attributes and is subject to changes. Do you believe that too?
Originally Posted by Deeni Akh said: Everyone take a look, a really balanced and clear answer from Islamqa:
Balanced? Brother, can you tell me why you're blindly trusting these
types of websites? On the website you're qouting you will find a Fatwa where
it's claimed that there is some similarity between the divine attributes and
that of the creation. Do you know what the ruling upon such statement is
according to classical scholars?
Originally Posted by Deeni Akh said: The Ash’aris are a sect that is named after Imam Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash’ari
(may Allaah have mercy on him). Al-Ash’ari passed through three stages – as
mentioned by Ibn Taymiyah in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 4/72 – which may be summed up
as follows: a Mu’tazili stage; then following Ibn Kilaab; then following Ahl
al-Sunnah, chiefly Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Al-Ash’ari clearly stated his final
position in his three books: Risaalah ila Ahl al-Thaghr, Maqaalaat al-Islaamiyyeen,
and al-Ibaanah. Whoever follows al-Ash’ari at this stage is in accordance with
Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah in most issues. Whoever follows his path at the
second stage is going against al-Ash’ari himself, and is going against Ahl
al-Sunnah in many issues.
This is pure misinformations that every "Salafi" loves to
repret again and again.
I've some questions for you: What is the position of Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) in his Maqalat al-Islamiyyin regarding the claim that Allah ta'ala has physical attributes and is subject to changes? Does he agree with these [Kufri] claims or does he regard it as the Madhhab of the Mushabbihah and Mujassimah? Have you ever looked into the book?
I've some questions for you: What is the position of Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) in his Maqalat al-Islamiyyin regarding the claim that Allah ta'ala has physical attributes and is subject to changes? Does he agree with these [Kufri] claims or does he regard it as the Madhhab of the Mushabbihah and Mujassimah? Have you ever looked into the book?
Originally Posted by Deeni Akh said: Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said in al-Fataawa, 3/338:
That's the
same Ibn 'Uthaymin who denied Mumathalah (which is good), but affirmed
Mushabahah (!!!) (which is Kufr!) between the divine attributes and the
attributes of the creation in an explicit manner more than once. May Allah
ta'ala protect us from following such people.
--
Abu Sulayman said Here
I've a
quesion for those who are acting as if they know the exact interpretation of
those Ayat which the classical scholars have regarded to be from the
Mutashabihat:
What is the meaning of Wajh when it's used for Allah ta'ala? (I don't want a translation, but rather the meaning. Just act as if the one asking you only understands Arabic.)
(And if you don't know the answer, then why are you claiming to know the meaning?)
What is the meaning of Wajh when it's used for Allah ta'ala? (I don't want a translation, but rather the meaning. Just act as if the one asking you only understands Arabic.)
(And if you don't know the answer, then why are you claiming to know the meaning?)
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Linkdeutscher asked: What is the
linguistic meaning of wajh? I mean the Arabic definition.
I thought
you know the meaning? Aren't you constantly attacking people, because they're
relegating the knowledge regarding the Mutashabihat to Allah ta'ala while being
sure that there is nothing unto like Him (and this is the Madhhab of the
majority of the Salaf al-salih)?
So what is the meaning that you're ascribing to Allah ta'ala? And what is the ruling for speaking about Allah ta'ala without knowledge?
So what is the meaning that you're ascribing to Allah ta'ala? And what is the ruling for speaking about Allah ta'ala without knowledge?
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Linkdeutscher said: Because I
asked a question it means I don't know the meaning?
Can you just answer it?
I'm the one
who asked a question, while you're the one who acts as if he knows the meaning
of Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn regarding
Allah ta'ala. If you know the meaning - as you claim - then let us hear it from
you?
And by the way: Are you seriously trying to apply the linguistic definitions that apply to the creation upon Allah ta'ala?
And by the way: Are you seriously trying to apply the linguistic definitions that apply to the creation upon Allah ta'ala?
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Linkdeutscher said: No I am just
asking you an innocent question but you keep acting all weird for some
reason...
Aren't you able
to look it up for yourself?
You acted as if you know the meaning and now I'm waiting to hear the meaning from you.
(You may not know it, but the people whom you blindly follow believe that Wajh, Yad and 'Ayn are A'yan (entities) which can be pointed at physically and are nonseperable Ajza` (parts) of God. High Exalted is Allah above what the oppressors claim.)
You acted as if you know the meaning and now I'm waiting to hear the meaning from you.
(You may not know it, but the people whom you blindly follow believe that Wajh, Yad and 'Ayn are A'yan (entities) which can be pointed at physically and are nonseperable Ajza` (parts) of God. High Exalted is Allah above what the oppressors claim.)
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Linkdeutscher said: Blindly
follow? I used to believe Allah is everywhere, so I'm not a blind follower of anyone.
Believing
that Allah ta'ala is literally everywhere is disbelief and the same can be said
regarding the belief that God is a 3-dimensional object. If you say that you
don't believe that, then alhamdulillah, but know that Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH)
and your Mashayikh do believe that and if you would've read their works or at
least looked into some of their works regarding creed you would know this much.
And now again: What is the meaning of Wajh, 'Ayn and Yad regarding Allah ta'ala? Why are you not answering?
And now again: What is the meaning of Wajh, 'Ayn and Yad regarding Allah ta'ala? Why are you not answering?
--------------------------------
Thread Page 2:Here
----------------------------------
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Linkdeutscher said: I asked you
first. Do you actually believe Allah has an actual 'existence', or is He just like a
concept in your head? Like a number?
Aren't you
ashamed of yourself to ask a fellow Muslim such a question?
But anyways: Of course Allah's existance is actual. In fact his existance is necessary, while ours is only possible.
And now you'll have to answer my question: What is the meaning of Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn regarding Allah ta'ala? If we look Yad up in the dictionary we'll see that it's literal meaning is Jarihah (limb)? Are you ascribing Jawarih (limbs) to Allah ta'ala? Is Allah ta'ala a 3-dimensional object according to you?
Or do you simply believe that Yad is Sifah (attribute) from among the Sifat and NOT a Juz` (part; no matter whether it separable in reality or not) nor a Jarihah (limb)?
(This would be one of the 3 acceptable views that the scholars held, but this is quite obviously not the position of your Mashayikh.)
But anyways: Of course Allah's existance is actual. In fact his existance is necessary, while ours is only possible.
And now you'll have to answer my question: What is the meaning of Yad, Wajh and 'Ayn regarding Allah ta'ala? If we look Yad up in the dictionary we'll see that it's literal meaning is Jarihah (limb)? Are you ascribing Jawarih (limbs) to Allah ta'ala? Is Allah ta'ala a 3-dimensional object according to you?
Or do you simply believe that Yad is Sifah (attribute) from among the Sifat and NOT a Juz` (part; no matter whether it separable in reality or not) nor a Jarihah (limb)?
(This would be one of the 3 acceptable views that the scholars held, but this is quite obviously not the position of your Mashayikh.)
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Wahhabi ( Abu 'Abdullaah) said: Do Asharis
ascribe emotions to Allah? What does it mean when Allah is pleased or Allah is
angry? Tajseeeeem! Grrrrrrrrrr!!!
When the
Sahabat al-kiram - radhiallahu 'anhum ajma'in - heard that Allah ta'ala loves
the God-fearing, they tried their best to be from among them.
But for you people it seems every Ayah has been sent down only in order to argue with other Muslims and to call them all sorts of names.
But for you people it seems every Ayah has been sent down only in order to argue with other Muslims and to call them all sorts of names.
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Abu 'Abdullaah said: Do you
ascribe emotions to Allah?
Did Allah
ta'ala say that he loves the God-fearing so that you can argue with me or in
order for us to try to be from among the God-fearing?
And no it's not allowed to ascribe emotions to Allah and if you claim that love is an emotion, then the answer is: This is correct regarding us, but who told you that when Allah ta'ala says that he loves the God-fearing an emotion - as we know it - is meant?
What is understood from such Ayat is that doing specific acts and being in a speficic way (in this case: being from the God-fearing) is rewardable in the Akhirah and NOT that a change happens in the divine essence.
I mean we know that Allah ta'ala is Eternal and that the creation and their actions (which are both created by Him without any partners) can not change Him.
And no it's not allowed to ascribe emotions to Allah and if you claim that love is an emotion, then the answer is: This is correct regarding us, but who told you that when Allah ta'ala says that he loves the God-fearing an emotion - as we know it - is meant?
What is understood from such Ayat is that doing specific acts and being in a speficic way (in this case: being from the God-fearing) is rewardable in the Akhirah and NOT that a change happens in the divine essence.
I mean we know that Allah ta'ala is Eternal and that the creation and their actions (which are both created by Him without any partners) can not change Him.
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Wahhabi (Umm Uthmaan) said: Can you give us some examples. I want to understand where u are coming
from in sha Allah..
Yes, of
course:
What I mean by physical attributes are tangible attributes which can be pointed at physically and which are mumtad fil jihat (spread in the directions) or to make it simple: a 3-dimesional thing.
When Ibn 'Uthaymin for example speaks about two real eyes* regarding Allah ta'ala he intends two physical entities, which are not like our eyes (i.e. they're not from the same material, nor have they the same size or form), but they have some sort of similarities (i.e. both are used in order to see and both of them are 3-dimensional things). Believing this is obvious Tashbih and against Islamic belief.
(*Here the qoute: "مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة أن لله عينين، اثنتين، ينظر بهما حقيقة على الوجه اللائق به. وهما من الصفات الذاتية الثابتة بالكتاب، والسنة... فهما عينان حقيقيتان لا تشبهان أعين المخلوقين"; Source: Majmu' Fatawa wa Rasa`il Ibn 'Uthaymin)
What I mean by being subject to changes is going from one state into another. An example would be movement. Both movement and stillness is impossible regarding Allah ta'ala.
What I mean by physical attributes are tangible attributes which can be pointed at physically and which are mumtad fil jihat (spread in the directions) or to make it simple: a 3-dimesional thing.
When Ibn 'Uthaymin for example speaks about two real eyes* regarding Allah ta'ala he intends two physical entities, which are not like our eyes (i.e. they're not from the same material, nor have they the same size or form), but they have some sort of similarities (i.e. both are used in order to see and both of them are 3-dimensional things). Believing this is obvious Tashbih and against Islamic belief.
(*Here the qoute: "مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة أن لله عينين، اثنتين، ينظر بهما حقيقة على الوجه اللائق به. وهما من الصفات الذاتية الثابتة بالكتاب، والسنة... فهما عينان حقيقيتان لا تشبهان أعين المخلوقين"; Source: Majmu' Fatawa wa Rasa`il Ibn 'Uthaymin)
What I mean by being subject to changes is going from one state into another. An example would be movement. Both movement and stillness is impossible regarding Allah ta'ala.
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Deeni Akh said: Whats the misinformation presented by Islamqa?
Their claim that Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) went through 3 stages.
"Salafis" often like to act as if Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH) and the
Mutaqqadimun from among the Ash'aris agree with them regarding that which they
call as Sifat Khabariyyah (i.e. Wajh, Yad, 'Ayn) and regarding the issue of
'Uluw, but that is quite obviously not the case.
As for the Sifat al-Khabariyyah: Imam al-Ash'ari accepted them as Ma'ani (i.e. meanings that subsists in the divine essence), while Ibn Taymiyyah [and the "Salafi" Mashayikh] accept it as A'yan (i.e. [physical] entities) and this is something that Ibn Taymiyyah acknowledged with his own tongue.
As for the issue of 'Uluw: Imam al-Ash'ari believed in the absolute Highness of Allah ta'ala, while Ibn Taymiyyah believes in a physical highness with Jihah (direction) and Tahayyuz (spatial confinement).
As for the Sifat al-Khabariyyah: Imam al-Ash'ari accepted them as Ma'ani (i.e. meanings that subsists in the divine essence), while Ibn Taymiyyah [and the "Salafi" Mashayikh] accept it as A'yan (i.e. [physical] entities) and this is something that Ibn Taymiyyah acknowledged with his own tongue.
As for the issue of 'Uluw: Imam al-Ash'ari believed in the absolute Highness of Allah ta'ala, while Ibn Taymiyyah believes in a physical highness with Jihah (direction) and Tahayyuz (spatial confinement).
Deeni Akh said: and kindly provide proof of shaykh ibn uthaymeens (RA) statement that is
accused of supporting mushaabaha.
Here he claims that the Qur`an negates Tamthil, but not Tashbih:
والتعبير بنفي التمثيل أحسن من التعبير بنفي التشبيه ، لوجوه ثلاثة :
أحدهما : أن التمثيل هو الذي جاء به القرآن وهو منفي مطلقا ، بخلاف التشبيه ، فلم يأت القرآن بنفيه .
الثاني : أن نفي التشبيه على الإطلاق لا يصح ، لأن كل موجودين فلا بد أن يكون بينهما قدر مشترك يشتبهان فيه ويتميز كل واحد بما يختص به ، ف : (الحياة) مثلا وصف ثابت في الخالق والمخلوق ، فبينهما قدر مشترك ، لكن حياة الخالق تليق به وحياة المخلوق به .
الثالث : إن الناس اختلفوا في مسمى التشبيه ، حتى جعل بعضهم إثبات الصفات التي أثبتها الله لنفسه تشبيه
Source: Majmu' Fatawa wa Rasa`il Ibn 'Uthaymin
And here he explicitly says that there is some sort of similiarity (i.e. between the attributes of the Creator and that of the creation):
فإذا قلت: ما هي الصورة التي تكون لله ويكون أدم عليها؟
قلنا: إن الله عز وجل له وجه وله عين وله يد وله رجل عز وجل، لكن لا يلزم من أن تكون هذه الأشياء مماثلة للإنسان، فهناك شيء من الشبه لكنه ليس على سبيل المماثلة، كما أن الزمرة الأولى من أهل الجنة فيها شبه من القمر لكن بدون مماثلة
Source: Majmu' Fatawa wa Rasa`il Ibn 'Uthaymin
This is clear-cut Tashbih without the need for any further discussion.
And this is what he said in one of his lectures:
نقولُ مثلاً ( وجه الله ) ولم نقل وجه وأطلقنا ، فوجه الله يكون لائقاً بذاته ، كما لو قلت وجه الفرس ووجه القِـط الـهِر؛ هل تفهم من قولك وجه الفرس أنه مثل وجه الهر أبداً
- end of the qoute -
Notice how he mentions the face of animals (!!!) while speaking about the divine attributes and from this qoute it's again clear that he only rejects Mumathalah (just look at his weird question at the end!), but not Mushabahah.
And one could qoute much more, but this should be enough.
والتعبير بنفي التمثيل أحسن من التعبير بنفي التشبيه ، لوجوه ثلاثة :
أحدهما : أن التمثيل هو الذي جاء به القرآن وهو منفي مطلقا ، بخلاف التشبيه ، فلم يأت القرآن بنفيه .
الثاني : أن نفي التشبيه على الإطلاق لا يصح ، لأن كل موجودين فلا بد أن يكون بينهما قدر مشترك يشتبهان فيه ويتميز كل واحد بما يختص به ، ف : (الحياة) مثلا وصف ثابت في الخالق والمخلوق ، فبينهما قدر مشترك ، لكن حياة الخالق تليق به وحياة المخلوق به .
الثالث : إن الناس اختلفوا في مسمى التشبيه ، حتى جعل بعضهم إثبات الصفات التي أثبتها الله لنفسه تشبيه
Source: Majmu' Fatawa wa Rasa`il Ibn 'Uthaymin
And here he explicitly says that there is some sort of similiarity (i.e. between the attributes of the Creator and that of the creation):
فإذا قلت: ما هي الصورة التي تكون لله ويكون أدم عليها؟
قلنا: إن الله عز وجل له وجه وله عين وله يد وله رجل عز وجل، لكن لا يلزم من أن تكون هذه الأشياء مماثلة للإنسان، فهناك شيء من الشبه لكنه ليس على سبيل المماثلة، كما أن الزمرة الأولى من أهل الجنة فيها شبه من القمر لكن بدون مماثلة
Source: Majmu' Fatawa wa Rasa`il Ibn 'Uthaymin
This is clear-cut Tashbih without the need for any further discussion.
And this is what he said in one of his lectures:
نقولُ مثلاً ( وجه الله ) ولم نقل وجه وأطلقنا ، فوجه الله يكون لائقاً بذاته ، كما لو قلت وجه الفرس ووجه القِـط الـهِر؛ هل تفهم من قولك وجه الفرس أنه مثل وجه الهر أبداً
- end of the qoute -
Notice how he mentions the face of animals (!!!) while speaking about the divine attributes and from this qoute it's again clear that he only rejects Mumathalah (just look at his weird question at the end!), but not Mushabahah.
And one could qoute much more, but this should be enough.
Deeni Akh said: I haven't read the book by shaykh abul hasan al ash'ari (RA) but if you
can provide me a link or some reference, I will look it up i.a.
The book Maqalat al-Islamiyyin (click
at the name) is regarding the different groups and sects that existed in his
time. In it Imam al-Ash'ari mentions what the different groups believed.
Read this thread here, were some interesting parts are qouted: إبطال التجسيم في كتاب [مقالات الإسلاميِّين
What's also interesting (but not mentioned in the thread) is the definition of makhluq (created) and muhdath (new) (they're used as synonms) that he mentions. (One may not understand why I'm mentioning this, but some very important issues are connected with this understanding.)
Read this thread here, were some interesting parts are qouted: إبطال التجسيم في كتاب [مقالات الإسلاميِّين
What's also interesting (but not mentioned in the thread) is the definition of makhluq (created) and muhdath (new) (they're used as synonms) that he mentions. (One may not understand why I'm mentioning this, but some very important issues are connected with this understanding.)
Deeni Akh said: [MENTION=122148]Regarding your pop quiz, Wajh linguistically means the
face of something, could be a human, a book, etc.
I
specifically said "regarding Allah ta'ala" and I didn't ask for a
translation.
And: A literal face cannot be meant, because it's 3-dimensional part of something and Allah ta'ala is exalted above being described with a meaning from among the meanings that apply to the creation (see what is mentioned in the famous and accepted al-'Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah).
And: A literal face cannot be meant, because it's 3-dimensional part of something and Allah ta'ala is exalted above being described with a meaning from among the meanings that apply to the creation (see what is mentioned in the famous and accepted al-'Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah).
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Abu 'Abdullaah said: Correct. If
the claim is that both are 'Sunni, why the barrage of aggressive refutations?
That is not
the claim.
tayyiboon acts as if someone said "only Ash'aris are from the Ahl al-Sunnah", but that is not the case.
Even though it's true that most classical Sunni scholars were Ash'aris, but you'll also find non-Ash'ari Sunnis from among the classical scholars.
But as for "Salafis" - or to be more precise the Mashayikh of the "Salafis" - they're innovators (Mubtadi'ah). They've mixed the false ideas and mistakes of different controversial persons and have added their own shallowness to it and have formed a new Madhhab, which is causing division and hatred everywhere. Just some hours from where I live there are groups killing eachother and killing innocent people and this all because of the hateful ideas of the "Salafiyyah" (with ALL their subsects, no matter whether it's Madkhali, J!hadi, etc,) [and because of the hateful idead of the Shi'ah al-Imamiyyah].
Notice how it's almost impossible to make any respectful and academic discussion with people who are influenced too much by this group.
tayyiboon acts as if someone said "only Ash'aris are from the Ahl al-Sunnah", but that is not the case.
Even though it's true that most classical Sunni scholars were Ash'aris, but you'll also find non-Ash'ari Sunnis from among the classical scholars.
But as for "Salafis" - or to be more precise the Mashayikh of the "Salafis" - they're innovators (Mubtadi'ah). They've mixed the false ideas and mistakes of different controversial persons and have added their own shallowness to it and have formed a new Madhhab, which is causing division and hatred everywhere. Just some hours from where I live there are groups killing eachother and killing innocent people and this all because of the hateful ideas of the "Salafiyyah" (with ALL their subsects, no matter whether it's Madkhali, J!hadi, etc,) [and because of the hateful idead of the Shi'ah al-Imamiyyah].
Notice how it's almost impossible to make any respectful and academic discussion with people who are influenced too much by this group.
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Wahhabi ( Umm Uthmaan) said: jazaak Allahu khayr So how do you understand the ayat where Allah describes Himself? And how do you
understand this ayah الرحمن على العرش استوى and Allahs
nuzul every night to the lowest heaven?
The
classical scholars have regarded the Ayat were the Istiwa` 'ala
al-'Arsh is mentioned or the Hadith were the Nuzul is
mentioned to be from among the Mutashabihat (i.e. they're ambiguous in their
meaning).
Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says:
{ هُوَ ٱلَّذِيۤ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ ٱلْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ ٱلْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ٱبْتِغَاءَ ٱلْفِتْنَةِ وَٱبْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ ٱللَّهُ وَٱلرَّاسِخُونَ فِي ٱلْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ ٱلأَلْبَابِ }
{ He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed. } [3:7]
Based upon this Ayah the classical scholars said that those verses or narrations which are ambigous in their meaning need to be understood in the context of those verses which are clear (and not the other way around).
In the case of the divine attributes there are Ayat which are from the Muhkamat (i.e. they are clear in their meaning) like for example Allah's statement: { لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ }
{ There is nothing whatever like unto Him }[42:11]
That is why all scholars from the Ahl al-Sunnah agreed that Allah ta'ala is exalted above any likeness or similarity to his creation (and this also clear from a rational point of view).
If we implement this now on the Istiwa` and Nuzul it means that Istiwa` can not mean literal sitting (Julus) or resting (Istiqrar) on the throne nor a transition (Intiqal) from one state to another when it's used regarding Allah ta'ala. Likewise Nuzul can not mean movement (Harakah) from a higher place to a lower place when it's used regarding Allah ta'ala.
After this agreement the scholars had different ways to approach these types of Ayat and Ahadith, with the main two ways being:
- Tafwidh: Which means to believe in these text (without adding something to it nor subtracting from it) and relegating the exact interpretation to Allah ta'ala while being sure that there is nothing unto like Him. This is the way of the majority of the early generations of the Muslims and the safest way.
- Ta `wil: Which is to mention a possible interpretation which is in line with the context and the Arabic language. This is the way of many classical scholars (like Imam al-Harayman al-Juwayni (d. 478 AH) for example).
There is a third approach regarding Ayat were descriptions like Yad or Wajh are mentioned regarding Allah ta'ala:
- Ithbat with Tanzih: That is to accept these descriptions as meanings (Ma'ani) that subsist in the divine essence (i.e. just like one accepts knowledge ('Ilm) or power (Qurdrah) as divine attributes), while being sure that limbs (Jawarih) or parts (Ajza`) are not meant. Imam al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) has mentioned that this was the approach of Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH).
Now the question that remains is: Which approch should we as laymen choose?:
The last two approaches both require Ijtihad, so one should simply adhere to Tafwidh, because that is the safest way. Even the scholars from the other approaches have said that Tafwidh is correct and the safest approach. Wallahu a'lam.
Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says:
{ هُوَ ٱلَّذِيۤ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ ٱلْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ ٱلْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ٱبْتِغَاءَ ٱلْفِتْنَةِ وَٱبْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ ٱللَّهُ وَٱلرَّاسِخُونَ فِي ٱلْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ ٱلأَلْبَابِ }
{ He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed. } [3:7]
Based upon this Ayah the classical scholars said that those verses or narrations which are ambigous in their meaning need to be understood in the context of those verses which are clear (and not the other way around).
In the case of the divine attributes there are Ayat which are from the Muhkamat (i.e. they are clear in their meaning) like for example Allah's statement: { لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ }
{ There is nothing whatever like unto Him }[42:11]
That is why all scholars from the Ahl al-Sunnah agreed that Allah ta'ala is exalted above any likeness or similarity to his creation (and this also clear from a rational point of view).
If we implement this now on the Istiwa` and Nuzul it means that Istiwa` can not mean literal sitting (Julus) or resting (Istiqrar) on the throne nor a transition (Intiqal) from one state to another when it's used regarding Allah ta'ala. Likewise Nuzul can not mean movement (Harakah) from a higher place to a lower place when it's used regarding Allah ta'ala.
After this agreement the scholars had different ways to approach these types of Ayat and Ahadith, with the main two ways being:
- Tafwidh: Which means to believe in these text (without adding something to it nor subtracting from it) and relegating the exact interpretation to Allah ta'ala while being sure that there is nothing unto like Him. This is the way of the majority of the early generations of the Muslims and the safest way.
- Ta `wil: Which is to mention a possible interpretation which is in line with the context and the Arabic language. This is the way of many classical scholars (like Imam al-Harayman al-Juwayni (d. 478 AH) for example).
There is a third approach regarding Ayat were descriptions like Yad or Wajh are mentioned regarding Allah ta'ala:
- Ithbat with Tanzih: That is to accept these descriptions as meanings (Ma'ani) that subsist in the divine essence (i.e. just like one accepts knowledge ('Ilm) or power (Qurdrah) as divine attributes), while being sure that limbs (Jawarih) or parts (Ajza`) are not meant. Imam al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) has mentioned that this was the approach of Imam al-Ash'ari (d. 324 AH).
Now the question that remains is: Which approch should we as laymen choose?:
The last two approaches both require Ijtihad, so one should simply adhere to Tafwidh, because that is the safest way. Even the scholars from the other approaches have said that Tafwidh is correct and the safest approach. Wallahu a'lam.
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Umm Uthmaan said: Jazaak Allahu khayr for taking the time to explain it to me. I hope I've
understood you correctly. So the way you understand 'istawa and nuzul is
through tafwidh. You believe in the ayat but you don't actually believe that
Allah descends to the lowest heaven and that Allah is above the throne? Because
to you, that will mean to compare Allah to His creation? So is Allah fawq
al3arsh according to your beliefs? Sorry I'm just a bit confused
That which
is obligatory regarding these types of Ayat and Ahadith is to have Iman in them
and that's it. Allah ta'ala has not obliged us to know the exact
interpretation. (We should also not forget that it's not possible for us to
understand the reality of Allah's essence and his attributes.)
Now to answer your question: I don't believe that Allah ta'ala literally descends to the lowest heaven. And nowhere in the authentic texts has this been ever mentioned, rather it would go against the Muhakamat to believe this. It's true that Nuzul has been mentioned, but this word has a context. The point of the Hadith is for us to understand that the last third of the night is a special time and that supplications are more likely to be accepted in that time.
Believing that Allah ta'ala literally descends would mean that one believes that Allah ta'ala is spatially confined in a place and that He ta'ala moves from that place to a lower placer and also that He becomes part of the creation (because the lowest heaven is obviously from the creation). Believing this would be wrong by agreement.
As for Allah ta'ala being above the throne: This statement can be meant in a correct way, which is that Allah ta'ala is beyond the creation and completely different from it. As for the wrong meaning: That is to believe that Allah ta'ala is a 3-dimensional object sitting on the throne and being limited by it from below. This would be again wrong by agreement.
I would also recomment you to read the following articles:
- Istawā according to the Salaf and the Khalaf by Imām `Alī al-Qārī (d. 1014 AH)
- What is Meant When We Say Allah is Above What He Created by Imam Ibn Furak al-Shafi'i (d. 406 AH)
Now to answer your question: I don't believe that Allah ta'ala literally descends to the lowest heaven. And nowhere in the authentic texts has this been ever mentioned, rather it would go against the Muhakamat to believe this. It's true that Nuzul has been mentioned, but this word has a context. The point of the Hadith is for us to understand that the last third of the night is a special time and that supplications are more likely to be accepted in that time.
Believing that Allah ta'ala literally descends would mean that one believes that Allah ta'ala is spatially confined in a place and that He ta'ala moves from that place to a lower placer and also that He becomes part of the creation (because the lowest heaven is obviously from the creation). Believing this would be wrong by agreement.
As for Allah ta'ala being above the throne: This statement can be meant in a correct way, which is that Allah ta'ala is beyond the creation and completely different from it. As for the wrong meaning: That is to believe that Allah ta'ala is a 3-dimensional object sitting on the throne and being limited by it from below. This would be again wrong by agreement.
I would also recomment you to read the following articles:
- Istawā according to the Salaf and the Khalaf by Imām `Alī al-Qārī (d. 1014 AH)
- What is Meant When We Say Allah is Above What He Created by Imam Ibn Furak al-Shafi'i (d. 406 AH)
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Umm Uthmaan said: So do you understand it symbolically or?
Sister, I doubt that you yourself believe in a literal descent. Do you
understand what a literal descent is?
Umm Uthmaan said: Some people believe that it is Allahs rahma that descends.
These people were major scholars, who were masters of the Arabic
language and had memorized the Qur`an al-karim and knew thousands of Ahadith
and have made huge contributions to Islamic sciences.
Umm Uthmaan said: Do you agree?
I'm in no position to agree or to disagree. It's a possible
interpretation, but I personally adhere to Tafwidh.
Why don't we look at how classical scholars understood this Hadith?:
Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said the following in the context of the Hadith were Nuzul has been mentioned:
هذا الحديث من أحاديث الصفات ، وفيه مذهبان مشهوران للعلماء سبق إيضاحهما في كتاب الإيمان ومختصرهما أن أحدهما وهو مذهب جمهور السلف وبعض المتكلمين : أنه يؤمن بأنها حق على ما يليق بالله تعالى ، وأن ظاهرها المتعارف في حقنا غير مراد ، ولا يتكلم فيتأويلها مع اعتقاد تنزيه الله تعالى عن صفات المخلوق ، وعن الانتقال والحركات وسائر سمات الخلق .
والثاني : مذهب أكثر المتكلمين وجماعات من السلف وهو محكي هنا عن مالك والأوزاعي : أنها تتأول على ما يليق بها بحسب مواطنها . فعلى هذا تأولوا هذا الحديث تأويلين أحدهما : تأويل مالك بن أنس وغيره معناه : تنزل رحمته وأمره وملائكته كما يقال : فعل السلطانكذا إذا فعله أتباعه بأمره . والثاني : أنه على الاستعارة ، ومعناه : الإقبال على الداعين بالإجابة واللطف .
"This hadith is from the narrations of the Sifat (of Allah), and regarding it there are two well known ways among the scholars, which has been already clarified inKitab al-Iman and the its summary is [as follows]:
The first, and it is the madhhab of the majority of the Salaf and some of the Mutakallimin (scholars of kalam) that it is to believe in their [i.e. the attribute's] reality according to what befits Allāh ta’ala, and that the literal meaning that we commonly apply to ourselves is not what is meant, and that one does not speak regarding its interpretation while holding the belief that Allah ta’alā is free from the attributes of the created, and from translocation, and movement, and the rest of the attributes of created beings.
The second is the madhdhab of the majority of the Mutakallimīn, and a group from amongst the Salaf, and it is what is reported from Mālik and al-Awzā’ī that they are interpreted figuratively but only according to their appropriate contextual meanings. On this basis there are two interpretations (ta’wils). The first is the ta’wil of Imam Mālik ibn Anas and other than he, that its meaning is the descent of His mercy and decree and His angels. [as is said regarding the Sultan …] and the Second interpretation is that it is an Isti’arah (metaphor) to signifiy turning to (iqbal) to those who supplicate to Him with fulfillment by answering [the du’aa] and showing lutf (kindness, generosity) [to those beseeching Him]."
Source: Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Sahih Muslim (and translation taken from HERE; I edited it a little bit)
Why don't we look at how classical scholars understood this Hadith?:
Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said the following in the context of the Hadith were Nuzul has been mentioned:
هذا الحديث من أحاديث الصفات ، وفيه مذهبان مشهوران للعلماء سبق إيضاحهما في كتاب الإيمان ومختصرهما أن أحدهما وهو مذهب جمهور السلف وبعض المتكلمين : أنه يؤمن بأنها حق على ما يليق بالله تعالى ، وأن ظاهرها المتعارف في حقنا غير مراد ، ولا يتكلم فيتأويلها مع اعتقاد تنزيه الله تعالى عن صفات المخلوق ، وعن الانتقال والحركات وسائر سمات الخلق .
والثاني : مذهب أكثر المتكلمين وجماعات من السلف وهو محكي هنا عن مالك والأوزاعي : أنها تتأول على ما يليق بها بحسب مواطنها . فعلى هذا تأولوا هذا الحديث تأويلين أحدهما : تأويل مالك بن أنس وغيره معناه : تنزل رحمته وأمره وملائكته كما يقال : فعل السلطانكذا إذا فعله أتباعه بأمره . والثاني : أنه على الاستعارة ، ومعناه : الإقبال على الداعين بالإجابة واللطف .
"This hadith is from the narrations of the Sifat (of Allah), and regarding it there are two well known ways among the scholars, which has been already clarified inKitab al-Iman and the its summary is [as follows]:
The first, and it is the madhhab of the majority of the Salaf and some of the Mutakallimin (scholars of kalam) that it is to believe in their [i.e. the attribute's] reality according to what befits Allāh ta’ala, and that the literal meaning that we commonly apply to ourselves is not what is meant, and that one does not speak regarding its interpretation while holding the belief that Allah ta’alā is free from the attributes of the created, and from translocation, and movement, and the rest of the attributes of created beings.
The second is the madhdhab of the majority of the Mutakallimīn, and a group from amongst the Salaf, and it is what is reported from Mālik and al-Awzā’ī that they are interpreted figuratively but only according to their appropriate contextual meanings. On this basis there are two interpretations (ta’wils). The first is the ta’wil of Imam Mālik ibn Anas and other than he, that its meaning is the descent of His mercy and decree and His angels. [as is said regarding the Sultan …] and the Second interpretation is that it is an Isti’arah (metaphor) to signifiy turning to (iqbal) to those who supplicate to Him with fulfillment by answering [the du’aa] and showing lutf (kindness, generosity) [to those beseeching Him]."
Source: Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Sahih Muslim (and translation taken from HERE; I edited it a little bit)
Umm Uthmaan said: We believe in what Allah says about Himself. We don't have to logically
understand it.
Did Allah ta'ala say anything about a literal descent?
As for "logically understand it": It's not possible to understand the reality of Allah's essence and attributes, but this does not mean that we start believing irrational things as the Christians or polytheists believe.
As for "logically understand it": It's not possible to understand the reality of Allah's essence and attributes, but this does not mean that we start believing irrational things as the Christians or polytheists believe.
Umm Uthmaan said: Allah says He descends to the lowest heaven. Khalas.
Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - did not speak English, but
rather Arabic. His words had a specific context: Statements have to be
understood in light of the context and in light of the creed that Rasulullah -
'alayhil salatu wal salam - teached us. Why forget all of that?
I mean there is Ayah where Allah ta'ala says: { نَسُواْ ٱللَّهَ فَنَسِيَهُمْ } ({ They forget Allah, so He hath forgotten them. }) [9:67]. Does this now mean that Allah ta'ala literally forgets? Of course not. And the same can be said regarding the Hadith al-Nuzul.
I mean there is Ayah where Allah ta'ala says: { نَسُواْ ٱللَّهَ فَنَسِيَهُمْ } ({ They forget Allah, so He hath forgotten them. }) [9:67]. Does this now mean that Allah ta'ala literally forgets? Of course not. And the same can be said regarding the Hadith al-Nuzul.
Umm Uthmaan said: Allahu A'lam how He descends and Allah does not expect us to
understand it (we can't because laysa kamithlihi shay). We should just accept
it.
Sister, you're just repeating the words of others without understanding
what they intend. Modality does not even apply to Allah ta'ala. What you should
say instead is that we don't know the reality of the divine attributes.
Umm Uthmaan said: No muslim believe in that..
It's true
that no Muslim with correct understanding believes in that.
But there have been groups/sects who have believed such things.
Ibn Karram (d. 255 AH) (the leader of the Karramiyyah) for example believed that God is literally in the above direction. He believed that God is something spread out in the directions and that he has a limit from the side of the throne and no limits from the other sides. Al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) (a Hanbali scholar who had fallen into Tashbih) believed that too. Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) (another Hanbali scholar who also had fallen into Tashbih) went even further and claimed that God has even more limits and argued that nothing could exist (including God!) while subsisting in itself except that it is spatially confined.
If you look into the books that the "Salafis" print you wil find so many false statements in this context, which is why I told you not to repeat their words. I'm quite sure that you're not on their creed.
But there have been groups/sects who have believed such things.
Ibn Karram (d. 255 AH) (the leader of the Karramiyyah) for example believed that God is literally in the above direction. He believed that God is something spread out in the directions and that he has a limit from the side of the throne and no limits from the other sides. Al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) (a Hanbali scholar who had fallen into Tashbih) believed that too. Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) (another Hanbali scholar who also had fallen into Tashbih) went even further and claimed that God has even more limits and argued that nothing could exist (including God!) while subsisting in itself except that it is spatially confined.
If you look into the books that the "Salafis" print you wil find so many false statements in this context, which is why I told you not to repeat their words. I'm quite sure that you're not on their creed.
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Abu 'Abdullaah said: Last time I
engaged, the answer was that 'I don't get it'. Internet Asharis seem to be
little more than copy/paste bots - whilst not doing taqleed of course - LOL!
It doesn't
seem that you're interested in a fruitful discussion, which is why you're
getting no answers. Don't expect that people will respond to you while you're
displaying this childish behaviour and are only interested in making fun of
others.
--
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Abu 'Abdullaah said: On the
contrary, it is you who is not interested in a discussion.
Well, I
specifically spoke about a fruitful discussion and not the
type of "discussion" (making fun of each other like little children!)
that you and some others here are interested in.
We both know that you expect me to answer your questions, while you won't answer if I were to ask you (or did you forget my question in the beginning, which not a sinlge one of those who claim to know the meaning of the Mutashabihat could answer?).
We both know that you expect me to answer your questions, while you won't answer if I were to ask you (or did you forget my question in the beginning, which not a sinlge one of those who claim to know the meaning of the Mutashabihat could answer?).
Abu 'Abdullaah said: The
question: What does love mean when you say Allah loves?
If Allah
ta'ala loves something it means he's pleased with it and this goes back to the
attribute of Iradah (will). (In this case: Allah's will to reward those who do
a specific action or are in a specific way).
If you believe that it's some sort of emotional change that happens to the divine essence caused by a creation, then this is wrong and the reason for this has been already mentioned in one of the posts,
If you believe that it's some sort of emotional change that happens to the divine essence caused by a creation, then this is wrong and the reason for this has been already mentioned in one of the posts,
--
