Brother Abu Sulayman’s discussion with Wahhabiyyah on “Ummah.com”
Forum
Thread title: New Book Release: Ahl Al-Sunna : The Ash'aris
Wahhabi sapling Linkdeutscher said:
Oh really!? Who said alif lam meem?
--
aMuslimForLife reply:
In the Quran
Allah says, Alif Lam Meem.
The Quran is the Speech of Allah.
If you are asking how Allah speaks, I don't know how Allah speaks.
Imam Tahawi said, "The Quran is the Speech of Allah that emanated from Him without modality in its expression." (Aqida Tahawi)
With regards to this debate between the scholars concerning Allah's Speech, it is best to follow the way of the Salaf
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said concerning the Speech of Allah, "And resulting from the extreme confusion that happen in the issue (the debate concerning Allah's Speech), the Salaf's prohibition against indulging in it happened much. And they found it sufficient to believe that the Quran is Allah's Speech uncreated (Al Quran kalam Allah ghayru mkhluq). And they didn't add anything to that. It is the safest of all views. And Allah is the One sought for aid." (Fath AL bari)
The debate between the Asharis and some of the Hanbalis on the Speech of Allah And how we should approach it.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Alawi al Maliki al Hasani said, "An example (of facts that are lost in research) is that which takes place among the scholars in their research concerning the reality of Allah's Speech and the major difference that revolves around this. Some say that the Speech of Allah is inner speech (kalam nafsi), and some say that His Speech is with both letter and sound. I am of the belief that both of these groups seek the reality of Divine transcendence for Allah and that both are far from idolatry in al of its forms. the issue of Speech is real and affirmed and there is no room to deny it, for denial of this contradicts Divine Perfection - this is from one angel. From another angle, Belief in His Attributes and affirmation of that which appears in the Quran is obligatory, for no one knows Allah but Allah. The view that I hold and call to is that of affirming (the Speech of Allah) without going into details of the "howness" and quiddity. So we affirm speech for Allah and say that this is speech of Allah and that He speaks Beyond that, we give no glance the falsehood of it being inner speech or not, or whether it is with sounds or letters or not. All of this is extremism that was not articulated by the one who brought tawhid the chosen one , so why should we make this addition to what he came with? Is this not the ugliest of innovations. Glory be to You (Allah), this is but a manifest slander! Indeed, the Shall speak to us on that day that we shall gather with him in front of Allah. We are calling for our discussions to always be about this reality and its likes, being far removed from delving into its quiddity, image and appearance." (Notions that must be corrected)
The Quran is the Speech of Allah.
If you are asking how Allah speaks, I don't know how Allah speaks.
Imam Tahawi said, "The Quran is the Speech of Allah that emanated from Him without modality in its expression." (Aqida Tahawi)
With regards to this debate between the scholars concerning Allah's Speech, it is best to follow the way of the Salaf
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said concerning the Speech of Allah, "And resulting from the extreme confusion that happen in the issue (the debate concerning Allah's Speech), the Salaf's prohibition against indulging in it happened much. And they found it sufficient to believe that the Quran is Allah's Speech uncreated (Al Quran kalam Allah ghayru mkhluq). And they didn't add anything to that. It is the safest of all views. And Allah is the One sought for aid." (Fath AL bari)
The debate between the Asharis and some of the Hanbalis on the Speech of Allah And how we should approach it.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Alawi al Maliki al Hasani said, "An example (of facts that are lost in research) is that which takes place among the scholars in their research concerning the reality of Allah's Speech and the major difference that revolves around this. Some say that the Speech of Allah is inner speech (kalam nafsi), and some say that His Speech is with both letter and sound. I am of the belief that both of these groups seek the reality of Divine transcendence for Allah and that both are far from idolatry in al of its forms. the issue of Speech is real and affirmed and there is no room to deny it, for denial of this contradicts Divine Perfection - this is from one angel. From another angle, Belief in His Attributes and affirmation of that which appears in the Quran is obligatory, for no one knows Allah but Allah. The view that I hold and call to is that of affirming (the Speech of Allah) without going into details of the "howness" and quiddity. So we affirm speech for Allah and say that this is speech of Allah and that He speaks Beyond that, we give no glance the falsehood of it being inner speech or not, or whether it is with sounds or letters or not. All of this is extremism that was not articulated by the one who brought tawhid the chosen one , so why should we make this addition to what he came with? Is this not the ugliest of innovations. Glory be to You (Allah), this is but a manifest slander! Indeed, the Shall speak to us on that day that we shall gather with him in front of Allah. We are calling for our discussions to always be about this reality and its likes, being far removed from delving into its quiddity, image and appearance." (Notions that must be corrected)
--
Abu Sulayman said: Here
Salamun 'alaykum,
that a book is needed in order to show that the Asha'irah are from the Ahl al-Sunnah just shows in what a weird time we're living in. I mean so many of the A`immah of Islam were Ash'aris: Imam Al-Bayhaqi, Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni, Imam al-Ghazali, al-Qadhi 'Iyadh, al-Qadhi Abu Bakr bin Al-'Arabi, Imam al-Nawawi, Sultan al-'Ulama` al-'Izz bin 'Abd al-Salam, etc.
The contribution of the Asha'irah regarding every Islamic science is very very huge and the best books regarding these sciences are usually written by Ash'ari scholars. And then we find ignorant people in our time who attack the Asha'irah!?!
that a book is needed in order to show that the Asha'irah are from the Ahl al-Sunnah just shows in what a weird time we're living in. I mean so many of the A`immah of Islam were Ash'aris: Imam Al-Bayhaqi, Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni, Imam al-Ghazali, al-Qadhi 'Iyadh, al-Qadhi Abu Bakr bin Al-'Arabi, Imam al-Nawawi, Sultan al-'Ulama` al-'Izz bin 'Abd al-Salam, etc.
The contribution of the Asha'irah regarding every Islamic science is very very huge and the best books regarding these sciences are usually written by Ash'ari scholars. And then we find ignorant people in our time who attack the Asha'irah!?!
Abu Sulayman reply:
Wahhabi tayyiboon said:
even then it wont make asharis the only one who are ahlu sunnah!!
And when have the Asha'irah ever claimed that they're only
Sunnis upon this earth?
The Maturidis and the Fudhala` among the Hanabilah are also from the Ahl al-Sunnah.
But let one thing be very clear: The people who are printing books which are full of Tashbih (go read al-Naqdh 'ala Bishr al-Marisi, Ibtal al-Ta`wilat, Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah, etc.) are not from the Ahl al-Sunnah in any way or form even if they claim thousand times otherwise.
The Maturidis and the Fudhala` among the Hanabilah are also from the Ahl al-Sunnah.
But let one thing be very clear: The people who are printing books which are full of Tashbih (go read al-Naqdh 'ala Bishr al-Marisi, Ibtal al-Ta`wilat, Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah, etc.) are not from the Ahl al-Sunnah in any way or form even if they claim thousand times otherwise.
And this fact does not
change no matter how much money and power they have and no matter how much they
lie and betray in order to spread their false ideas and no matter how many
ignorant and gullible people start following them.
--
Abu
Sulayman reply:
Wahhabi ZeeshanParvez said:
Now Ibn Taymiyyah says that those words annexed to
Allah which have in them both attribute and action [الصفات الفعلية] are understood by the Salaf as
a third type of category which is neither a part of those creations which are
separate from Him [like House or Messenger in the above] nor are they like
those attributes which are necessary eternal attributes not associated with His
Will [i.e. His Knowledge, Ability, etc].
Ibn Tamiyyah (d. 728 AH) was a very controversial scholar, so I
don't get it why he is mentioned so often during these types of discussions?
ZeeshanParvez said:
He speaks when He Wills and He becomes quiet when He Wills and He does
not cease to speak in the meaning that He does not cease to speak when He Wills
and He becomes quiet when He Wills.
He becomes quiet? Ya Subhanallah! Did Allah ta'ala
say that or are you blindly repeating what Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers
claimed?
ZeeshanParvez said:
And to truly appreciate what is going on between them
consider the example of the creation of the Heavens and the Earth or any other
created thing for that matter. We know that these things were not created
forever. There was a time when they did not exist.
I hope you know that according to Ibn Taymiyyah there is no first
creation (he claimed this even though there are clear cut texts
which show otherwise) and that the world (i.e. everything other than Allah
ta'ala) is eternal in it's kind according to him. (This is a modified version
of the belief of the Falasifah that the world is eternal. Believing that the world is
eternal is disbelief by agreement!)
ZeeshanParvez said:
There was a time when nothing existed.
It's corret that the world came into being after it was not
existent. But when nothing existed [other than Allah ta'ala] there was also
no time, because time [and place] only started to exist after the world was
created. If one wants to be even more accurate one should also mention that
time [and place too] is not even a real existent thing, but rather an
i'tibari matter (mental construct) and that both time and place do not apply to
Allah ta'ala.
ZeeshanParvez said:
There was a time when nothing existed. So, when Allah
created, a Sifah came to be which was not because the Heavens were not there
before and this means that we have حلول الحوادث which basically means
something coming into being after not being. This would mean Allah has become a
place where that which does not exist comes to be.
Not a good explanation.
Hulul al-Hawadith [fil Dhat al-Ilahiyyah] is the belief that the essence of Allah ta'ala is subject to changes and transitions from one state into another. This is a wrong belief [by agreement of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah] and one can rationally show that whatever changes from one state into another must have beginning and is therefore created.
Our Master Ibrahim - 'alayhis salam - used the change of the sun [and the moon and the stars] from one state into another as a proof for its createdness. This story is in the Qur`an (read also what the scholars of Tafsir said regarding it).
Allah ta'ala is eternal and is not subject to changes.
Hulul al-Hawadith [fil Dhat al-Ilahiyyah] is the belief that the essence of Allah ta'ala is subject to changes and transitions from one state into another. This is a wrong belief [by agreement of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah] and one can rationally show that whatever changes from one state into another must have beginning and is therefore created.
Our Master Ibrahim - 'alayhis salam - used the change of the sun [and the moon and the stars] from one state into another as a proof for its createdness. This story is in the Qur`an (read also what the scholars of Tafsir said regarding it).
Allah ta'ala is eternal and is not subject to changes.
ZeeshanParvez said:
To avoid this they deny الصفات الاختيارية because accepting
them would mean that a Sifah is coming to be which never was.
Brother, do you even know what Ibn Taymiyyah intended when
he talked about the so called Sifat al-Ikhtiyariyyah? What he intended
is that Allah ta'ala changes Himself by His Will. In a book
which he regarded as one of the best books ever written (and it's filled
with clear Tashbih!) it is even claimed that Allah ta'ala moves, sits and
stands up!
Is it allowed to believe such things as a Muslim?
Is it allowed to believe such things as a Muslim?
--
Abu Sulayman reply:
Wahhabi quark said:
So what's the meaning of this hadith?
How can there be fifty thousand years before time even existed?
How can there be fifty thousand years before time even existed?
If you were able to understand that the throne and the
water have also been created and that Allah ta'ala ordained all things in
eternity in reality, why and how did you reach to the conclusion that time
existed before the creation of anything?
This is what Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said regarding the narration:
قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( كتب الله مقادير الخلائق قبل أن يخلق السماوات والأرض بخمسين ألف سنة وعرشه على الماء ) قال العلماء : المراد تحديد وقت الكتابة في اللوح المحفوظ أو غيره ، لا أصل التقدير ، فإن ذلك أزلي لا أول له وقوله : ( وعرشه على الماء ) أي قبل خلق السماوات والأرض . والله أعلم
Source: Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Sahih Muslim
This is what Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said regarding the narration:
قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( كتب الله مقادير الخلائق قبل أن يخلق السماوات والأرض بخمسين ألف سنة وعرشه على الماء ) قال العلماء : المراد تحديد وقت الكتابة في اللوح المحفوظ أو غيره ، لا أصل التقدير ، فإن ذلك أزلي لا أول له وقوله : ( وعرشه على الماء ) أي قبل خلق السماوات والأرض . والله أعلم
Source: Sharh al-Nawawi 'ala Sahih Muslim
--
Originally Posted by quark
You said world. What's that if not the heavens and the
earth?
In Arabic the 'Ulama` would simply say 'Alam (world) while intending
everthing other than Allah ta'ala. So "world" in their usage (and
also how I intended it here) includes the Qalam, the throne and the water,
which are these things that have been created BEFORE the heavens and the earth.
--
Abu Sulayman reply: Here
ZeeshanParvez said:
هذا اللفظ من إطلاقات أهل الكلام، وإليك بعض التفصيل في معناه، ومقصود أهل الكلام منه، والرد على ذلك.
هذا اللفظ من إطلاقات أهل الكلام، وإليك بعض التفصيل في معناه، ومقصود أهل الكلام منه، والرد على ذلك.
If you really want to know what the "evil"
[Ash'ari] Mutakallimun said regarding a specific issue of belief, you should
simply go and read what they said and NOT simply trust random
"Salafi" books.
And likewise if you want to know Ibn Taymiyyah's (d. 728 AH) stance regarding a specific issue, then go and read what he said.
FYI: "Salafi" Mashayikh are not good at explaining things and they love to confuse their readers, so that their readers will not understand what the real point of dispute is.
And likewise if you want to know Ibn Taymiyyah's (d. 728 AH) stance regarding a specific issue, then go and read what he said.
FYI: "Salafi" Mashayikh are not good at explaining things and they love to confuse their readers, so that their readers will not understand what the real point of dispute is.
ZeeshanParvez said:
ومسألة الصفات الاختيارية، أو الفعلية، هي
التي يسميها المعتزلة والأشاعرة مسألة حلول الحوادث (1) ، وأهم ما يميزها بالنسبة
للمذهب الأشعري إجماع متقدمي الأشاعرة ومتأخريهم عليها، لأنها كانت الأساس الذي
قام عليه المذهب الكلابي، ثم الأشعري. وهذا بخلاف
الصفات الخبرية، أو العلو، فإن الخلاف فيها قائم بين المتقدمين والمتأخرين.
In order to be able to make such claims one would need to know the
Madhhab of the Mutaqaddimin and the Muta`akhirin of the Asha'irah and this is
something that the "Salafis" have no knowledge of.
If they really think that the Madhhab of the Mutaqaddimin regarding that which they call as Sifat Khabariyyah and regarding the issue of 'Uluw is the same as theirs then this just shows their compound ignorance.
If they really think that the Madhhab of the Mutaqaddimin regarding that which they call as Sifat Khabariyyah and regarding the issue of 'Uluw is the same as theirs then this just shows their compound ignorance.
ZeeshanParvez said:
والصفات الاختيارية هي – كما يقول شيخ الإسلام
– "الأمور التي يتصف بها الرب عز وجل، فتقوم بذاته بمشيئته وقدرته، مثل
كلامه، وسمعه, وبصره، وإرادته، ومحبته، ورضاه، ورحمته، وغضبه، وسخطه، ومثل خلقه،
وإحسانه، وعدلة، ومثل استوائه، ومجيئه، وإتيانه، ونزوله، ونحو ذلك من الصفات التي
نطق بها الكتاب العزيز والسنة"
The issue is not about weather Allah ta'ala can be described with
Rahmah, Ghadhab, Ridhah, etc., but rather that Ibn Taymiyyah believed that divine
essence is subject to changes.
Do you understand what that means?
I've already mentioned that in one of his favorite books it is even claimed that Allah ta'ala moves. Movement (Harakah) and stillness (Sukun) are from the attributes of bodies (Ajsam). What is ruling regarding the one who describes Allah ta'ala in such a way?
--
Abu Sulayman reply:
ZeeshanParvez said:
I was, believe it or not. It was a book written by al-Juwayni, I
believe, and the way he delved into the nature of Allah, was rather disturbing.
I think he was rebutting the Mu'tazilla in the book.
Go and read al-Naqdh 'ala
Bishr al-Marisi (Ibn
Taymiyyah's and Ibn Qayyim's favorite book) and then you'll see what disturbing
is.
ZeeshanParvez said:
See when you use the rationale of Ajsaam to negate Sukun and Harakah
then you have the onlooker like me wondering if the Salafis aren't lying after
all because they say that this is the very logic based upon which the Ash'aris
have rejected certain Sifah of Allah and then say that this was borrowed from
the philosophers.
First of all: Just because "Salafis"
call something as a Sifah it does not mean that it's a divine attribute in
reality. You'll find among them even people who claim that boredom
(Malal) is divine attribute.
And even if something is a divine attribute, then it does not mean that one needs to [mis]understand it like the "Salafis" do.
Then: Being rational and logical in one's thinking is nothing bad. The foundation of Islam is rational unlike other religions and convictions (read this:
And even if something is a divine attribute, then it does not mean that one needs to [mis]understand it like the "Salafis" do.
Then: Being rational and logical in one's thinking is nothing bad. The foundation of Islam is rational unlike other religions and convictions (read this:
If
something is rationally decisive, then rejecting it would mean to reject the
true religion, because the correctness of the religion is shown through reason.
From a rational point of view it can be shown that whatever is subject to changes must have a beginning. Imagine that something moves for certain amount of time and then stops moving for a certain amount of time and then this cycle repeats itself over and over again. This means that this thing goes through moments. Is it possible for such a thing to be eternal? No, because in order to reach this very moment it would need to have passed through a infinte amount of moments/cycles and an infinite amount of moments would not come to an end, which would make it impossible to reach this moment. (That's why the Ahl al-Sunnah say that time does not apply to Allah ta'ala.)
As for "borrowed from the philosophers": The Asha'irah and the Falasifah were enemies (this is historical fact!) and disagreed on major issues.
From a rational point of view it can be shown that whatever is subject to changes must have a beginning. Imagine that something moves for certain amount of time and then stops moving for a certain amount of time and then this cycle repeats itself over and over again. This means that this thing goes through moments. Is it possible for such a thing to be eternal? No, because in order to reach this very moment it would need to have passed through a infinte amount of moments/cycles and an infinite amount of moments would not come to an end, which would make it impossible to reach this moment. (That's why the Ahl al-Sunnah say that time does not apply to Allah ta'ala.)
As for "borrowed from the philosophers": The Asha'irah and the Falasifah were enemies (this is historical fact!) and disagreed on major issues.
One of the best refutations against the Falasifah (i.e. Tahafut al-Falasifah) was
written by a Ash'ari scholar (i.e. Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH), while Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728
AH), who loved to put the Mutakallimun from the Ahl al-Sunnah together with the
Falasifah, ended up agreeing with the Falasifah on major points
(like accepting a modified version of the claim of the Falasifah that the
universe is eternal, which is disbelief by agreement!).
And: Just because the Falasifah tried to use logical and rational arguments, this does not mean that rational arguments are in itself wrong. These types of Mughalatat are really getting on my nerves.
And: Just because the Falasifah tried to use logical and rational arguments, this does not mean that rational arguments are in itself wrong. These types of Mughalatat are really getting on my nerves.
--
Abu Sulayman reply:Here
ZeeshanParvez said:
And after having read both sides [and
without getting into what I personally believe] the whole problem with the
Ash'ari perspective is that is that similitude right there in bold.
No offence bro, but judging from your posts you seem to be
heavily influenced by what the "Salafis"
say regarding Ash'aris and you still do not fully know what the Madhhab of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) really is. I'm quite
sure that there are statements which he made, which you would defintely not
agree with (or at least I hope so). (FYI: According to his understanding
believing that Allah ta'ala is a body is not a problem at all, but rather
correct; he's just against using the expression "Jism"
in negative and positive way.)
ZeeshanParvez said:
The Ash'aris observe the creation and then draw
logical conclusions that this cannot be with Allah or else it is Tajseem.
A simple
question: Is Allah ta'ala
similar to the creation?
According to the Qur`an al-karim the answer is definetly no. The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah regard the Ayat concerning this issue from the Muhkamat and understand all mutashabih Ayat in their context (while "Salafis" do the exact opposite).
If this becomes known, then we can also say: Allah ta'ala is not described with meanings that apply to humans [or the creation in general].
According to the Qur`an al-karim the answer is definetly no. The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah regard the Ayat concerning this issue from the Muhkamat and understand all mutashabih Ayat in their context (while "Salafis" do the exact opposite).
If this becomes known, then we can also say: Allah ta'ala is not described with meanings that apply to humans [or the creation in general].
Imam al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH) said in his famous text regarding 'Aqidah that anyone who describes Allah ta'ala with a meaning from among the meanings that apply to humans [and the rest of creation] has disbelieved ("ومن وصف الله بمعنى من معاني البشر فقد كفر ، فمن أبصر هذا اعتبر ، وعن مثل قول الكفار انزجر ، وعلم أنه بصفاته ليس كالبشر"; Source: al-'Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah.)
If all the above is known, then why is it wrong for the Asha'irah (and the Ahl al-Sunnah in general) to say that the meanings that apply to the creation do not apply to Allah ta'ala?
ZeeshanParvez
said:
Anything
which has a Jism moves in this world. The Ash'aris take this concept and
say if we say Allah moves than that means He has a Jism. Since when was that
applicable? Allah isn't like anything.
If you know that
Allah isn't like anything, you shouldn't have described Him subhanahu wa ta'ala
with movement in the first place!
Movement does necessitate Huduth and Tajsim no matter whether you acknowledge this or not.
And FYI: If you don't believe in this Lazim based upon "Lazim al-Madhhab laysa bi Madhab", then let it be known to you that Ibn Taymiyyah would agree that it nessitates Tajsim (but he obviously would disagree regarding Huduth). But according to Ibn Taymiyyah Tajsim is no problem, infact he argues that that everything that subsists in itself - no matter whether it's wajib (i.e. the Creator) or mumkin (i.e. the creaiton) in its existance - must necessarily be described with the meaning that we intend by the word Jism (body = 3-dimensional object). According to him it's NECASSARY for Allah's existance that He's spatially confined (mutahayyiz) and he also argues that one is able to physically point (Isharah hissiyyah) at the right [side] of God separately from the left just like one is able to point at the northern side of the sun separately from the southern side (this is clear-cut Tajsim and does not need any further discussion!). You can find all of these [and more] in his Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah.
Movement does necessitate Huduth and Tajsim no matter whether you acknowledge this or not.
And FYI: If you don't believe in this Lazim based upon "Lazim al-Madhhab laysa bi Madhab", then let it be known to you that Ibn Taymiyyah would agree that it nessitates Tajsim (but he obviously would disagree regarding Huduth). But according to Ibn Taymiyyah Tajsim is no problem, infact he argues that that everything that subsists in itself - no matter whether it's wajib (i.e. the Creator) or mumkin (i.e. the creaiton) in its existance - must necessarily be described with the meaning that we intend by the word Jism (body = 3-dimensional object). According to him it's NECASSARY for Allah's existance that He's spatially confined (mutahayyiz) and he also argues that one is able to physically point (Isharah hissiyyah) at the right [side] of God separately from the left just like one is able to point at the northern side of the sun separately from the southern side (this is clear-cut Tajsim and does not need any further discussion!). You can find all of these [and more] in his Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah.
ZeeshanParvez said:
If we
accept that He said that He moves from one place to another why does the
concept of a Jism hold for Him? Just because we see that in this world if
something moves it has a Jism?
Who gave you the
right to claim that Allah ta'ala moves from one place to another, while Allah
ta'ala did not say that, rather He revealed in his noble book that there is
nothing like unto Him.
Allah ta'ala is High Exalted above being contained by a place or being described with movement or with any other meaning from among the meaning that applies to the creation.
Allah ta'ala is High Exalted above being contained by a place or being described with movement or with any other meaning from among the meaning that applies to the creation.
ZeeshanParvez
said:
And the
whole issue is that the movement of the Ash'aris started off from debates with
the Mu'tazilla. To combat their 'logical' arguments, the Imaams of the Ash'aris
had to come up with logical answers. A Being who creates that which has no
model or form, gives life to the dead, makes Jesus (peace be upon him) enter
this world without a father, etc., you want to say that if one attributes
anything to Him which would result in a Jism if we were to attribute that same
thing to something in this world makes no sense at all.
Based on this logic, I guess you would agree that since 1+1 = 2, Allah cannot make it equal 3 or 4 if He Wills? He is bound, right?
Based on this logic, I guess you would agree that since 1+1 = 2, Allah cannot make it equal 3 or 4 if He Wills? He is bound, right?
Let me tell you
one thing: If you want to
reject things that are rationally decisive (and in some cases even
self-evident), then you're opening for yourself a very dangerous door. Through
opening this door all types of Kufriyyat and Shirkiyyat (like for example
believing that Allah ta'ala has a son, or believing in the existance of many
Gods or even the rejection of God's existance altogether) can be justified.
If you reject the God-given reason, then based upon what exactly do you know that the mountains are created? And from where do you know that the sun, the moon and the stars are created?
If you reject the God-given reason, then based upon what exactly do you know that the mountains are created? And from where do you know that the sun, the moon and the stars are created?
If you say that the mountains, the sun, the moon and the stars have a form/shape, a mass/weight, limits and change their state and that all of this makes it necessary that someone has given them these specifications and therefore they must be created (and this is true without any doubt), then let it be known to you that the "Salafis" print books where Allah ta'ala is described with all of these attributes. What is other than Tashbih and opening the door to atheism, disbelief and apostasy? We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being.
--
Abu Sulayman said:
A simple question: Is Allah ta'ala similar to the
creation?
According to the Qur`an al-karim the answer is definetly no. The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah regard the Ayat concerning this issue from the Muhkamat and understand all mutashabih Ayat in their context (while "Salafis" do the exact opposite).
If this becomes known, then we can also say: Allah ta'ala is not described with meanings that apply to humans [or the creation in general].
Imam al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH) said in his famous text regarding 'Aqidah that anyone who describes Allah ta'ala with a meaning from among the meanings that apply to humans [and the rest of creation] has disbelieved ("ومن وصف الله بمعنى من معاني البشر فقد كفر ، فمن أبصر هذا اعتبر ، وعن مثل قول الكفار انزجر ، وعلم أنه بصفاته ليس كالبشر"; Source: al-'Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah.)
If all the above is known, then why is it wrong for the Asha'irah (and the Ahl al-Sunnah in general) to say that the meanings that apply to the creation do not apply to Allah ta'ala?
According to the Qur`an al-karim the answer is definetly no. The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah regard the Ayat concerning this issue from the Muhkamat and understand all mutashabih Ayat in their context (while "Salafis" do the exact opposite).
If this becomes known, then we can also say: Allah ta'ala is not described with meanings that apply to humans [or the creation in general].
Imam al-Tahawi (d. 321 AH) said in his famous text regarding 'Aqidah that anyone who describes Allah ta'ala with a meaning from among the meanings that apply to humans [and the rest of creation] has disbelieved ("ومن وصف الله بمعنى من معاني البشر فقد كفر ، فمن أبصر هذا اعتبر ، وعن مثل قول الكفار انزجر ، وعلم أنه بصفاته ليس كالبشر"; Source: al-'Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah.)
If all the above is known, then why is it wrong for the Asha'irah (and the Ahl al-Sunnah in general) to say that the meanings that apply to the creation do not apply to Allah ta'ala?
Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH) said:
ثُمَّ يَعْلَمُ أَنَّ صَانِعَ الْعَالَمِ لَا يُشْبِهُ شَيْئًا مِنَ الْعَالَمِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَوْ أَشْبَهَ شيْئًا مِنَ الْمُحْدَثَاتِ بِجِهَةٍ مِنَ الْجِهَاتِ لَأَشْبَهَهُ فِي الْحُدُوثِ مِنْ تِلْكَ الْجِهَةِ، وَمُحَالٌ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْقَدِيمُ مُحْدَثًا، أَوْ يَكُونَ قَدِيمًا مِنْ جِهَةٍ حَدِيثًا مِنْ جِهَةٍ؛ وَلِأَنَّهُ يَسْتَحِيلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْفَاعِلُ يَفْعَلُ مِثْلَهُ، كَالشَّاتِمِ لَا يَكُونُ شَتْمًا وَقَدْ فَعَلَ الشَّتْمَ، وَالْكَاذِبُ لَا يَكُونُ كَذِبًا وَقَدْ فَعَلَ الْكَذِبَ؛ وَلِأَنَّهُ يَسْتَحِيلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ شَيْئَانِ مِثْلَيْنِ يَفْعَلُ أَحَدُهُمَا صَاحِبَهُ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ أَحَدُ الْمِثْلَيْنِ بِأَنْ يَفْعَلَ صَاحِبَهُ أَوْلَى مِنَ الْآخَرِ، وَإِذَا كَانَ كَذَلِكَ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِأَحَدِهِمَا عَلَى الْآخَرِ مَزِيَّةٌ يَسْتَحِقُّ لِأَجْلِهَا أَنْ يَكُونَ مُحْدِثًا لَهُ؛ لِأَنَّ هَذَا حُكْمُ الْمِثْلَيْنِ فِيمَا تَمَاثَلَا فِيهِ، وَإِذَا كَانَ كَذَلِكَ اسْتَحَالَ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْبَارِي سُبْحَانَهُ مُشْبِهًا لِلْأَشْيَاءِ، فهُوَ كَمَا وَصَفَ نفْسَهُ {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ} [الشورى: 11] ، وَقَالَ: {قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ، اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ} [الإخلاص: 1]حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ، أنا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ الْحَافِظُ، وَأَبُو جَعْفَرٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ صَالِحِ بْنِ هَانِئٍ، قَالَا: ثنا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ الْفَضْلِ، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سَابِقٍ، ثنا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ الرَّازِيُّ، عَنِ الرَّبِيعِ بْنِ أَنَسٍ، عَنْ أَبِي الْعَالِيَةِ، عَنْ أُبَيِّ بْنِ كَعْبٍ، أَنَّ الْمُشْرِكِينَ، قَالُوا: يَا مُحَمَّدُ، انْسُبْ لَنَا رَبَّكَ، فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى {قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ} [الإخلاص: 2] ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ شَيْءٌ يُولَدُ إِلَّا سَيَمُوتُ، وَلَيْسَ شَيْءٌ يَمُوتُ إِلَا سَيُوَرَّثُ، وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ لَا يَمُوتُ وَلَا يُوَرَّثُ، {وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ} [الإخلاص: 4] ، لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ شَبِيهٌ وَلَا عِدْلٌ {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ} [الشورى: 11]
أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو زَكَرِيَّا يَحْيَى بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، أنا أَبُو الْحَسَنِ الطَّرَائِفِيُّ، ثنا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، ثنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ صَالِحٍ، عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ صَالِحٍ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَلْحَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، فِي قَوْلِهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ: {وَلِلَّهِ الْمَثَلُ الْأَعْلَى} [النحل: 60] ، قَالَ: يَقُولُ: لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ، وَفِي قَوْلِهِ: {هَلْ تَعْلَمُ لَهُ سَمِيًّا} [مريم: 65] ، يَقُولُ: هَلْ تَعْلَمُ لِلرَّبِّ مَثَلًا أَوْ شَبِيهًا؟
"Moreover, it is known that the Creator of creation does not resemble anything of the creation, because if He resembled any originated thing in any way, He would resemble it in origination from that aspect, and it is impossible for the beginningless to be temporal, or beginningless from one angle and temporal from another; and because it is impossible for a Doer to do the like of Himself, like an abuser is not abuse although he carried out abuse and a liar will not be a lie when he carried out a lie; and because it is impossible that two things being the same, one of them performs its counterpart, because one of two equals is not more likely than the other to have performed its counterpart, and when it is so, neither of them has a distinction over the other by which it is entitled to be the originator of it since that is the law of two equal entities in that which they are equal. When it is so, it is impossible for the Maker (Glorious is He) to be similar to things. Thus, He is as He described Himself: “Naught is as His likeness; and He is the Hearer, the Seer.” (42:11) and He said: “Say: He is Allah, the One, Allah, the Independent. He begets not nor was He begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.” (112:1-4)
Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Hāfiz: Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muhammad ibn Ya‘qūb al-Hāfiz and Abū Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Sālih ibn Hāni’ said: al-Husayn ibn al-Fadl narrated to us: Muhammad ibn Sābiq narrated to us: Abū Jafar al-Rāzī narrated to us from al-Rabī ibn Anas from Abu l-‘Āliyah from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b that the idolaters said: “O Muhammad! Tell us the lineage of your Lord.” Thus, Allāh (Blessed and Exalted is He) said: “Say: He is Allah, the One, Allah, the Independent!” (16:60). [Ubayy said:] “Because nothing is born except it will die, and nothing dies except it will be inherited, and indeed Allāh (Glorious and Exalted is He) will not die nor will He be inherited”. “And there is none comparable unto Him”: “He has no likeness or equal, ‘Naught is as His likeness’”[6]
Abū Zakariyyā Yahyā ibn Ibrāhīm reported to us: Abu l-Hasan al-Tarā‘ifī reported to us: ‘Uthmān ibn Sa‘īd narrated to us: ‘Abd Allāh ibn Sālih narrated to us from Mu‘āwiyah ibn Sālih from ‘Alī ibn Abī Talhah from Ibn ‘Abbas about His (Great and Glorious is He) saying: “Allāh’s is the highest similitude” (16:65), he said: “Nothing is as His likeness,” and about His saying, “Do you know of one that can be named along with Him?” (19:65), he said: “Do you know of an equal or likeness of the Lord?”"
Source: al-I'tiqad wal Hidayah ila Sabil al-Rashad (translation taken from here: Imām al-Bayhaqī on Evidence for the Existence of the Creator)
ثُمَّ يَعْلَمُ أَنَّ صَانِعَ الْعَالَمِ لَا يُشْبِهُ شَيْئًا مِنَ الْعَالَمِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَوْ أَشْبَهَ شيْئًا مِنَ الْمُحْدَثَاتِ بِجِهَةٍ مِنَ الْجِهَاتِ لَأَشْبَهَهُ فِي الْحُدُوثِ مِنْ تِلْكَ الْجِهَةِ، وَمُحَالٌ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْقَدِيمُ مُحْدَثًا، أَوْ يَكُونَ قَدِيمًا مِنْ جِهَةٍ حَدِيثًا مِنْ جِهَةٍ؛ وَلِأَنَّهُ يَسْتَحِيلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْفَاعِلُ يَفْعَلُ مِثْلَهُ، كَالشَّاتِمِ لَا يَكُونُ شَتْمًا وَقَدْ فَعَلَ الشَّتْمَ، وَالْكَاذِبُ لَا يَكُونُ كَذِبًا وَقَدْ فَعَلَ الْكَذِبَ؛ وَلِأَنَّهُ يَسْتَحِيلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ شَيْئَانِ مِثْلَيْنِ يَفْعَلُ أَحَدُهُمَا صَاحِبَهُ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ أَحَدُ الْمِثْلَيْنِ بِأَنْ يَفْعَلَ صَاحِبَهُ أَوْلَى مِنَ الْآخَرِ، وَإِذَا كَانَ كَذَلِكَ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِأَحَدِهِمَا عَلَى الْآخَرِ مَزِيَّةٌ يَسْتَحِقُّ لِأَجْلِهَا أَنْ يَكُونَ مُحْدِثًا لَهُ؛ لِأَنَّ هَذَا حُكْمُ الْمِثْلَيْنِ فِيمَا تَمَاثَلَا فِيهِ، وَإِذَا كَانَ كَذَلِكَ اسْتَحَالَ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْبَارِي سُبْحَانَهُ مُشْبِهًا لِلْأَشْيَاءِ، فهُوَ كَمَا وَصَفَ نفْسَهُ {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ} [الشورى: 11] ، وَقَالَ: {قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ، اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ} [الإخلاص: 1]حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ، أنا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ الْحَافِظُ، وَأَبُو جَعْفَرٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ صَالِحِ بْنِ هَانِئٍ، قَالَا: ثنا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ الْفَضْلِ، ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سَابِقٍ، ثنا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ الرَّازِيُّ، عَنِ الرَّبِيعِ بْنِ أَنَسٍ، عَنْ أَبِي الْعَالِيَةِ، عَنْ أُبَيِّ بْنِ كَعْبٍ، أَنَّ الْمُشْرِكِينَ، قَالُوا: يَا مُحَمَّدُ، انْسُبْ لَنَا رَبَّكَ، فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى {قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ} [الإخلاص: 2] ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ شَيْءٌ يُولَدُ إِلَّا سَيَمُوتُ، وَلَيْسَ شَيْءٌ يَمُوتُ إِلَا سَيُوَرَّثُ، وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ تَبَارَكَ لَا يَمُوتُ وَلَا يُوَرَّثُ، {وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ} [الإخلاص: 4] ، لَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ شَبِيهٌ وَلَا عِدْلٌ {لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ} [الشورى: 11]
أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو زَكَرِيَّا يَحْيَى بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، أنا أَبُو الْحَسَنِ الطَّرَائِفِيُّ، ثنا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، ثنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ صَالِحٍ، عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ صَالِحٍ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَلْحَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، فِي قَوْلِهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ: {وَلِلَّهِ الْمَثَلُ الْأَعْلَى} [النحل: 60] ، قَالَ: يَقُولُ: لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ، وَفِي قَوْلِهِ: {هَلْ تَعْلَمُ لَهُ سَمِيًّا} [مريم: 65] ، يَقُولُ: هَلْ تَعْلَمُ لِلرَّبِّ مَثَلًا أَوْ شَبِيهًا؟
"Moreover, it is known that the Creator of creation does not resemble anything of the creation, because if He resembled any originated thing in any way, He would resemble it in origination from that aspect, and it is impossible for the beginningless to be temporal, or beginningless from one angle and temporal from another; and because it is impossible for a Doer to do the like of Himself, like an abuser is not abuse although he carried out abuse and a liar will not be a lie when he carried out a lie; and because it is impossible that two things being the same, one of them performs its counterpart, because one of two equals is not more likely than the other to have performed its counterpart, and when it is so, neither of them has a distinction over the other by which it is entitled to be the originator of it since that is the law of two equal entities in that which they are equal. When it is so, it is impossible for the Maker (Glorious is He) to be similar to things. Thus, He is as He described Himself: “Naught is as His likeness; and He is the Hearer, the Seer.” (42:11) and He said: “Say: He is Allah, the One, Allah, the Independent. He begets not nor was He begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him.” (112:1-4)
Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Hāfiz: Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muhammad ibn Ya‘qūb al-Hāfiz and Abū Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Sālih ibn Hāni’ said: al-Husayn ibn al-Fadl narrated to us: Muhammad ibn Sābiq narrated to us: Abū Jafar al-Rāzī narrated to us from al-Rabī ibn Anas from Abu l-‘Āliyah from Ubayy ibn Ka‘b that the idolaters said: “O Muhammad! Tell us the lineage of your Lord.” Thus, Allāh (Blessed and Exalted is He) said: “Say: He is Allah, the One, Allah, the Independent!” (16:60). [Ubayy said:] “Because nothing is born except it will die, and nothing dies except it will be inherited, and indeed Allāh (Glorious and Exalted is He) will not die nor will He be inherited”. “And there is none comparable unto Him”: “He has no likeness or equal, ‘Naught is as His likeness’”[6]
Abū Zakariyyā Yahyā ibn Ibrāhīm reported to us: Abu l-Hasan al-Tarā‘ifī reported to us: ‘Uthmān ibn Sa‘īd narrated to us: ‘Abd Allāh ibn Sālih narrated to us from Mu‘āwiyah ibn Sālih from ‘Alī ibn Abī Talhah from Ibn ‘Abbas about His (Great and Glorious is He) saying: “Allāh’s is the highest similitude” (16:65), he said: “Nothing is as His likeness,” and about His saying, “Do you know of one that can be named along with Him?” (19:65), he said: “Do you know of an equal or likeness of the Lord?”"
Source: al-I'tiqad wal Hidayah ila Sabil al-Rashad (translation taken from here: Imām al-Bayhaqī on Evidence for the Existence of the Creator)
--
Abu Sulayman reply:
ZeeshanParvez said:
Heck, this has been going on in the past. Subki began
accusing Al-Dhahabi, in his Tabaqaat, (I believe it was) that he was leaving
the Aqeedah of the Ahl Al-Sunnah and leaning toward the Hanbali Aqeedah.
Imam Taj al-Din
al-Subki (d. 771 AH) (the son of
Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH) did indeed critisize his Shaykh the
Hafidh Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH).
Al-Dhahabi was a student of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) and was influenced by him
[to a certain degree]. (From his writings it seems however that later on he was
rather ashamed of being connected with Ibn Taymiyyah, because Ibn
Taymiyyah loved to cause one problem after the other and loved to defend
his abnormal views and to act as if he only knew right from wrong. He also
explicitly said in one of his books that he disagrees with
Ibn Taymiyyah in Asli and Far'i issues.)
ZeeshanParvez
said:
I do not see what good reading the book you have mentioned
will do but since I have so much time on my hands guess I will read it.
Interestingbook.jpg
Interestingbook.jpg
I've a better idea
(it will take less time and will have much more benefit) since you understand
Arabic: Read this thread and insha`Allah you'll understand the difference
between the Madhhab of the Ahl al-Sunnah and that of Ibn Taymiyyh:
الصفات الإلهية بين أهل التنزيه وأهل التشبيه
الصفات الإلهية بين أهل التنزيه وأهل التشبيه
ZeeshanParvez said;
I mean if he is going to say all that about him
He didn't say these
things out of nowhere. I've read some of the things that he mentioned in quite
an explicit way in Ibn Taymiyyah's Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah. (Before looking into Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah I used to respect Ibn
Taymiyyah.)
ZeeshanParvez said:
I mean if he is going to say all that about him he may
well have said the same about Mujaahid the great Taabi' Mufassir who held the
same opinion. And if I am not mistaken Imaam Al-Tabari defended the opinion by
saying that it was not wrong. So, why single out two men. Let's go back and shoot
all the people.
Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) did not held the same view as Imam
Mujahid (d. 104 AH) regarding this issue, but you're right that Imam al-Tabari
did defend him regarding it. Please consider this statement of Imam
al-Qurtubi (d. 671 AH) in his Tafsir regarding the Ayah 17:79:
قلت: ذكر هذا في باب ٱبنُ شهاب في حديث التنزيل. وروي عن مجاهد أيضاً في هذه الآية قال: يُجلسه على العرش. وهذا تأويل غير مستحيل؛ لأن الله تعالى كان قبل خلقه الأشياء كلَّها والعرشَ قائماً بذاته، ثم خلق الأشياء من غير حاجة إليها، بل إظهاراً لقدرته وحكمته، وليُعرف وجوده وتوحيده وكمال قدرته وعلمه بكل أفعاله المحكمة، وخلق لنفسه عرشاً استوى عليه كما شاء من غير أن صار له مماساً، أو كان العرش له مكاناً.
قيل: هو الآن على الصفة التي كان عليها من قبل أن يخلق المكان والزمان؛ فعلى هذا القول سواء في الجواز أقعد محمد على العرش أو على الأرض؛ لأن استواء الله تعالى على العرش ليس بمعنى الانتقال والزوال وتحويل الأحوال من القيام والقعود والحال التي تشغل العرش، بل هو مستو على عرشه كما أخبر عن نفسه بلا كَيْفٍ. وليس إقعاده محمداً على العرش موجباً له صفة الربوبية أو مُخرجاً له عن صفة العبودية، بل هو رفع لمحله وتشريف له على خلقه. وأما قوله في الإخبار: «معه» فهو بمنزلة قوله:
{ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ عِندَ رَبِّكَ }
[الأعراف: 206]،
{ رَبِّ ٱبْنِ لِي عِندَكَ بَيْتاً فِي ٱلْجَنَّةِ }
[التحريم: 11]،
{ وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَمَعَ ٱلْمُحْسِنِينَ }
[العنكبوت: 69] ونحو ذلك. كل ذلك عائد إلى الرتبة والمنزلة والحُظْوة والدرجة الرفيعة، لا إلى المكان.
قلت: ذكر هذا في باب ٱبنُ شهاب في حديث التنزيل. وروي عن مجاهد أيضاً في هذه الآية قال: يُجلسه على العرش. وهذا تأويل غير مستحيل؛ لأن الله تعالى كان قبل خلقه الأشياء كلَّها والعرشَ قائماً بذاته، ثم خلق الأشياء من غير حاجة إليها، بل إظهاراً لقدرته وحكمته، وليُعرف وجوده وتوحيده وكمال قدرته وعلمه بكل أفعاله المحكمة، وخلق لنفسه عرشاً استوى عليه كما شاء من غير أن صار له مماساً، أو كان العرش له مكاناً.
قيل: هو الآن على الصفة التي كان عليها من قبل أن يخلق المكان والزمان؛ فعلى هذا القول سواء في الجواز أقعد محمد على العرش أو على الأرض؛ لأن استواء الله تعالى على العرش ليس بمعنى الانتقال والزوال وتحويل الأحوال من القيام والقعود والحال التي تشغل العرش، بل هو مستو على عرشه كما أخبر عن نفسه بلا كَيْفٍ. وليس إقعاده محمداً على العرش موجباً له صفة الربوبية أو مُخرجاً له عن صفة العبودية، بل هو رفع لمحله وتشريف له على خلقه. وأما قوله في الإخبار: «معه» فهو بمنزلة قوله:
{ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ عِندَ رَبِّكَ }
[الأعراف: 206]،
{ رَبِّ ٱبْنِ لِي عِندَكَ بَيْتاً فِي ٱلْجَنَّةِ }
[التحريم: 11]،
{ وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَمَعَ ٱلْمُحْسِنِينَ }
[العنكبوت: 69] ونحو ذلك. كل ذلك عائد إلى الرتبة والمنزلة والحُظْوة والدرجة الرفيعة، لا إلى المكان.
- end of the qoute -
Based upon the above we can say that Imam Mujahid does not necessarily intend Tashbih by that statement.
If you ask us now why we do not have the same Husn al-Dhann for Ibn Taymiyyah, then the simple answer is: Because we know what he wrote in his Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah.
By the way: When Imam al-Tabari left this world - rahimahullah - the Hanabilah of Baghdad (they were quite idiotic people; not all Hanabilah were like that of course) didn't allow him to be buried in public and accused him of Rafdh and Ilhad (atheism) (which is a typical accusation of the Mushabbihah from among the Hanabilah against people who disagree with them). The Imam was buried inside his house because of this.
These people are the Salaf of the "Salafis" (and not the Sahabat al-karim nor the Tabi'in!). (The same Hanabilah also believed in things like God wearing golden sandals! Congratulations to "Salafis" for having such forefathers!)
Based upon the above we can say that Imam Mujahid does not necessarily intend Tashbih by that statement.
If you ask us now why we do not have the same Husn al-Dhann for Ibn Taymiyyah, then the simple answer is: Because we know what he wrote in his Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah.
By the way: When Imam al-Tabari left this world - rahimahullah - the Hanabilah of Baghdad (they were quite idiotic people; not all Hanabilah were like that of course) didn't allow him to be buried in public and accused him of Rafdh and Ilhad (atheism) (which is a typical accusation of the Mushabbihah from among the Hanabilah against people who disagree with them). The Imam was buried inside his house because of this.
These people are the Salaf of the "Salafis" (and not the Sahabat al-karim nor the Tabi'in!). (The same Hanabilah also believed in things like God wearing golden sandals! Congratulations to "Salafis" for having such forefathers!)
ZeeshanParvez said:
Anyway, I know all these things are getting on your
nerves, but hey look at it this way - the rivalry between you Ash'aris and the
Hanbalis is not a new one. It has remained unsolved and I do not think it is
going to be solved any time soon.
You're right that
there has been a rivalry between the Ash'aris and many Hanbalis.
But you should consider this:
The Hanabilah
had the least followers historically from among the 4 Madhahib and only a part
of them were Mushabbihah.
Disagreeing with
Ash'aris does not turn the Sunnis from among the Hanabilah into non-Sunnis,
because there are legitimate Ijtihadi difference between scholars regarding
some detailed issues of belief (which are simply Dhanni issues).
Ibn Taymiyyah did not just disagree with the Asha'irah concerning belief, he even rejected Tafwidh (which both the Asha'irah and the Hanabilah regard as the Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih).
According to Salih bin 'Abd al-'Aziz Al al-Shaykh (one of the
Mashayikh of the "Salafiyyah") most of the
Hanbali Shuyukh of Ibn Taymiyyah were upon Tafwidh.
---
(Edited by ADHM)
Don't forget to also read: Here
