Thread Posted: 2/05/2021
Page 69: Here
These are the relevant quotes in this thread here until now:
Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis" (Ummah.com Thread)
1-Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis":Here
2- Belief of Early Hanabila :Here
3- Hanbali position regarding the divine 'Uluw, Istiwa` and Nuzul :Here
---Table of contents (until 30-1-2021):
- Opening
post: Some books and treatises that represent mainstream Hanbali
creed and the mentioning of those who don't represent
them
- Comparison
between the beliefs of Hanbalis with Ash'aris and Maturidis from one
side and the "Salafis" from another side
- From
Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way!
(Part 1)
- From
Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way!
(Part 2)
- From
Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini: Tafwidh is the correct way!
(Part 3)
- Belief
of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 1)
- Belief
of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 2)
- Belief
of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 3)
- Belief
of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 4)
- Belief
of early Hanabila from Tabaqat al-Hanabila (Part 5)
- Mainstream
Hanbalis: Allah is beyond space and time and His existence is
non-bodily one
- Hanbali
position (as in al-Mu'tamad):
All bodies are emergent and therefore created and the corporealists
are disbelievers
- Imam
Ibn Qudama's rejection of Tajsim
- Hanbali
position regarding 'Uluw and Istiwa` as mentioned by Imam Ibn Hamdan
(short quote)
- Hanbali
position regarding the divine 'Uluw, Istiwa and Nuzul as mentioned by
Imam Ibn Hamdan (long quote)
- The
difference of Hanbalis and Ash'aris on Istiwa` and 'Uluw as mentioned
by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la
- The
reliability and general acceptance of Nihayat
al-Mubtadi`in of
Imam Ibn Hamdan by the Hanabila
- Imam
Ibn Rajab's praise for Imam Ibn Hamdan
- 'Allama
al-Saffarini: Tafwidh al-Ma'na is the correct way and the Ahl
al-Sunna are three groups and Yad is a divine attribute and not a
limb
- 'Allama
al-Saffarini: Allah is not composed of parts and the three dimensions
do not apply to Him
- Three
reliable books of creed that the 'Allama al-Saffarini teached
himself
- Rejecting
or affirming the expression of direction and the verification of this
issue as explained by Shaykh al-Gharsi
- The
exact difference of Ash'aris and Hanbalis in Tafwidh
- Ash'ari
and Hanbali agreement on Tafwidh and disagreement on Ta`wil
- Hanbali
explanation of the issue of "letter and sound"
- Shaykh
Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid on the historical dispute between Ash'aris and
Hanbalis
- Shaykh
Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid: Hanbali position regarding Ash'aris in
comparison to their position regarding Najdis
- Shaykh
Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid: The arrogance and foolishness of the Nabita
("Salafis")!
- Shaykh
Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid regarding the chaos and confusion that
"Salafis" have caused
- Shaykh
Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid and his defence of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la
- Shaykh
Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid: The position of a Madhhab is what their
adherents have stated in their books and not what others claim
against them
- Hanbali
Madhhab Q & A session by Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq al-Hanbali
- Shaykh
al-'Awni: I wish I would be an Ash'ari like al-Baqillani!
- Shaykh
al-'Awni: Tafwidh is the Madhhab of the Salaf and the difference
between Ash'aris and Hanbalis in the foundations of creed are only in
wording!
- The
different directions of the Hanabila regarding creed
- Shaykh
Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid regarding the difference between Hanbalis and
the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya on Tafwidh; Shaykh Yusuf Sadiq regarding Ibn
Taymiyya's position in the Hanbali Madhhab
- How
Ibn Taymiyya left the way of his mainstream Hanbali forefathers
- Ibn
Taymiyya's distinction between Sifat Ma'nawiyya and Sifat
'Ayniyya
---
- Ibn
'Uthaymin ("Salafi"): There is some degree of similarity
between the Creator and the creation vs. the Hanbali response
- Ibn
'Uthaymin's claim: al-Saffarini is wrong and declaring God to be
transcendent from being a body is not allowed
- Ibn
'Uthaymin: Al-Saffarini is upon polytheism in lordship and divinity;
Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: Al-Saffarini, his teachers and his students did
not know Islam!
- Ibn
'Uthaymin and his broken chain of knowledge
- Ibn
'Uthyamin turning the 'Ayn of Allah into the tool of seeing
- Ibn
'Uthaymin: God has ONLY two eyes and IF He would have MORE eyes, then
this would be MORE perfect!
- Putting
the puzzles together regarding the Tashbih of Ibn
'Uthaymin
- "Salafi"
Mashayikh admitting that Imam Ibn Qudama was from the people of
Tafwidh
- "Salafi"
belief regarding Istiwa` and 'Uluw; Ibn 'Uthaymin's interpretaton of
Istiwa` as Istiqrar (settlement)
- "Salafis"
accuse classical Hanbalis of "treason"
and "misrepresenting"
Imam Ahmad's creed
Additional
posts:
- Imam
al-Tahawi: Islamic understanding of the Tawhid of Allah ta'ala (very
recommended)
- Imam
al-Tahawi: Our belief in the divine attributes
- How
to understand the texts regarding the divine attributes and the
different Sunni positions as mentioned by Imam al-Nawawi
- The
way of the early Muslims regarding the divine attributes according to
Imam al-Khattabi
- What's
the safest view regarding our belief in the Tawhid of Allah
ta'ala?
- Meaning
of Jism in the language and in terminology
- Imam
al-Qurtubi's Takfir upon those affirming the literal meaning of the
Mutashabihat
- Regarding
those who claim to worship the Creator, but do not know Him in
reality
- The
importance of denying corporeality regarding the Creator
- Note
on al-Azhar and the closing down of the schools of the 4 Madhahib on
the Arabian peninsula by Najdis and "Salafis"
- Another
defense of al-Azhar al-sharif and the Hanabila connected to
them
- The
Legal Ruling Upon Those who Undermine the Ash’aris: Imam Ibn Rushd
al-Jadd [al-Maliki] (d. 520 AH)
(There
are other interesting posts in this thread, but the above are the
most relevant ones.)
---
Q: What
was their reasoning behind saying "if Allah is not one eyed,
then he must have two eyes"?
Just because something isn’t
one, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is two. It can be zero.
---
Abu Sulayman:
Al-Salamu
'alaykum,
my
problem is actually not the affirmation of A'yun or even 'Aynayn, but
rather the way this Ibn 'Uthaymin affirms it and the absolute pagan
reasoning that he uses.
The
affirmation of A'yun as a description of Allah ta'ala is correct, but
we don't delve into its exact meaning and relegate its reality to
Allah ta'ala while being sure that similarity is not intended in any
way.
We
basically rely on the Muhkamat for our creed and understand the
Mutashabihat in their context and not the other way around.
As
for what Ibn 'Uthaymin affirms: He affirms two tangible entities
(meaning: which can be physically pointed at) that make up the divine
Self (because in his pagan imagination "god" is made up of
inseparable eternal parts), so his affirmation of 'Aynayn is such
that it shares the reality of the eyes of the creation and just
differs with it in size, form, substance and so on.
In
his imagination these 'Aynayn are the TOOLS OF SEEING and he
explicitly states this here:
المجسم ابن عثيمين لله عينين حقيقتين يبصر بهما لأن العينين هما أداة الإبصار !!! (تجسيم
---
His whole imagination and understanding is nothing less than Kufr. And whosoever defends this Kufr is also guilty of it.
Ibn 'Uthaymin said in Sharh al-'Aqida al-Wasitiyya (scanned page HERE):
وهذا الحديث يدل على أن لله تعالى عينين اثنتين فقط. ووجه الدلالة أنه لو كان لله أكثر من اثنتين، لكان البيان به أوضح من البيان بالعور، لأنه لو كان لله أكثر من عينين، لقال: إن ربكم له أعين، لأنه إذا كان له أعين أكثر من ثنتين، صار وضوح أن الدجال ليس برب أبين. وأيضاً: لو كان لله عز وجل أكثر من عينين، لكان ذلك من كماله، وكان ترك ذكره تفويتاً للثناء على الله، لأن الكثرة تدل على القوة والكمال والتمام، فلو كان لله أكثر من عينين، لبينها الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام، لئلا يفوتنا اعتقاد هذا الكمال، وهو الزائد على العينين الثنتين
This narration indicates that Allah ta'ala has only two eyes.
The way of indication [here] is that if Allah would have more than two eyes, then its proclamation would be clearer than the proclamation of one-eyedness (or blindness of one eye) [found in the narration], because if Allah would have more than two eyes, then he would have said "your Lord has eyes". [This is so] because if He would have more than two eyes, than the clarity of the Dajjal not being the Lord [of the worlds] would be more obvious.
And also: If Allah 'azza wa jall would have more than two eyes, then this would be from His perfection; and then abstaining from mentioning [this] would be missing out on mentioning the praise of Allah, because multiplicity indicates power, perfection and completion. So if Allah would have more than two eyes, then the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - would have made it clear, so that we do not miss out on believing in this perfection, and that is the addition [of more eyes] to the two eyes.
[end of quote]
---
Abu Sulayman:
Note
that his statement that multiplicity indicates power, perfection and
completion is from the reasoning of the pagans in order to affirm the
multiplicity of divine beings.
Connecting
the above pagan reasoning with his claim that "god
has only two real eyes",
it is an affirmation of a lack of perfection for that which he
worships besides Allah ta'ala.
And
as for him stating that if "god" would have "more
than two eyes"
that it would become more obvious that the Dajjal is not our Lord,
then it shows that he's a full-fledged pagan, who has no knowledge of
our Lord whatsoever to the degree that even if a man with all the
characteristics of a creation
stands before him he will still need to check how many of healthy
eyes this man has in order to know that this man is not our Lord
jalla jalaluhu.
---
Regarding
the Hanabila and their creed and using them as a proof upon
us:
Allah
ta'ala has not obliged us to follow anyone in the manner he obliged
us to follow our Master Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam). So
if the claims of the anthropomorphists of our time regarding the
Hanabila would be true, then it would not change the fact that we're
obliged to follow our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)
and to reject any way that opposes his way.
Now
the Hanabila have actually several ways in creed. One could basically
divide them into three groups:
1-
The mainstream group, which is represented by al-Mu'tamad of
al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la and the Lum'at
al-I'tiqad of
Imam Ibn Qudama and their likes and they regard Tafwidh with the
understanding of Ithbat with Tanzih as the only correct way.
2-
The group that is inclined towards Ta`wil (but supports Tafwifh in
general), which is that of Imam Ibn 'Aqil and Imam Ibn al-Jawzi and
their likes.
3-
The group that are basically anthropomorphists and they are
represented by the likes of Ibn Hamid and Ibn Taymiyya.
Note
that the Hanabila in general (till this day) like to deny that the
last group are actually anthropomorphists and like to present them as
"mistaken only", but this most likely due to their
partisanship to their Madhhab.
In
other contexts they mention the very statements that this last group
believes in and then openly describe it as Tashbih and
Kufr.
Now
the question is:
How did Tashbih creep into the last group?
The
answer: A
good portion of the Hanabila - and this even from the mainstream
group - relied upon utterly weak and inauthentic narrations for
issues of creed, which lead to the formation of the last group, which
said due to sheer number of these inauthentic narrations that all
these types of texts are to be understood literally and thereby fell
into anthropomorphism.
In
addition to this the majority of the Hanabila regarded single
authentic narrations as proofs even in major issues of creed, so
anytime they would falsely regard a narration as authentic they would
rely upon it. The scholars of the other Madhahib however were more
cautious and only relied upon that which is established beyond doubt
in authenticity.
With
time many Hanabila realized the weakness of all these narrations -
and this usually thanks to the efforts of Ash'ari scholars! - and
therefore distanced themselves from these narrations.
Note
that even al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la and Imam Ibn Qudama (who were both
mainstream Hanbalis and supporters of Tafwidh) relied upon utterly
weak and inauthentic narrations as seen in Ibtal
al-Ta`wilat and al-'Uluww.
In
fact Ibtal
al-Ta`wilat contains
the affirmation of so many utterly weak and inauthentic narrations
with some narrations being so obviously from the creed of the Jews
(like "god" lying on the back and putting one foot upon the
other or the affirmation of molar teeth or other rather strange
narrations) and their likes that a lot of other scholars have heavily
attacked this work and accused its author of anthropomorphism and
this despite the author clearly and explicitly declaring Allah ta'ala
transcendent from corporeality and temporarility in the very same
work.
There
is really a reason why the majority of the scholars preferred the
Ash'ari way over the Hanbali one, because unlike the Hanabila the
Asha'ira were much more cautious in how they describe their Lord
jalla jalaluhu.
We
should not forget that those issues which are important to believe in
are stressed upon in the book of Allah ta'ala and upon the tongue of
our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) such that we should
not look for our creed in strange narrations here and there.
And
we should also not forget that the foundations of our creed are the
texts with a clear meaning which allow for one interpretation only
and that everything else must be understood in their context.
So
any statement like "so
and so stated this and that"
can never take precedence over the clear texts for we are neither
Jews nor Christians nor pagans, but rather pure monotheists who
submit completely to their Creator jalla jalaluhu and affirm His
absolute uniqueness, oneness and perfection as is established by
revelation and sound reason.
---
Abu Sulayman:
I
seriously don't understand why some people are such extreme blind
followers of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) to the degree that they are
ready to accept whatever they understood or misunderstood from his
words and this even if it's wrong with certainty.
What is
also shocking is that they are ready to accuse anyone of a mistake to
the degree that they may even not shy away from accusing Prophets
(peace be upon them), but when it comes to their Ibn Taymiyya it
suddenly becomes disallowed for anyone to say a word against
him.
Since Imam Ibn Rajab's quote was mentioned: Let
it be known to the blind followers of Ibn Taymiyya in their ignorance
that he names one of those upright Hanbali judges elsewhere and
states that he disallowed him giving Fatwa regarding the issue of
triple Talaq.
Only an innovator or a heretic will deny
that Ibn Taymiyya had abnormal positions and this both regarding
creed and regarding jurisprudence.
Let everyone know
that blind following in major issues of creed is NOT an excuse in
front of Allah ta'ala.
If Ibn 'Uthaymin utters words of disbelief and paganism (which he certainly did!), then following him regarding this is likewise disbelief and paganism and bringing up Ibn Taymiyya is no excuse.
--------------------------------------
Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 11-01-2022, 11:25 AM.
Page 69: Here
---
(Edited by ADHM)
