Mufti Abdur Rehman Ibn Yusuf and Anthropomorphism

[dr.ati]

:salam:

Here is a lecture of mufti Abdur Rehman Ibn Yusuf on the Ashari Maturidi Aqeedah and its origins. He makes a point when referring to the conversion of Anthropomorphists into Crypto-anthropomorphists and the role of Shaykh Ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah ra, in the first 3 minutes. Can somebody explain what Mufti Sahib is saying in that part?
:jazak:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4L0-Uh-ln8

[suleimanibnsalim]

You're obviously not going to agree, but look at Qadi Abu Ya'la al-Farra', and compare that to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah.

[ImamGhazzaali]

He said it, so contact him for his words. Not us or anyone else but him. It is his statement, please go discuss with him.

Please close the thread

[amr123]

He said it, so contact him for his words. Not us or anyone else but him. It is his statement, please go discuss with him.

Please close the thread

:salam:

I completely AGREE. Please others too dont involve in this thread. Its pointless.

[dr.ati]

You're obviously not going to agree, but look at Qadi Abu Ya'la al-Farra', and compare that to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah.

The Prominent Hanbali Shaykh Abu Muhamad Rizqullah ra who lived in the same time with Qadi Abu Ya'la said about him "He has dirtied the Madh'hab in such an ugly way that shall not be washed until yawm al-qiyamah." Anyways , i just got an impression that Mufti Abdur Rehman is exempting Shaykh Ul Islam ra from the charges and is saying that the Mujasimaah were forced into becoming Hashawiyya due to him.

[dr.ati]

:salam:

I completely AGREE. Please others too dont involve in this thread. Its pointless.

Whats so pointless in comprehending the words of a scholar? You better have said that " I don't agree with Mufti Abdur Rehman Biin Yusuf"

[ImamGhazzaali]

Whats so pointless in comprehending the words of a scholar? You better have said that " I don't agree with Mufti Abdur Rehman Biin Yusuf"

Contact Mufti 'Abdur Rahman for his own words.

It is pointless because you want explanation on what he said. Don't ask for other people's explanation. Go directly to him.

[amr123]

Contact Mufti 'Abdur Rahman for his own words.

It is pointless because you want explanation on what he said. Don't ask for other people's explanation. Go directly to him.

Yes that what I meant, And I m out of this thread.

:salam: everyone.

[abulayl]

:salam: Not every time people gotta ask the person direct. Its always possible that those statements are heard by knowledgeable brothers before and can explain what that supposed to mean.

[dr.ati]

Yes that what I meant, And I m out of this thread.

:salam: everyone.

:ws:

Kindly , instead of invoking wrath of closure on threads or asking the others not to contribute , don't contribute in the threads which you don't like.

:jazak:

[Hafiz Gee]

Salam


Here is a lecture of mufti Abdur Rehman Ibn Yusuf on the Ashari Maturidi Aqeedah and its origins. He makes a point when referring to the conversion of Anthropomorphists into Crypto-anthropomorphists and the role of Shaykh Ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah ra, in the first 3 minutes. Can somebody explain what Mufti Sahib is saying in that part?

you obviously can't understand what he means if you only focus on the first 3 min, you have to listen to the whole thing to understand/appreciate what he's saying.

[maneatinglizard]

:salam:

From what I've understood, the Mufti is saying that, while some of the early Hanabilah were open anthropomorphists (Abu Ya`la comes to mind :rahma:, I've heard the same said about Imam Khalal :rahma:) later Hanabilah post-Shaikh al-Islam :rahma: held the same beliefs, but they were hidden behind kalam.

I might be wrong, but this is what I understood. In fact, it might be best to ask him directly, and you can find his website here:

http://www.zamzamacademy.com/contact-us/

[abul_hussain]

:salam:

From what I've understood, the Mufti is saying that, while some of the early Hanabilah were open anthropomorphists (Abu Ya`la comes to mind :rahma:, I've heard the same said about Imam Khalal :rahma:) later Hanabilah post-Shaikh al-Islam :rahma: held the same beliefs, but they were hidden behind kalam.

I might be wrong, but this is what I understood. In fact, it might be best to ask him directly, and you can find his website here:

http://www.zamzamacademy.com/contact-us/

let us also add Bukhari to the list as mentioned by Kalam expert Shaykh Dr. GF Haddad.

shaykh GF Haddad said: "On the other hand, there are some examples of real literalism in al-Bukhari's refutation of the Jahmis (Khalq Af`al al-`Ibad), and some spurious `Aqida texts attributed to Imams al-Shafi`i and Ahmad (cf. al-Radd `ala al Jahmiyya which he never authored)."

Q.4) Sheikh Nuh mentions in one of his articles a quote from Imam Ahmad from a book entitled al-Sunnah by Imam Khallal. However, this book allegedly contains anthropomorphist statements. Was Imam Khallal an anthropomorphist?

A. Definitely, as was his Hanbali peer Abu Muhammad al-Barbahari. The latter never sat to teach except he mentioned that Allah seats the Prophet "next to Him" on the Throne, and the former said in al-Sunna that whoever denies such a belief is a "Jahmi Kafir Zindiq." This is not to detract from al-Khallal's stature as the earliest major codifier of the Hanbali Madhhab. And Allah knows best.

Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad

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

simple question comes to the mind, why it took 1200 years for someone to discover the anthrpomorphism of Imam Bukhari , Khallal, Barbahari, Ibn Taymiyyah, Khawaja Abdullah al-Ansari the sufi master ...........,...... etc ?

Why was this missed by other REAL scholars like Dhahabi, mizzi, asqalani, ayni, mulllah ali qari.

I find it more strange that Abu Yala or his son is classified as anthropomorphist because they have mistakenly used weak and fabricated hadiths but how do they fit the definition of mujassimah or mushabiha ?

Can be brothers so happily discussing about Tajseem & Tashbeeh define what it is from the books of ahlus sunnah ?

[maneatinglizard]

let us also add Bukhari to the list as mentioned by Kalam expert Shaykh Dr. GF Haddad.

shaykh GF Haddad said: "On the other hand, there are some examples of real literalism in al-Bukhari's refutation of the Jahmis (Khalq Af`al al-`Ibad), and some spurious `Aqida texts attributed to Imams al-Shafi`i and Ahmad (cf. al-Radd `ala al Jahmiyya which he never authored)."

Q.4) Sheikh Nuh mentions in one of his articles a quote from Imam Ahmad from a book entitled al-Sunnah by Imam Khallal. However, this book allegedly contains anthropomorphist statements. Was Imam Khallal an anthropomorphist?

A. Definitely, as was his Hanbali peer Abu Muhammad al-Barbahari. The latter never sat to teach except he mentioned that Allah seats the Prophet "next to Him" on the Throne, and the former said in al-Sunna that whoever denies such a belief is a "Jahmi Kafir Zindiq." This is not to detract from al-Khallal's stature as the earliest major codifier of the Hanbali Madhhab. And Allah knows best.

Hajj Gibril
GF Haddad

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

simple question comes to the mind, why it took 1200 years for someone to discover the anthrpomorphism of Imam Bukhari , Khallal, Barbahari, Ibn Taymiyyah, Khawaja Abdullah al-Ansari the sufi master ...........,...... etc ?

Why was this missed by other REAL scholars like Dhahabi, mizzi, asqalani, ayni, mulllah ali qari.

I find it more strange that Abu Yala or his son is classified as anthropomorphist because they have mistakenly used weak and fabricated hadiths but how do they fit the definition of mujassimah or mushabiha ?

Can be brothers so happily discussing about Tajseem & Tashbeeh define what it is from the books of ahlus sunnah ?

Okay everyone is an anthropomorphist. Are you happy?

I wasn't even trying to say that this was right or wrong, I was simply trying to explain what he meant, and you try to start an argument.

:subh:

[Ansari]

Why was this missed by other REAL scholars like Dhahabi, mizzi, asqalani, ayni, mulllah ali qari.


It wasn't missed. They condemned tajsim in their works. That is more than enough. They condemned ascribing to Allah a direction (jiha) and a boundry (hadd) and the literal meaning of istiwa being julus and istiqrar etc.

There was no need to go into every single scholar and condemn them, especially when their books were not available for everybody like nowadays.

[abul_hussain]

1. What is tajsim ?

2. Which scholars from Ahlus sunnah wal jamaah promoted tajsim ( not as claimed by GF Haddad or Nuh Ha Mim Keller ?)

3. What is Jiha what about the Jiha in the hereafter ? are we Muslims going to see Allah ( why isn't it Jiha ? what's wrong with Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf work on Jiha in the hereafter -- Ruyah of Allah in the afterlife )

4. What about Qurtubi ascribing Jiha to salaf us salih scholar. why did Qurtubi ascribe Jiha to scholars of Salaf if this was anthropomorphism ? did Qurtubi need to learn more Islam then present day scholars ?

5. Julus and Istiqrar, then what about the Mutazilite creed like istila and qahr which crept in like said by some famous ahl al kalam scholar ?




Hanbali `Aqida of Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir

Was Abdul Qadir Jilani (rahmatullahi alayhi) of the belief that Allah the exalted was literally in the sky? If so, was this a corrupt belief i.e., in contradistinction of Ahl Sunna wa Jama''? If so, could he have been a ''true'' wali?

As-Salamu `alaykum:

It is a poorly phrased question that ends with such a conditional sentence: "If so, could he have been a 'true' wali." If he were not, then who! Therefore, from the firm assumption that Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani was one of the great major Friends of Allah we can safely deduce that:

[1] either the text in which he is related to say that Allah Most High is "above" (fawq) the heaven and the Throne "with his Essence" (bi-dhatihi) is a corrupt text;

or:

[2] our own understanding of what he actually meant is corrupt.

The latter is probably more correct, since it is related that Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir said "bi-dhatihi" in more than one text and this is the literalist Hanbali stance he inherited from his School.

Hence, we must categorically affirm that he meant it in an orthodox sense far away from anthropomorphism; namely, that Allah Most High is indeed "high above" with his Essence, not in the sense of altitude and location or direction, but in the sense of being exalted high above and beyond the characteristics of creatures.

This is nothing new. It is the correct belief over which no two Muslims would have differed, except that shaytan fanned the flames of misunderstanding and dissension by focussing people on wordings and labels rather than meanings, splitting the ranks of the Muslims and then proceeding further to split the ranks of Ahl al-Sunna.

Hence it is best, as our pious predecessors always cautioned, to stay away from hair-splitting discussions on points of doctrine and what they called "kalam" - theological discourse.

Was-Salam,

gibril
[2006-05-30]

[Ansari]

4. What about Qurtubi ascribing Jiha to salaf us salih scholar. why did Qurtubi ascribe Jiha to scholars of Salaf if this was anthropomorphism ? did Qurtubi need to learn more Islam then present day scholars ?

Qurtubi NEVER ascribed jiha to the salaf. Rather he condemned it! It is a lie to claim he asribed it to the salaf. As did Ibn Hajar where he said that the majority condemned jiha. He also condemned istiqrar as a stance of the mujassima.

You mentioned Ibn Hajar in your list of scholars. So who is wrong here now? Ibn Hajar, the great scholar like you said?

And learn how stay on topic. This topic is not about Sh. Nuh or Sh. GF Haddad.

This topic is about Mufti Abdur Rahman!

[abul_hussain]

Qurtubi NEVER ascribed jiha to the salaf. Rather he condemned it! It is a lie to claim he asribed it to the salaf. As did Ibn Hajar where he said that the majority condemned jiha. He also condemned istiqrar as a stance of the mujassima.

You mentioned Ibn Hajar in your list of scholars. So who is wrong here now? Ibn Hajar, the great scholar like you said?

And learn how stay on topic. This topic is not about Sh. Nuh or Sh. GF Haddad.

This topic is about Mufti Abdur Rahman!


Let us read what al-Qurtubi said:




هَذِهِ مَسْأَلَة الِاسْتِوَاء ; وَلِلْعُلَمَاءِ فِيهَا كَلَام وَإِجْرَاء . وَقَدْ بَيَّنَّا أَقْوَال الْعُلَمَاء فِيهَا فِي ( الْكِتَاب الْأَسْنَى فِي شَرْح أَسْمَاء اللَّه الْحُسْنَى وَصِفَاته الْعُلَى ) وَذَكَرْنَا فِيهَا هُنَاكَ أَرْبَعَة عَشَر قَوْلًا .

وَالْأَكْثَر مِنْ الْمُتَقَدِّمِينَ وَالْمُتَأَخِّرِينَ أَنَّهُ إِذَا وَجَبَ تَنْزِيه الْبَارِي سُبْحَانه عَنْ الْجِهَة وَالتَّحَيُّز فَمِنْ ضَرُورَة ذَلِكَ وَلَوَاحِقِهِ اللَّازِمَة عَلَيْهِ عِنْد عَامَّة الْعُلَمَاء الْمُتَقَدِّمِينَ وَقَادَتهمْ مِنْ الْمُتَأَخِّرِينَ تَنْزِيهه تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى عَنْ الْجِهَة , فَلَيْسَ بِجِهَةِ فَوْق عِنْدهمْ ; لِأَنَّهُ يَلْزَم مِنْ ذَلِكَ عِنْدهمْ مَتَى اِخْتَصَّ بِجِهَةٍ أَنْ يَكُون فِي مَكَان أَوْ حَيِّز , وَيَلْزَم عَلَى الْمَكَان وَالْحَيِّز الْحَرَكَة وَالسُّكُون لِلْمُتَحَيِّزِ , وَالتَّغَيُّر وَالْحُدُوث .((( هَذَا قَوْل الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ ))).

<<< the above as said by al-Qurtubi is the saying of Mutakalimeen and now al-Qurtubi presents the view of Salaf us Salih below >>>

وَقَدْ كَانَ ((( السَّلَف الْأَوَّل ))) رَضِيَ اللَّه عَنْهُمْ لَا يَقُولُونَ بِنَفْيِ الْجِهَة وَلَا يَنْطِقُونَ بِذَلِكَ , بَلْ نَطَقُوا هُمْ وَالْكَافَّة بِإِثْبَاتِهَا لِلَّهِ تَعَالَى كَمَا نَطَقَ كِتَابه وَأَخْبَرَتْ رُسُله . وَلَمْ يُنْكِر أَحَد مِنْ السَّلَف الصَّالِح أَنَّهُ اِسْتَوَى عَلَى عَرْشه حَقِيقَة . وَخُصَّ الْعَرْش بِذَلِكَ لِأَنَّهُ أَعْظَم مَخْلُوقَاته , وَإِنَّمَا جَهِلُوا كَيْفِيَّة الِاسْتِوَاء فَإِنَّهُ لَا تُعْلَم حَقِيقَته . قَالَ مَالِك رَحِمَهُ اللَّه : الِاسْتِوَاء مَعْلُوم - يَعْنِي فِي اللُّغَة - وَالْكَيْفَ مَجْهُول , وَالسُّؤَال عَنْ هَذَا بِدْعَة . وَكَذَا قَالَتْ أُمّ سَلَمَة رَضِيَ اللَّه عَنْهَا.




Clearly you can see Jiha and Istawa ala arsh Haqiqah ie., literal, real sense..

Abu ʿUmar at-Talamankī al-Andalūsī (d. 429H) who said, as cited by al-Dhahabi in al-uluww:

قال في كتابه: الوصول إلى معرفة الأصول: أجمع المسلمون من أهل السنة على أن معنى قوله : وهو معكم أينما كنتم . ونحو ذلك من القرآن : أنه علمه ، وأن الله تعالى فوق السموات بذاتـه مستو على عرشه كيف شاء

So something similar was claimed by Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani as shown by GF Haddad by apparently that was skipped or ignored for unknown reason.

Bi Dhat, Haqeeqah , alal Arsh , fawq al-arsh, all means DIRECTION , so are we going to condemn all those scholars who said Fawq al-arsh.

There is something missing in the puzzle.

so again, what is Jiha ? is it to say above the arsh means Jiha = Direction ? post the exact words and explanation of

1- Jiha
2- Tajsim
3- Tashbih
4- Istiqrar

what does Ibn Hajar say about Jahmi Mutazili position on Istawa like Istilaa or qahr adopted by famous mutakalimeen ?


Looks like most brothers on the forum just follow whatever is spread by few good english writers. Example look at GF Haddad full of contradictions. Talks about Jiha and condemning salafis then comes up with the creed of Abdul Qadir Jilani then tries to give his own twist on Bukhari and Khallal.


whatever happened to the anthropomorphism of Sultan al-Awliya ? how come Bukhari's book has some real examples real literalism but Sultan al-Awliya Nazim Haqqani ... give million tawil.


This is all ijitihad, if one doesn't like the opinions of Ibn Abdul Barr, Bukhari, Malik, Khallal, Ibn Taymiyya and would like to follow the opinions of Bajuri, Iji, Amidi, etc. then there is no one to stop but please don't insult our intelligence by making claims that the later day scholars 800+ AH know Islam better than Bukhari or Muslim or Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

[Ansari]

Clearly you can see Jiha and Istawa ala arsh Haqiqah ie., literal, real sense..
This is your false and wicked interpretation that Qurtubi is innocent of. Haqiqa in the sense that the istiwa is a real sifa. NOT literal. In his own book of sifaat he condemns jiha.

You keep bringing up your idol GF Haddad. Who told you he is our SF leader? Who accused Bukhari of tajseem here? Should we bring statements of your crazy Salafi brethren who call Ibn Hajar an innovator?




Bi Dhat, Haqeeqah , alal Arsh , fawq al-arsh, all means DIRECTION , so are we going to condemn all those scholars who said Fawq al-arsh.

May I laugh? Go learn the Arabic language. It is perfectly fine to say Allah is above the throne. The word bi dhatihi can even be used if a good meaning and context is intended.

Don't bring this nonsense and baatil qiyas up again.

Ascribing Jiha to Allah = deviance and even kufr as Ulama stated.

Nobody of the Salaf ascribed jiha to Allah. Bring 1 statement that proves such a stance.

[حسان 30]

This is your false and wicked interpretation that Qurtubi is innocent of. Haqiqa in the sense that the istiwa is a real sifa. NOT literal. In his own book of sifaat he condemns jiha.

I'm not talking about the sifah of istawa or jiha here, but why would he have to ascribe "real" to a sifah if it is already considered a sifah? Is there such a thing as a not real and real at the same time sifah?

For example if someone says this attribute of me being able to run is a real attribute, does this make any sense? By me saying that I have an attribute of "running" it already confirms that it is real, so there would be no need to re-ascertain that "Running" is in fact a sifah by saying it is real.... UNLESS the word real here had a different job to play in the sentence, which is that it is real as in truly what it is and not metaphorical for another meaning. You can say "well this attribute of istawa is real-but it really is Majaazi", than this is just playing with words intending to arrive upon the meaning of "Real rising" as not being rising at all, but really being Majaaz for something else....

[Sulaiman84]

I'm not talking about the sifah of istawa or jiha here....


But this is your first post on the thread. Brother Ansari was talkin' to abul_hussain, unless...:$

[حسان 30]

But this is your first post on the thread. Brother Ansari was talkin' to abul_hussain, unless...:$

It's called informing him that I am not talking specifically about those two words, and he shouldn't judge my speech according to what he understands from those two words... but rather look at what I am saying and answer concerning that...

Other than that, Yes it is my first post on this thread...

Thank you.

[Ansari]

I'm not talking about the sifah of istawa or jiha here, but why would he have to ascribe "real" to a sifah if it is already considered a sifah? Is there such a thing as a not real and real at the same time sifah?

For example if someone says this attribute of me being able to run is a real attribute, does this make any sense? By me saying that I have an attribute of "running" it already confirms that it is real, so there would be no need to re-ascertain that "Running" is in fact a sifah by saying it is real.... UNLESS the word real here had a different job to play in the sentence, which is that it is real as in truly what it is and not metaphorical for another meaning. You can say "well this attribute of istawa is real-but it really is Majaazi", than this is just playing with words intending to arrive upon the meaning of "Real rising" as not being rising at all, but really being Majaaz for something else....

It does make sense because the Mu'tazila and Jahmiyya denied that "istiwa" is a sifa and denied that Allah did istiwa. So the Ahlussunnah stated that Istiwa IS a real attribute of Allah.

Haqiqatan can be used in that context in the sense that all these attributes have a reality (haqiqa). The way Qurtubi used it, it makes totaly sense he is talking about istiwa being a real sifa.

وَلَمْ يُنْكِر أَحَد مِنْ السَّلَف الصَّالِح أَنَّهُ اِسْتَوَى عَلَى عَرْشه حَقِيقَة
And nobody from the Salaf denied that He did istiwa on His throne in reality [haqiqa]

The Jahmiyya opposed the Qur'anic text and stated that Allah did not make istiwa. So it makes sense to use haqiqatan here.

It is obvious that when Salafis use haqiqatan they mean the literal meaning of that word which has no majazi meaning, as they themselves stated.

[حسان 30]

It does make sense because the Mu'tazila and Jahmiyya denied that "istiwa" is a sifa and denied that Allah did istiwa. So the Ahlussunnah stated that Istiwa IS a real attribute of Allah
.

What you said would be fine and dandy if he was trying to refute the Jahmiyah/Muta'zilah, or if he were talking about the Scholars who did so.

But look at what he said again:

قَدْ كَانَ ((( السَّلَف الْأَوَّل ))) رَضِيَ اللَّه عَنْهُمْ لَا يَقُولُونَ بِنَفْيِ الْجِهَة وَلَا يَنْطِقُونَ بِذَلِكَ


Who are the Salaf al-awal he is referring to exactly? It must be that he is referring to the first Qarn which includes the Prophet :saw: and his companions. In which case the statements of the Jahmiyah/Mu'tazilah didn't exist.


. وَلَمْ يُنْكِر أَحَد مِنْ السَّلَف الصَّالِح أَنَّهُ اِسْتَوَى عَلَى عَرْشه حَقِيقَة


Now that we have understood that he is referring to the first Qarn, in which no one had any disagreements concerning the where-abouts of Allah nor his sifaat.... Which is clear because he said "Not one of them negated this"- So how can the Salaf- The first Qarn in which no one disagreed, then being doing further ithbaat of an attribute that not one of them denied? It's not possible, so the only possibility is that the word "Haqeeqi" here the meaning of Ghayr Majaaz.


. وَخُصَّ الْعَرْش بِذَلِكَ لِأَنَّهُ أَعْظَم مَخْلُوقَاته , وَإِنَّمَا جَهِلُوا كَيْفِيَّة الِاسْتِوَاء فَإِنَّهُ لَا تُعْلَم حَقِيقَته .


And this statement is further proof that it is not what you intended, why? Because a moment ago you said that "haqeeqi" means that it was in fact a sifaah, but now he is associating the "Haqeeqi" of it in relation to knowing the modality, which eliminates the possibility furthermore that the intended meaning behind him saying "haqeeqi" was that it was indeed a sifah, rather it shows that he meant "Haqeeqi" as in "actual" and "Literal", while also making it clear the the "Reality" of the realness is not known....

According to you however it would mean that it is an attribute but we don't know if it's an attribute, because of his two statements "Rising above the 'arsh haqeeqi" and "We don't known the "haqeeqi" of it", right?



Haqiqatan can be used in that context in the sense that all these attributes have a reality (haqiqa). The way Qurtubi used it, it makes totaly sense he is talking about istiwa being a real sifa.


In both cases or only in one? Did he mean "we don't know if it's haqeeqi" as in we don't know if it is indeed a Sifaah? or did he mean it's real-and it's a real sifaah, and we don't know the modality of the reality of it..?



The Jahmiyya opposed the Qur'anic text and stated that Allah did not make istiwa. So it makes sense to use haqiqatan here.

The Jahmiyah also opposed Allah being above the 'Arsh, and Opposed the Qur'an being the Speech of Allah, while Imam Ahmad said it was with sound and letters.... So which one is from Ahl Sunnah?


It is obvious that when Salafis use haqiqatan they mean the literal meaning of that word which has no majazi meaning, as they themselves stated

Is Ibn 'Abdul Barr a Salafee? What About other Scholars from the past who said they are not Majaazi, are they also Salafee?

Or is difference of opinion only permissible for you but not for the "Salafi" Scholars who follow the "Salafi" scholars of the past?

[Ansari]

Or is difference of opinion only permissible for you but not for the "Salafi" Scholars who follow the "Salafi" scholars of the past?

Who are they following from the Salaf in establishing direction for Allah.

Please bring full references with quotes from the actual reliable scholars of the Salaf: the era of the Prophet, Sahaba and the taba'in. Not those who came 600 years afterwards.

[abul_hussain]

we ahlus sunnah wal jamaah don't to Toqiya :

One statement or set of beliefs for Jahmiyyah and Mutazila

One statement or set of beliefs for our own sunnis

It doesn't work this way. No one is scared of what others will say !! This is the methodology of Ahl Sunnah wal Jamaah. So when Abdullah ibn Mubarak said what he said on the issue he didn't care what the physicist or chemist or aristotle or plato would have to say. He only cared what is reported to him NASS QATI and the explanation. What pagan Jew Einstien or newton have to say about Gravity or laws of physics is thrown in garbage bin. The theories of relativity gravity Force = Mass x Acceleration all that nonsense is down the flush ! People came to do Tanzih by applying man made theories and postulations and that too by some pagans ( gravity and relativity ) ? come on !!

Ibn Al-Mubarak (d 181 H.) : Ali Ibn al-Hasan Ibn Shaqeeq reported: I asked Abdullah Ibn al-Mubarak: “How are we to know our Lord –Azza wa Jal-? ”
He replied: «He is over the seventh Heaven over His Throne. We do not say as the Jahmiyyah say: that He is here on the earth.» (8) Sahih.
In another narration he said: «That He is above the seventh Heaven, on the Throne, separate from His creation.» (9) Its grading: Hasan.

If you read the book of Habib Hasan Ali Saqqaf on Ruyah in the afterlife, you can clearly see how people are trying to use AQL over naql.

Be clear, by saying this is my personal opinion that saying Allah is above or over the Arsh Throne means that you are giving DIRECTION ( which is application of Physics - Laws of Gravity and Relativity ) so this is not possible. This is acceptable. but to make claims like "It is a lie to claim he asribed it to the salaf. As did Ibn Hajar where he said that the majority condemned jiha" without any supporting references then this is just a slip by the brother.

you can read more here http://as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=67&lang=en with original arabic references.



This is your false and wicked interpretation that Qurtubi is innocent of. Haqiqa in the sense that the istiwa is a real sifa. NOT literal. In his own book of sifaat he condemns jiha.

You keep bringing up your idol GF Haddad. Who told you he is our SF leader? Who accused Bukhari of tajseem here? Should we bring statements of your crazy Salafi brethren who call Ibn Hajar an innovator?




May I laugh? Go learn the Arabic language. It is perfectly fine to say Allah is above the throne. The word bi dhatihi can even be used if a good meaning and context is intended.

Don't bring this nonsense and baatil qiyas up again.

Ascribing Jiha to Allah = deviance and even kufr as Ulama stated.

Nobody of the Salaf ascribed jiha to Allah. Bring 1 statement that proves such a stance.

Give all your excuses and taweelat. Nice try brother, but unfortunately, there is no room for your personal opinions, bring up the statements of ulama.

No wonder Imam Bukhari said about those who accused salafis/atharis of Tashbeeh that the accusers are really the anthropomorphists.

وقال بعض أهل العلم إن الجهمية هم المشبهة لأنهم شبهوا ربهم بالصنم والأصم والأبكم الذي لا يسمع ولا يبصر ولا يتكلم ولا يخلق

وقالت الجهمية وكذلك لا يتكلم ولا يبصر نفسه وقالوا إن اسم الله مخلوق ويلزمهم أن يقولوا إذا أذن المؤذن أن يقولوا لا إله إلا الله اسمه الله وأشهد أن محمدا رسول الله الذي اسمه الله لأنهم قالوا إن اسم الله مخلوق

and it is really funny that you want to contribute in this thread and you are ignorant of what later day Asharite scholars have said about FAWQ/BI DHAT/ALA ARSH.... all you need to do is take few courses from Asharite AICP and then you will understand the difference.

The proof that you are really ignorant about this topic is your claim << It is perfectly fine to say Allah is above the throne. The word bi dhatihi can even be used if a good meaning and context is intended. >>

All you need to do is read more brother Ansari before making such claims.

here is something to educate yourself:


In the matter of the Names and Attributes Ibn Abd al-Salam was fundamentally an Ash'ari, as illustrated by his work on the principles of metaphorical interpretation of the Holy Qur'an entitled Al-Ishara ila al-Ijaz fi Ba'd Anwa' al-Majaz:
When Allah is described by something which is inapplicable to Him literally (bi haqiqatihi), He is described by it only metaphorically..As in the case of the following:
<snip>
16. His establishment (istiwa) over the Throne = A metaphor for establishing dominion (istila) over His kingdom and disposing of it,as the poet said:
qad istawa Bishrun ala al-Iraq
min ghayri sayfin wa damin muhraq
Bishr established mastery over Iraq
without sword and without shedding blood

[حسان 30]

Who are they following from the Salaf in establishing direction for Allah.
Please bring full references with quotes from the actual reliable scholars of the Salaf: the era of the Prophet, Sahaba and the taba'in. Not those who came 600 years afterwards.

I don't know why you decided to branch off into quoting me on an issue that was secondary ,and left the real meat of the issue alone.

Now if you read the entire issue that you are quoting and asking concerning you will understand what I said.... so here goes again..

You said:



It is obvious that when Salafis use haqiqatan they mean the literal meaning of that word which has no majazi meaning, as they themselves stated

So I said:



Is Ibn 'Abdul Barr a Salafee? What About other Scholars from the past who said they are not Majaazi, are they also Salafee?
Or is difference of opinion only permissible for you but not for the "Salafi" Scholars who follow the "Salafi" scholars of the past?


See how it works? I wasn't referring to "Jiha" I was referring to negating Majazi and doing ithbaat of Haqeeqi.
Btw Ibn Abdul Barr did not come 600 years afterwards, and if that's the case don't quote an-nawawi, or ibn hajr, or ar-razi, or ghazali, or anyone else for that matter... and tell me who amongst the Salaf completely negated "Jiha"....

So now that we have that out of the way, we can say that none of the "Salafi scholars" completely do ithbaat of "Jiha" just like they don't do complete ithbaat or nafi of other then that from amongst new terms, until and unless the complete tafseel of the word is explained. Because by the same token of you negating Jiha you Might negate Hands, face, eyes, etc etc from the true and real sifaat of Allah.

So the question is not where did the Salafi say Allah is in a Jiha, the question is....

Is saying Allah is above the throne- and meaning by it the actual meaning of it- pointing to a direction or no?

[abul_hussain]

What you said would be fine and dandy if he was trying to refute the Jahmiyah/Muta'zilah, or if he were talking about the Scholars who did so.


even if it is shown to them the quotes or references, they will still stick with the same story of applying laws of gravity and physics. I came to the conclusion that it is really difficult to discuss such topics because when they are confronted with the original quotes or explanation then they disappear or try to abuse or make mockery...these are just attempts to close the topic or flee from the discussion.

I asked them what is JIHA or Tajsim or Tashbeeh ? they don't even have a clue about the definitions or explanations from scholars, yet very enthusiastically want to participate in a way not to learn but to bash others.

the classic reply:

<<May I laugh? Go learn the Arabic language. It is perfectly fine to say Allah is above the throne. The word bi dhatihi can even be used if a good meaning and context is intended. >>

so where is the problem if it is okay to say Allah is over/above/bi dhat/bi nafs on the Throne !! where does the issue of Jiha = Direction come in ?

[dr.ati]

I would like to know whats the Shari' ruling over a person according to the Hanafis ( Ashari/maturidi?) who says

1. Allah is physically above the thrown not everywhere.

2.Allah has hand which does not resemble any other hand and we can't understand its nature.

[abul_hussain]

@ANSARI

something in easy language from Ibn Rushd al-Maliki

http://www.************/belief--aqidah/articles/aqidah/on-ibn-rushds-affirmation-of-direction-for-allah.html
MARIFAH . NET WEBSITE

Ibn Rushd 3 said in his Manāhij al-Adilla4:
“And [as for] the doubt which the deniers of ‘al-jiha’ (direction) used to reject it, is that they held that affirming direction necessitates a place, and affirming a place necessitates the affirmation of a form [corporeality] (jismīyyah). But we say that all of this is not necessitated, for direction is something other than a place and this is because direction is either the surfaces of an object itself which encompass it (and they are six) and it is from this that we say that (material) things have a ‘bottom’, ‘top’, ‘right’, ‘left’, ‘front’ and ‘behind’, or (direction) is the surfaces of another object which encompass the first object from the six directions. As for the surfaces which are of the body itself, they do not constitute a place/location for the body itself, fundamentally. But as for those surfaces of another object/matter which encompass and surround it then they constitute a ‘place/location’ for it. An example is like the surfaces and planes of the winds/atmosphere which surround man or the surfaces of the celestial bodies (planets) which surround the winds/atmosphere—these too constitute a place for the winds/atmosphere. These celestial bodies too, some of them encompass and surround others (due to their orbits etc.) and (as such) constitute a ‘place/location’ for them. As for the external surface of a celestial body, it has been demonstrated that it is not
outside of it with a form of itself, because if that was the case then that outer form too would have to have another form outside of that, and this would go on and on till it never ends [ad infinitum]. Therefore, the surfaces of the extreme ends of the universe do not constitute a place, since it is not
possible to find another ‘object/form’ (jism) there (i.e. outside of it, after its end has been reached). Thus, if evidence is established to prove the existence of something in this location, it should exist there without a form (jism), for that which prevents its existence there, is the exact opposite of what the people presume it to be...”




قال ابن رشد في كتاب مناهج الأدلة في الرد على الأصوليين قال : ( والقول في الجهة وأما هذه الصفة فلم يزل أهل الشريعة في أول الأمر يثبتونها لله سبحانه حتى نفتها المعتزلة ثم تبعهم على نفيها متأخرو الأشعرية كأبي المعالي ومن اقتدى بقوله



you may want to do more reading on this topic before discussing.

[abul_hussain]

Btw Ibn Abdul Barr did not come 600 years afterwards, and if that's the case don't quote an-nawawi, or ibn hajr, or ar-razi, or ghazali, or anyone else for that matter... and tell me who amongst the Salaf completely negated "Jiha"....



No, it is okay for us to quote Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, al-Razi, Saeed Fudah, Abdullah Habashi etc but for you, you cannot do that. That's red flag. You must quote from or upto 330 AH

Even if you quote from upto 330 AH all the scholars and tabeen and sahaba who said above/over/fawq ala Arsh then they didn't mean DIRECTION but you حسان or me abul hussain if we say the same thing, then condemn to tashbih,tajsim, jiha,kufr,place,gravity,f=ma,atom,proton,neutron,e lectron, etc. etc.

do we even know what we are discussing ? the brother said it is okay << It is perfectly fine to say Allah is above the throne. The word bi dhatihi can even be used if a good meaning and context is intended. >> so where is the point of contention or objection ?

strange people.

<< Is saying Allah is above the throne- and meaning by it the actual meaning of it- pointing to a direction or no? >> is kufr according to ....................................... cannot find anyone from upto 330 AH... but may be someone can....

[dr.ati]

:salam:

From what I've understood, the Mufti is saying that, while some of the early Hanabilah were open anthropomorphists (Abu Ya`la comes to mind :rahma:, I've heard the same said about Imam Khalal :rahma:) later Hanabilah post-Shaikh al-Islam :rahma: held the same beliefs, but they were hidden behind kalam.

I might be wrong, but this is what I understood. In fact, it might be best to ask him directly, and you can find his website here:

http://www.zamzamacademy.com/contact-us/

:salam:

You are right. I got a reply from him.

[حسان 30]

:salam:

You are right. I got a reply from him.

:ws: So you're alright with him calling them Mujassim (aka kufr)? If so, can you tell me from a Hanbali point of view why they were in fact Mujassim? If not then ignore this.

[dr.ati]

:ws: So you're alright with him calling them Mujassim (aka kufr)? If so, can you tell me from a Hanbali point of view why they were in fact Mujassim? If not then ignore this.

:salam:

NO. Its a sign of Jahamiya to call the Ahle sunnah Mujassima. I just got an impression from his lecture that he is exempting Shaykh Ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah ra from the charges of Tajseem but i was wrong.

[abul_hussain]

:salam:

You are right. I got a reply from him.


can you please post the reply. May be there is some misunderstanding.

[dr.ati]

can you please post the reply. May be there is some misunderstanding.

I contacted one of his students through a friend and he confirmed that Mufti Abur rehman meant what maneatinglizard said ie ' The early Hanabila were apparent and obvious Mujassimah but laters after Ibn Taymiyyah , they became khashaveeya ie hidden anthropomorphists'