Sheikh Kishk r.A. Talks About Where is Allah :)

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

Do you even know Arabic? He is quoting the Jahmi who thinks Allah is in place. It seems the Salafis are the Jahmis of today who believe Allah is in a place.

You fail again.

The one who believes Allah is in a place is a murtad. His marriage is invalid and all his good deeds are in vain. As mentioned by all 4 schools of thought.

I don't know what you are talking about seriously, tell me which part of the sentence I didn't understand or misunderstood.

Al-fudhail said if a JAHMIY says to you "I disbeliever in a lord who decends from his place" Say "I believe in a lord who does what he wants"....

Which means two things, number one al-fudail confirmed Allah is in his place(istawa ala'l arsh) and that he decends as he wishes.


If I am wrong explain to me how I am wrong.

He didn't negate Allahs makaan by saying I believe, nor did he deny Allahs decending by saying I believe. Rather he confirmed BOTH. Because the Jahmi Also believe there is nothing above the Arsh, it had nothing to do with the jahmiy believing Allah is above, because they also negated that. It has to do with the Jahmiy negating nuzool, and playing around with the Salaf by saying "I disbelieve in a lord who can't move from his place", the Jahmi even knew that what the Salaf believed, unfortunetly you don't.

Like what was reported from another Salaf named Sa'eed ibn aamr ad-dhoba'ii, who said in abbreviation that the people of all the revealed religions believe Allah is above the throne, whle the jahmiyah say there is nothing upon it.

So rather than make yourself look retarded, shut your mouth.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

Even if the attribution of that khabar to imam al-fudayl رضي الله عنه was true, we still affirmd wha the jama' has affirmed, that there things which may not be attributed to Allah سبحانه و تعالى. something which doesn't contradict His omni-potence.

So you take your aqeedah from narrations with no chain, and than you deny the ones that do have a chain.

His statement does not conflict with the Qur'an and Sunnah.

[Abu Jahid]

I really like Shaykh Abd al-Hamid Kishk ... he was really a good man... I wish we had more 'ulama like him!

But it's quite funny when some people who hate "wahabis" start quoting him, because Shaykh Abd al-Hamid Kishk qoutes Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab and calls him "Shaykh" and says "" after his name... so after you know that, you are not allowed to qoute him anymore!...

[Ansari]

I really like Shaykh Abd al-Hamid Kishk ... he was really a good man... I wish we had more 'ulama like him!

But it's quite funny when some people who hate "wahabis" start quoting him, because Shaykh Abd al-Hamid Kishk qoutes Shayh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab and calls him "Shaykh" and says "" after his name... so after you know that, you are not allowed to qoute him anymore!...

Who are those people? We love Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Nothing but love for the people of tawhid.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

I'm afraid not. If you mean the athar of the Prophet and companions and the follower, then the Aqeedah of Iam abul-Hasan and Imam Abul-Mansur is in complete accordance with the athar, if, however, you're referring to another athar, then maybe.

Really? Show me who said that from amongst YOUR scholars, rather they admit that the methodolgy of the khalaf in their understanding of the Nusoos was done by the way of ta'weel, and while the Salaf secretly believed this ta'weel(as these scholars say), they never verbally expressed it for all of the Sifaat, it was when the khalaf and these two sheikhs came and implemented their understanding, that the secret ta'weel of the Salaf was revealed to the world.

It's also ain accordance with the ijma' of the salaf, which they were part of. Imam Ahmad رضي الله عنه has also adhered to the ijma' in the aqeedah,

You really believe that?

even though he had some opinions basedon which some the people who attribute themselves to him have built their bida', it's batil built on haqq.

No, its ignorance built upon misgudaince if someone believes that Imam Ahmad and the Salaf had ijma' on the permissibility of ta'weel of some major sifaat including actions.

Besides, your scholars admit the Salaf were Mufawidh, so how can they also have Ijma on the permissibility of ta'weel when they all said we take them as they come and we don't change anything?
Especially when they were harsh against those who did other than they did?

I know how this works, first you say the salaf were mufawidh, then you say they did ta'weel, then you say they were mufawidh, then you go back to saying they allow ta'weel. While the the Salafs words speak for themselves, they did ithbaat of what Allah and his messenger said. Proclaiming the Salaf did ta'weel will not get you anywhere, because. If they did ta'weel of a sifaat and not of another it means you have to accept they had a meaning for the ones they didn't do ta'weel of and since they didn't give us a ta'weel of it, the meaning is what the word entails. I'm willing accept their authentic ta'weel but are you willing to accept their authentic ithbaat upon the apparent meaning?

That was a general statement which I found fitting to mention there. Many people believe that certain sciences like taçawwuf and kalam are bida' because they weren't known by name during the life of the Prophet and the companions, which is not how we jduge what's bida' and what's not.

I judge bida'a how muwafuqu deen ibn qudaama judges it.

[Abu Jahid]

Do you even know Arabic? He is quoting the Jahmi who thinks Allah is in place. It seems the Salafis are the Jahmis of today who believe Allah is in a place. Then he answers: فقل : انا أؤمن برب يفعل ما يشاء

You fail again.

The one who believes Allah is in a place is a murtad. His marriage is invalid and all his good deeds are in vain. As mentioned by all 4 schools of thought.

So Salafis believe that ALLAH is in a place? Really? Then please tell me why this Salafi Shaykh (Uthman Khamees) says otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r0D2QUa7BY

Who are those people? We love Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Nothing but love for the people of tawhid.

"Those people" are pro-istigatha headbanging wannabe Sufis, who think that they are representing the "traditional" Islam, but the truth is that they are either hardcore bid'atis or even mushrikeen!

"Those people" are those who Shaykh Abd al-Hamid Kishk is making fun of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZouMm1D6Gw

[Zhulfiqar]

But their 'aqeedah different with the ahlul athar/salaf/hanabilah, right?

So only the Hanabali are the "righteous Salaf"? If that is your definition then I'm certainly not following your Salaf, I follow Ibn al-Kullâb and Abi'l Hasan al-Ash'ari who is from the Salaf.

I know how this works, first you say the salaf were mufawidh

Subhân Allâh, you've debated so many followers of the Ash'ari creed and you still face hard time grasping the concept of Tafwîdh.

[Transcendentalist]

So you take your aqeedah from narrations with no chain, and than you deny the ones that do have a chain.

His statement does not conflict with the Qur'an and Sunnah.

My aqeedha concerning this matter (that there are indeed things which are impossible to be attributed to Allah سبحانه وتعالى), like all other aqeedah matters, is taken from the Quran and the Sunna and the ijma' of the salaf and the khalaf.

All these sources state that Allah سبحانه وتعالى is, so we can't say that He doesn't have a being because oi the fact that He does whatever he wants and therefore can annhiliate himself أستغفر الله? They also state that He is one without a partner, so we can't say that He is composed of multiple beings or that other beings also have lordship over the world (as those Nazareans have used that quote to proof). And they state that allah سبحانه وتعالى is Ghaniy so He doesn't need anything for his being, including space in which to exist, so we can't that He does whatever He wants and he wanted to be dependant on space to exist in it.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

So only the Hanabali are the "righteous Salaf"? If that is your definition then I'm certainly not following your Salaf, I follow Ibn al-Kullâb and Abi'l Hasan al-Ash'ari who is from the Salaf.

If you consider Al-fudhail, sufyan at-thawri, and anyone else mentioned in bukharis book hanabila then yes.

Besides that, anta hur.

Subhân Allâh, you've debated so many followers of the Ash'ari creed and you still face hard time grasping the concept of Tafwîdh.

Cause like al-uthaymeen said, each one of you has 10 different aqwal for 1 mas'ala. It's not my fault you can't decide which one is raajih and which one isn't, besides I have only seen on sharh, and I am talking the Sheiikhs words over yours, he(al-baajori) says its number 6, what do you say?

1:The Salaf were complete mufawidh.

2:The Salaf were not mufawidh and did ta'weel of all the sifaat.

3:The Salaf Were mufawidh completely and but did ta'weel at the same time.

4:The Salaf were not mufawidh and did ta'weel of some verses.

5:The Salaf were not mufawidh in meaning and took the verses apparently and if the ta'weel comes in an authentic way that is understood as the meaning.

6:The Salaf were mufawidh but had a secret knowledge of the ta'weel but didn't inform us of that, rather it came about years later from your scholars.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

My aqeedha concerning this matter (that there are indeed things which are impossible to be attributed to Allah سبحانه وتعالى), like all other aqeedah matters, is taken from the Quran and the Sunna and the ijma' of the salaf and the khalaf.

Right good for you, now that you have proven you don't know what you are talking about. Have a nice day.