Difference between contemporary Salafis and classical Atharis with regard to Aqeedah.

[Bro Hasan]

Could anyone please highlight the difference between contemporary Salafis and classical Atharis with regard to Aqeedah ? Jazakallah Khair.

[junfrared]

Could anyone please highlight the difference between contemporary Salafis and classical Atharis with regard to Aqeedah ? Jazakallah Khair.

How can they differentiate, when they can't differentiate b/w Salafis and Ahle Hadith sub-continent, who don't comprehend Salafi movement, who are confuse about the Mazhab of Ulama e Haramain sharifain, who are still confused about Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab Najadi r.a.

This very subtle matter, the correct question is that how much our Aqeeda approach is consistent to Salaf Salaheen, i.e. Sahabah, Tabeen and Tab' Tabeen, whether we are contemporary Salafi, or Classical Athari, or Maturidi or Ashari. So we need to reject what is inconsistent that era.
It is baseless to say everybody have to Hanafi or Maturidi or Salafi, or Athari, rather need to call and need to adhere to that path at which Prophet was, and his companions was.

“My Community shall divide into seventy-three sects - all of them in the Hellfire except one group: [Those that follow] that which I and my Companions follow”


In his last sermon Prophet Muhammad (may the Lord greet and bless him) said:”He who will live after my death, will witness many differences. Your duty is to follow my Sunna [path] and the Sunna of pious caliphs who will lead you after me. Observe it as diligently as possible. Fear innovations! Verily, every innovation is going astray from the right path”

And regarding to basic creed, the Quran is apparent, the Hadith is apparent, the Athar of Sahabah is apparent, the Athar of Tabeen and Tab’ Tabeen are apparent, spread all over the internet, read them and accept them collectively, on whole you will not find a difference, among the Quran, Hadith, and the saying of Salaf Salaheen and the saying of Imam Abu Hanafi ra. And sayings of contemporary Salafi Ullama, Collectively they all are consistent.

And going into the depth in creed issues unnecessarily isn’t the way of Companions,

[Bro Hasan]

I'm not saying their creed is wrong I'm just asking for the difference.

[Abdul1234]

brain size

[junfrared]

I'm not saying their creed is wrong I'm just asking for the difference.

I think my answer is more than enough.

However why you need to know? purpose?

[baytul-herz]

The position of the Atharis in regards to the attributes of Allah was to believe in the wording (hence why they are called atharis),without delving into the meaning or how.

So if they saw the word "yad",they'd affirm the text and leave the meaning to Allah. They wouldn't say "this is literal' nor would they say "this is metaphorical".

And this methodology comes from the Qur'an itself,as the Qur'an says regarding the ambiguous things with more than one meaning...

هُوَ الَّذِي أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ ۖ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ ۗ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۗ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا ۗ وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ


Imran 3:7.

وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۗ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا ۗ


"And none knows the interpretation except Allah,and those with knowledge say we believe everything from our lord."


So with regards to the words or texts with more than one meaning,the salaf would refer the interpretation to Allah. This is called "Tafweed Al Ma'na".


The difference with the salafies is that they say they know the meaning of yad,which is a literal yad,but do not know what kind of yad.


The asharis/maturidis follow the Athari position,but if they have some evidence they give some *possible* interpretations to these texts without claiming it is
definite meaning,as no one truly knows its interpretation except Allah. Thus falling inline with the methodology of the salaf.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

The position of the Atharis in regards to the attributes of Allah was to believe in the wording (hence why they are called atharis),without delving into the meaning or how.

So if they saw the word "yad",they'd affirm the text and leave the meaning to Allah. They wouldn't say "this is literal' nor would they say "this is metaphorical".

There are some Atharis who did Ithbaat of the Sifaat while SPECIFICALLY using the word Haqeeqi in reference to them, two of them off the top of my head are Ibn Abdul Barr, and Abu Ja'far At-Tabari.

At-Tabari specifically said "The correct statement with us (Concerning the meaning of the Sifaat) is that we confirm the reality of them (Haqaaiq) according to what we know from the angle of also negating similarity between the creation." Page 141 At-Tabseer fi Ma'alam Ad-Deen.

To say NO Athari scholars confirmed the Haqeeqi and negated the Majaaz of the sifaat is a great injustice to the truth.

What you quoted was the opinion of the Asharis of the Atharis in relation to their tafweedh, however it's not true, and one only has to look at the words of the Atharis of the early generations to see what they themselves said.

and Just a point, if you say Literal sometimes it confuses people into thinking that the Hand of Allah is like the Hands of the creation, because the word literal in English has many meanings, some of which would include it being exactly like something else. However, this is not entirely correct if you mean literal as in not metaphorical it's fine, but Allahs Hand is not a literal hand (as in a created one) rather Allahs hand is a real hand within a reality of itself, but his hand is not like the creation.

Arabic, as you know is a precise language, so when saying Haqeeqi it's understood in arabic that it doesn't mean a created hand but something real in general not metaphoric for something else.

And again, this is what At-Tabari said concerning Allahs hand (that Allahs sifah of hand is a hand unlike the extremities of the creation.)

[UntoldTruth]

The anthropomorphic creed of Ibn Taymiyyah will never be accepted as legit among us. His creed will never be seen as the true Hanbali creed... Never.. I don't know why you try so hard to convince us.... we are not convinced..

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

The anthropomorphic creed of Ibn Taymiyyah will never be accepted as legit among us. His creed will never be seen as the true Hanbali creed... Never.. I don't know why you try so hard to convince us.... we are not convinced..

I'm not convincing you of following the Salaf or Hanaabilah, The Sheikh of Tafseer of Quran is, if you don't want to follow him don't.

As for Ibn Taymiyyah he has nothing to do with what I quoted, because I quoted Atharis from close to the time of the Salaf, so you bringing him up for no reason is strange, and to me is a red herring in order to divert us away from the topic at hand.

In short, the Hanabilah consider him to be the Sheikh al Islaam and accepted his Aqeedah, he didn't invent anything that the Salaf didn't say first, and again he has nothing to do with this conversation so leave him out of it.

[Bro Hasan]

I think my answer is more than enough.

However why you need to know? purpose?

Salafis declaring Asharis out of the Ahlus Sunnah and saying only their Aqeedah is correct =/
Thats why