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

[baytul-herz]

If you mean Allah has a Haqeeqi ghair Majaazi hand, then yes... He has a Literal hand, if you mean it's like the creation, no Allahs hand is not like the creation.

What is the meaning of literal hand?

Good, so you have a MEANING but not a DEFINITION... I am asking you, how is the nature of Allah?

You are very confused so let me explain it clear for you.

When someone says "define this word ball ",they want the "meaning".

When someone picks up a ball and says "define this ball",they want the physical description of the ball.

There is a difference between defining a word and defining an object,one is meaning,one is physical attributes.


We say we know the meaning of dhat,that is the essence of Allah,but we don't know the modality of it.


Regarding hand,we say we leave both the meaning and modality.

You say you know the meaning of literal hand,so tell us.

Not every scholar agrees this verse is in reference to Sifaat, and Ta'weel does not mean MEANING it means Tafseer... Explanation, so in that regard, I can't explain the sifaat cause I don't know them, but I know they are what Allah said they are.

Ta'weel means to extract a meaning.

The bottom line is,you say you know the meaning of this word "yad".

Do or do you not,answer us. What is the meaning of this word "yad"?

Allah specifically said he didn't know the time, however, where did Allah say he didn't know Allah or to whom he was worshiping?

So are you saying that Muhammad SAW knew how the essence of Allah was?

If you really think you can have conversations about issues without understanding the true meaning and definition of the words used, that is ridiculous to say the least.

I agree.

So tell us what is the meaning of "yad".

That's what At-Tabari said, not me. I'll follow him over you.

Imam At-Tabari is far from you,sorry.

[faqir]

as salaamu alaykum,

why do people keep going in circles and circles when such issues have been researched by erudite sufi scholar Zayn al-Din Mari bin Yusuf al-Karmi (d. 1033 AH ) and many others.

The book is a discussion on Creed ( Attributes of Allah jalla wa ala ) and the author has done a very good job in collecting the sayings, statements and explanations of numerous scholars from all camps on the Attributes of Allah jalla wa ala. It is not one isolated statement and the book has an introduction/preface by Shaykh Shuayb Arnuat al-Hanafi and gives his opinion on this issue and Ibn Taymiyyah.

The book has been edited by Shaykh Shuayb Arnuat al-Hanafi
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1860
TEXT Version: http://www.islamicbook.ws/ageda/aqawil-althqat.html
shamela edition

Here is what salafimanhaj have to say about your book:

Source: http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/Sala...initionOfAjami

Shaykh Mar’ee bin Yoosuf bin Abee Bakr bin Ahmad bin Abee Bakr bin Yoosuf bin Ahmad al-Karami al-Maqdisi al-Hanbali (rahimahullaah). He was from Toor ul-Karam/Tulkaram (Tulkarm) in Palestine (currently located in the northwest of the West Bank), then he moved to al-Quds and then to Cairo where he died in 1033 AH (1624 CE). He was praised as being a faqeeh by Ibn Badraan, Ibn Humayd and Uthmaan bin Bishr. He authored a number of works some of which have been edited and published while the overwhelming majority of his works (over sixty titles) remain in manuscript form:
␣␣ al-Kawaakib ad-Durriyyah fi Manaaqib al-Mujtahid Ibn Taymiyyah (Cairo: Daar ul-Gharb al-Islami, 1349 AH)
␣␣ Aqaaweel uth-Thiqaat fee Ta’weel il-Asmaa’ wa’s-Sifaat (Mu’assasat Risaalah, 1406 AH, ed. Shu’ayb Arna’oot) – this book however appears to contain confusion in regards to the issues of tafweedh of the kayfiyyah and tafweedh of the meaning of Allaah’s Attributes. Not to mention that Shu’ayb Arna’oot edited the book as he too also has confusion in regards to Allaah’s Attributes! In this book also Shaykh Mar’ee al-Karami also transmitted from some of the ’Ash’arees such as Ibn Fawrak and others without commenting on their words (pp.141, 151, 155). He also deems Allaah’s Attributes as being from the Mutashaabih (pp.149, 173, 182). He also transmits from ar-Raazee, as-Suyuti and an-Nawawi wherein they erred vis-a-vis Allaah’s Attributes and held that the dhaahir of the text was not intended and thus tafweedh had to be performed. Shaykh as-Safaareenee in Ghidhaa ul-Albaab also criticised Shaykh Mar’ee a-Karami for holding the views of the Khalaf in ’aqeedah. Dr Jameel al-Qaraari’ah conducted a thesis on Aqaweel uth-Thiqaat of Shaykh Mar’ee al-Karami and made these observations about the work as has Shaykh Sulaymaan al-Kharaashee. As for Shu’ayb Arna’oot, who currently resides in Jordan, then his muddled methods in approaching the Sifaat was critiqued by Shaykh Khaalid ash-Shaayi’ in his book Istidraak wa Ta’qeeb ’ala’sh-Shaykh Shu’ayb Arna’oot. Another useful work critiquing the approach of making tafweedh of the meaning can be found in the work Dr Ahmad al-Qaadee Madhhab Ahl ut- Tafweedh fi’n-Nusoos is-Sifaat: ’Ard wa Naqd.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

What is the meaning of literal hand?

The Non-Metaphorical meaning of Hand is Hand, without being like the extremities of the creation, and without being "Power, or ability, etc" Rather Hand is the attribute and it's modality is unknown.

We say we know the meaning of dhat,that is the essence of Allah,but we don't know the modality of it.

Regarding hand,we say we leave both the meaning and modality.

All you've done to Dhaat is translate it, you haven't given me the meaning or definition. Essence of Allah, what do you mean? Every Essence that I know of is created, so does that mean Allahs essence is like the creation? Or do you believe that his Essence is unlike the creation, but Still an Essence?

You say you know the meaning of literal hand,so tell us.

You said you knew the meaning of Dhaat but all you did was translate it, so again hand is a hand without being like the extremities of the creation.

Ta'weel means to extract a meaning.

Ta'weel in which context? In the context of the Sifaat of Allah, according to Ibn Qudaama it doesn't mean "Extract the meaning."

So are you saying that Muhammad SAW knew how the essence of Allah was?

There is a big difference between confirming that Allah has Names and Attributes that we have a general idea about, while being ignorant of the modality. And completely negating the word all together by saying it means absolutely nothing to us.

So the Quran has words in the Arabic language that meant something during the time of the Prophet , yet he didn't have any clue as to what they meant, even though he swore that his soul was in the hand one who created him?

I agree.

So tell us what is the meaning of "yad".

Meaning: what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification;

Hand: Something used for Grasping/holding.

They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him. 39:67

Imam At-Tabari is far from you,sorry.

Why? Because I translated Yadd to English and said Hand or what? I said the same thing he said....

[Ibrahimhanifa]

"We have built the heaven with (Our) hands" (51:47) Ibn Jarir al-Tabari said in his Tafsir: Ibn `Abbas said: "It means: with strength." He reports an identical position from Mujahid, Qatada, Mansur, Ibn Zayd, and Sufyan al-Thawri.1 This is also Imam al-Ash`ari's explanation according to Ibn Furak in the latter's recension of Ash`ari's school.2

1. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Tafsir 7:27.
2. 2 Abu Bakr ibn Furak, Mujarrad Maqalat al-Ash`ari (Beirut, 1987) p. 44.

full article - http://www.sunnah.org/anthro/anthro7.htm#2

[Ibrahimhanifa]

I know! Let's discuss GF Haddad. If one looks into GF Haddad's writings about Imam Ahmad's aqeedah, one will notice that he only quotes Abu al-Fadl al-Tamimi's transmissions. He never quotes al-Khallal, because he knows that quoting from al-Khallal and validating him as an aqeedah source is a bad idea from his perspective. In fact, in his book that he probably ghostwrote for Hisham Qabbani, the 'awliya of Bush, he lists 'al-Sunna' by Abu Bakr al-Khallal as a book of unsound 'aqeedah.

So, let's see what Abu al-Fadl al-Tamimi says that Imam Ahmad said, as recorded in Tabaqat al-Hanabilah.[/QUOTE]

Awesome a non classical Arabic speaker becomes an hadeeth expert, seen that before (non muslim haters)!


http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq5.htm

"We have built the heaven with (Our) hands" (51:47) Ibn Jarir al-Tabari said in his Tafsir: Ibn `Abbas said: "It means: with strength." He reports an identical position from Mujahid, Qatada, Mansur, Ibn Zayd, and Sufyan al-Thawri.1 This is also Imam al-Ash`ari's explanation according to Ibn Furak in the latter's recension of Ash`ari's school.2

1. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Tafsir 7:27.
2. 2 Abu Bakr ibn Furak, Mujarrad Maqalat al-Ash`ari (Beirut, 1987) p. 44.

full article - http://www.sunnah.org/anthro/anthro7.htm#2

http://www.livingislam.org/k/ha_e.html

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

"We have built the heaven with (Our) hands" (51:47) Ibn Jarir al-Tabari said in his Tafsir: Ibn `Abbas said: "It means: with strength." He reports an identical position from Mujahid, Qatada, Mansur, Ibn Zayd, and Sufyan al-Thawri.1 This is also Imam al-Ash`ari's explanation according to Ibn Furak in the latter's recension of Ash`ari's school.2

1. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Tafsir 7:27.
2. 2 Abu Bakr ibn Furak, Mujarrad Maqalat al-Ash`ari (Beirut, 1987) p. 44.

full article - http://www.sunnah.org/anthro/anthro7.htm#2

The original word in this ayah is not the plural of Hands, it's the word for power so it's not ta'weel,

51_47.jpg


if you look at other verses in which Yadd are mentioned like in 5:64,

And the Jews say, "The hand of Allah is chained." Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills

. At-tabari denies that Hands here are power or ability, and says that they are the attribute of Allah without any such ta'weel.

[StudentOfTheDeen]

Authentic Hanbali 'aqida vs. 'Salafi' 'aqida:

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVfBmAfiJZU&feature=plcp

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI0Sutvhdno&feature=plcp

3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFukIfhi81k&feature=plcp

[aMuslimForLife]

.
Q
Assalam alaikum wa rahmatullah.

--- Shaykh Musa Furber al Hanbali was asked:
<[Note: This book of Imam Al-Safarini is the same book where he writes that the saved sect is Ahl Al-Sunnah and that it includes three schools: the Athariyah (the followers of Imam Ahmad), the Ash`ariyah (the followers of Abi Al-Hasn Al-Ash`ari), and the Maturidiyah (the followers of Abi Al-Mansur Al-Maturidi).>

1. Am I correct in thinking that there is unanimous acceptance of the Athari 'aqida amongst Ahl as-Sunna 'Ulema?

2. Chronologically, what was the order of these three schools, in terms of their first being formulated?

3. What are the main texts that teach the Athari 'aqida, along with the authors names, please?

4. How, if at all, does the Athari 'aqida differ from the other two schools?

[message edited for typographical purposes]

A
wa `alaykum al-salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

My familiarity is with the Ash`ari approach to `aqidah, since this what I was taught. I have only read one athari text with a sheikh, and a short one at that.
[A1]
If what we mean by Athari `aqidah is whatever Imam Ahmad (Allah be well pleased with him) had as an `aqidah and that his `aqidah was representative of the rightly guided Salaf, then it would be impossible for a single scholar of Ahl Al-Sunnah to reject the Athari `aqidah.

If we widen this to mean the approach and style of Imam Ahmad (Allah be well pleased with him), this too would be impossible for a single scholar of Ahl Al-Sunnah to reject.

If we mean every single person who ascribed himself to be following and developing on the `aqidah of Imam Ahmad (Allah be well pleased with him), you will find many scholars objecting to some things done under the rubric "athari `aqidah" and "Hanbali `aqidah".

Accurately and decisively determining the last two requires someone who has thoroughly studied the `aqidah of Imam Ahmad and the various transmitted texts of his `aqidah, then examining the `aqidah of his students, and then examining the `aqidah of later Hanbalis. And this research is not something to be done in the span of an hour, a day, or a few weeks. This seems like something best treated as a life long hobby, so there is time to carefully gather and read material and no rush to come to any conclusions.

[A2]
The date of birth and death for each of these majestic imams is as follows:
· Imam Abu `Abd Allah Ahmad bin Hanbal (Allah be well pleaed with him): 164 - 241 AH
· Imam Abu Hasan Al-Ash`ari (Allah be well pleased with him): 260 - 324 AH
· Imam Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi (Allah be well pleased with him): d 333 AH
[A3]
Books of athari approach that are both well known and more likely to be palatable to Ash`aris and Maturidis include:
· the various transmitted accounts of Imam Ahmad's `aqidah, as reported in Tabaqat Al-Hanabilah
· Al-Ajuri's Kitab Al-Shar`iyah (a Shafi`i)
· Ibn Qudamah's Lam`ut Al-`Itiqad with Dhamm Al-Ta'wil
· Al-Hafiz `Abd Al-Ghani Al-Maqdisi's Al-Iqtisad Fi-l-`Itiqad
· Ibn Balban's works, such as the one found in Mukhtasir Al-Ifadat
· Al-Safarini's work (previously mentioned)
[A4]
The major differences between these three approaches--in my very uneducated opinion--go back to the methodology of textual analysis, justification of rulings, and how issues not mentioned in the corpus of textual evidence are handled.

And Allah knows best.

wa al-salam `alaykum
--musa

[Abdul1234]

.
Q
Assalam alaikum wa rahmatullah.

--- Shaykh Musa Furber al Hanbali was asked:
<[Note: This book of Imam Al-Safarini is the same book where he writes that the saved sect is Ahl Al-Sunnah and that it includes three schools: the Athariyah (the followers of Imam Ahmad), the Ash`ariyah (the followers of Abi Al-Hasn Al-Ash`ari), and the Maturidiyah (the followers of Abi Al-Mansur Al-Maturidi).>

1. Am I correct in thinking that there is unanimous acceptance of the Athari 'aqida amongst Ahl as-Sunna 'Ulema?

2. Chronologically, what was the order of these three schools, in terms of their first being formulated?

3. What are the main texts that teach the Athari 'aqida, along with the authors names, please?

4. How, if at all, does the Athari 'aqida differ from the other two schools?

[message edited for typographical purposes]

A
wa `alaykum al-salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

My familiarity is with the Ash`ari approach to `aqidah, since this what I was taught. I have only read one athari text with a sheikh, and a short one at that.
[A1]
If what we mean by Athari `aqidah is whatever Imam Ahmad (Allah be well pleased with him) had as an `aqidah and that his `aqidah was representative of the rightly guided Salaf, then it would be impossible for a single scholar of Ahl Al-Sunnah to reject the Athari `aqidah.

If we widen this to mean the approach and style of Imam Ahmad (Allah be well pleased with him), this too would be impossible for a single scholar of Ahl Al-Sunnah to reject.

If we mean every single person who ascribed himself to be following and developing on the `aqidah of Imam Ahmad (Allah be well pleased with him), you will find many scholars objecting to some things done under the rubric "athari `aqidah" and "Hanbali `aqidah".

Accurately and decisively determining the last two requires someone who has thoroughly studied the `aqidah of Imam Ahmad and the various transmitted texts of his `aqidah, then examining the `aqidah of his students, and then examining the `aqidah of later Hanbalis. And this research is not something to be done in the span of an hour, a day, or a few weeks. This seems like something best treated as a life long hobby, so there is time to carefully gather and read material and no rush to come to any conclusions.

[A2]
The date of birth and death for each of these majestic imams is as follows:
· Imam Abu `Abd Allah Ahmad bin Hanbal (Allah be well pleaed with him): 164 - 241 AH
· Imam Abu Hasan Al-Ash`ari (Allah be well pleased with him): 260 - 324 AH
· Imam Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi (Allah be well pleased with him): d 333 AH
[A3]
Books of athari approach that are both well known and more likely to be palatable to Ash`aris and Maturidis include:
· the various transmitted accounts of Imam Ahmad's `aqidah, as reported in Tabaqat Al-Hanabilah
· Al-Ajuri's Kitab Al-Shar`iyah (a Shafi`i)
· Ibn Qudamah's Lam`ut Al-`Itiqad with Dhamm Al-Ta'wil
· Al-Hafiz `Abd Al-Ghani Al-Maqdisi's Al-Iqtisad Fi-l-`Itiqad
· Ibn Balban's works, such as the one found in Mukhtasir Al-Ifadat
· Al-Safarini's work (previously mentioned)
[A4]
The major differences between these three approaches--in my very uneducated opinion--go back to the methodology of textual analysis, justification of rulings, and how issues not mentioned in the corpus of textual evidence are handled.

And Allah knows best.

wa al-salam `alaykum
--musa

Salaams

also it must be remembered that the

Athari school existed before Imam Ahmad (ra)

you could just as correctly say that Imam Malik (ra) was an Athari

[al-boriqi]

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

asalamu alaykum brother

there is no difference. Anyone who tried to make a difference is an Islamophobic propagandist, point blank.

The hallmark for the islamophobic argument is to neutralize Ibn Taymiyyah from the equation and then highlight that this is where salafism starts. The problem with this is that salafi cred is the extraction of the creed of the salaf. In other words, Ibn Taymiyyah could not have existed, and we would be as we have always been since the completion of the millah of Islam. The reason why the islamophobes do not like Ibn Taymiyyah is because he was the first Athari Imaam to take into consideration his environment (which became polluted with Ash'ari dogmatic theories) and to actually counter and address their arguments by addressing Jahmism. Prior to Ibn Taymiyyah, the Athari school was defined by not arguing with the heretics. However, it takes fiqh to understand that when the environment changes, then the approach to a certain issue as well changes. The reason why the mutaqadimeen among the Atharis were able to advocate the idea of simple abandonment of the heretics among the ahlul-kalaam is because ahlu-Sunnah were the majority and the heretics among the Ash'aris, maturidis, and the other fringe cults of ahlul-kalaam were the minorioty.

When the situation of the ummah flipped due to the terrorism of Ibn Tumart and the pre-petro dollar power of Nidhaamul-Mulk, then Sunnah became bida and bida became sunnah, and in light of this new environmental phenomenon destructive to the Muslim, Ibn Taymiyyah found himself having to address the cult movements of kalaam that no prior Athari Imaam had to. Ibnul-Qudaamah was pretty much the last hallmark wherey his time was in an epoch of the transition process whereby the heretics were rising in the Muslim world. So ibnul-Qudaamah took a very hard line approach, more than ibn Taymiyyah. In fact he viewed that the Ash'aris were the dajjaal incarnate and that this was th time of the end. So he was the first to began addressing the heretics with several works. However it was Ibn Taymiyyah who really sliced the world of kalaam into irrelevancy in a way that no one prior to him did, which is why we is singled out of orthodoxy. This is considering that he himself learned kalaam as a mutakalim and then desired to raise the word of Allah uppermost over the word Iblees and his allies among the heretics, may Allah guide them back to Islam.

thats pretty much a quick summary

asalamu alaykum