Where is Allah?

[StudentOfTheDeen]

That's like me quoting Uthaymeen and expecting you to accept it.

Nuh Ha Mim would be the last one I would go to to take my religion from, I've read some of his articles before and he seems to be either:

1) Lacking knowledge about certain things.

2) or lying about them.

This is nothing but an adhominem attack. It doesn't change the fact that:

Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani has said of the various versions of this hadith, “There is great contradiction in the wording” (Talkhis al-habir, 4 vols. in 2. Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya, 1399/1979, 3.250).

[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

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

This is nothing but an adhominem attack. It doesn't change the fact that:

Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani has said of the various versions of this hadith, “There is great contradiction in the wording” (Talkhis al-habir, 4 vols. in 2. Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya, 1399/1979, 3.250).

And that doesn't change the fact that the Hanaabilah accepted the hadith, and used it to say Allah is above the Throne. So should I follow Ibn Qudaama or Ibn Hajar?

It might very well be a adhominem attack, but really I could careless. Just like it's most likely that some of you wouldn't accept what Ibn Taymiyyah said, or Uthaymeen or other than them. It's not like he has wrote anything new that I haven't heard before, that whether you like it or not the Hanaabilah still disagree with.

[warea]

I've read Ibn Qudaamahs books, and do you know how many times he said to take the Sifaat 'alaa Dhaahirihi, and called Ta'weel a reprehensible innovation, the likes of which will leave the proposer of such act in the deepest depths of hell?

Put it in context with the fact that he suggests explicit tafweed in meaning throughout consistently. His opposition to taweel is irrelevent as asharis already recognise both ways as valid. You keep forgetting this. Besides, if you see the arguments against taweel by Ibn Qudamah, it is not that taweel is inherently wrong but that taweel is not safe for all the reasons he cites. This is clear as it can get from his writing.

Asharis don't have any issues with seeing Ibn al Jawzi and other hanbalis similar to him, to be upon the authentic hanbali way, despite difference with Ibn Qudamah and others similar to him, over taweel. This is because both tafweed as well as taweel is reported from Imam Ahmed. There is no reason to choose one at the expense of the other. Even those who are known as extreme in affirmation(whom Ibn al Jawzi then attacked) like Abu Ya'ala, engaged in taweel too at many instances and engaged in philosophical discussions. There is no reason to again selectively choose one aspect(that too in a distorted manner) from their methodology, like the pseudo salafis do Instead, Ibn al Jawzi can be seen as representative of one who allowed taweel from the hanabli madhab. While Ibn Qudamah as representative of one who allowed only tafweed from the hanbali madhab. Both have greater authority and represent the hanbali tradition than the disputed Ibn Taymiyya.

Reminding you that both these ways are not such that only one has to be true and the other invalid or heretical. The salafi myth is to make it an "either this or that" aqeeda issue such that only one can be true and everything else false. On the contrary, both ways are a direct result of how you interpret the Quran 3:7 with regards to where the fullstop in the verse is to be placed, as it could be in two different positions. One position only allows tafweed, as the fullstop ends at "no one knows its taweel except Allah". This is what Ibn Qudamah and those who are upon strict tafweed oriented towards. While the other interpretation allows taweel of the mutashabiha, as the fullstop is positioned at "no one knows its taweel except Allah and those who are firm in knowledge". Pseudo salafis have to consider one of the ways of positioning this full stop to be false and heretical and permit only one way ( inreality though the salafi methodology won't fit either ways). While asharis accept both as valid.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

Put it in context with the fact that he suggests explicit tafweed in meaning throughout consistently. His opposition to taweel is irrelevent as asharis already recognise both ways as valid. You keep forgetting this. Besides, if you see the arguments against taweel by Ibn Qudamah, it is not that taweel is inherently wrong but that taweel is not safe for all the reasons he cites. This is clear as it can get from his writing..

It's not possible to say to take them upon their dhaahir meaning AND propose compete Tafweedh, PERIOD.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

Put it in context with the fact that he suggests explicit tafweed in meaning throughout consistently. His opposition to taweel is irrelevent as asharis already recognise both ways as valid. You keep forgetting this. Besides, if you see the arguments against taweel by Ibn Qudamah, it is not that taweel is inherently wrong but that taweel is not safe for all the reasons he cites. This is clear as it can get from his writing.

When did I forget that? I never once forgot that the Ashaa'irah recognize both ways as valid, however, most of our discussions are not based upon tafweedh they are based upon Ta'weel.

Secondly I don't even agree with the type of Tafweedh done.

Asharis don't have any issues with seeing Ibn al Jawzi and other hanbalis similar to him, to be upon the authentic hanbali way, despite difference with Ibn Qudamah and others similar to him, over taweel.

So? What's your point?

If you had issues with him I wouldn't care either way.

However, in general the Ashaa'irah do have something against the Hanaabilah, that can be seen in most of their books of Aqeedah.

This is because both tafweed as well as taweel is reported from Imam Ahmed. There is no reason to choose one at the expense of the other.

I'd say there is no authentic Ta'weel reported from Imam Ahmad.

Even those who are known as extreme in affirmation(whom Ibn al Jawzi then attacked) like Abu Ya'ala, engaged in taweel too at many instances and engaged in philosophical discussions. There is no reason to again selectively choose one aspect(that too in a distorted manner) from their methodology, like the pseudo salafis do Instead, Ibn al Jawzi can be seen as representative of one who allowed taweel from the hanabli madhab.

Wrong, he wasn't representing the Hanbali Madhab in his Ta'weel.

While Ibn Qudamah as representative of one who allowed only tafweed from the hanbali madhab. Both have greater authority and represent the hanbali tradition than the disputed Ibn Taymiyya.

You're a Jaahil, sorry to say.

Ibn Taymiyyah is respected by most if not all of the Hanaabilah after him in issues of Aqeedah, Including Ibn Rajab and As-safaareeni.

Reminding you that both these ways are not such that only one has to be true and the other invalid or heretical.

Remind me all day long, but i disagree.

So let me remind you, I disagree, and there is only one Aqeedah of the Salaf, and the Prophet and His Companions (radhi Allahu Anhom)

[warea]

It's not possible to say to take them upon their dhaahir meaning AND propose compete Tafweedh, PERIOD.

Dhaahir does NOT = dhaahir "meaning". "Meaning" is your insertion. What is meant is to carry it upon its dhaahir as it has come from the sahabah and salaf without interpretations. It is nothing but tafweed itself, as a person doing tafweed by nature affirms what has come upon its apparent or outward form, while its interpretation is left to Allah's Knowledge.

[warea]

When did I forget that? I never once forgot that the Ashaa'irah recognize both ways as valid, however, most of our discussions are not based upon tafweedh they are based upon Ta'weel.

You implied it by bring an Ibn Qudamas opposition to taweel as proof as opposing asharis. Which is nonsense and inability to understand why exactly taweel was opposed.

Secondly I don't even agree with the type of Tafweedh done.

That's why I said you to read Ibn Qudamah work and "type of tafweed" and you would know whether you have any standing in the hanbali madhab.

So? What's your point?

If you had issues with him I wouldn't care either way.

However, in general the Ashaa'irah do have something against the Hanaabilah, that can be seen in most of their books of Aqeedah.

Point is the salafis have to declare one or the other a heretic deviant. While asharis don't.

You general knowledge is lacking and your false reading of texts is profound.

I'd say there is no authentic Ta'weel reported from Imam Ahmad.

Who cares what you say. Those hanbali authorities who see taweel permitted from Imam Ahmed see enough authentic reports.

Wrong, he wasn't representing the Hanbali Madhab in his Ta'weel.

You wish.

You're a Jaahil, sorry to say.

Self projection much.

Ibn Taymiyyah is respected by most if not all of the Hanaabilah after him in issues of Aqeedah, Including Ibn Rajab and As-safaareeni.

And try going to their methodology and see how much they even immitated Ibn Taymiyya on this issue.

Remind me all day long, but i disagree.

You disagreement is only your fanatical heretical mentality.

So let me remind you, I disagree, and there is only one Aqeedah of the Salaf, and the Prophet and His Companions (radhi Allahu Anhom)

There is only one aqeedah. But there are two valid methods of approaching mutashabih verses both methods again originating from the salaf. Pseudo salafi method of approaching mutashabiha verses is instead a evil innovation contridicting the explicit verses and the rest of shariah.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

You implied it by bring an Ibn Qudamas opposition to taweel as proof as opposing asharis. Which is nonsense and inability to understand why exactly taweel was opposed.

Uhh no I didn't.

That's why I said you to read Ibn Qudamah work and "type of tafweed" and you would know whether you have any standing in the hanbali madhab.

I can't understand your English.

In any regard, he accepted the Sifaat 'Alaa Dhaahirihi. And According to him the Dhaahir of the word or text, is the first MEANING that comes to mind concerning them. Which means, the Sifaat have meaning, and their modality is Majhool.

Point is the salafis have to declare one or the other a heretic deviant. While asharis don't.

Being pluralistic in Aqeedah is not something special.

Who cares what you say. Those hanbali authorities who see taweel permitted from Imam Ahmed see enough authentic reports.

Right, and other hanbali scholars say they were diluted for thinking that.

You wish.

If you really think he represented the Hanbali Madhab, this conversation is useless.

And try going to their methodology and see how much they even immitated Ibn Taymiyya on this issue.

Not sure what you mean.

They accepted it, they didn't reject it or say it's wrong.

So now there are 4 types of permissible Aqaaid?

Athari, Ashari, Maaturidi, and Taymiyi?

You disagreement is only your fanatical heretical mentality.

lol, that I took from the Hanbali scholars like Ibn Qudaama and As-Safaareeni, right?

[al_Zayn]

A genuine question Brother Abu Zakariyah

you said regarding Zaahir, it

is the first MEANING that comes to mind concerning them...

What is the first meaning that comes to the feeble mind when you say "Hand"?