Abu Nasr ibn al-Qushayri answers the anthropomorphists

[StudentOfTheDeen]

Imam Abu Nasr ibn al-Qushayri (D. 514AH) described the method that the anthropomorphists use to lead people to adopt wrong beliefs. He mentioned this in his book at-Tadhkirat ash-Sharqiyyat. Imam Murtada az-Zabidi quotes an excerpt of this book in volume 2 of his own book Ithaf Sadat al-Muttaqin pages 176-177 (last paragraph of page 176, first paragraph of page 177), where Ibn al-Qushayri says:

A group of people has appeared, and if it were not for the fact that they approach laymen by what is close to their way of thinking and what is imagined in their illusions, I would have honoured this book by avoiding to [even] mention them.

They say: ‘We follow the apparent meaning, and the verses which suggest resemblance [between Allaah and His creations], for example the narrations which suggest a limit and a member [to Allaah], we give them the apparent meaning, and it is not permissible to interpret in another meaning, for any of those issues.‘ They pretend to be following the saying of Allaah ta’aala وما يعلم تاويله إلا الله (wa ma ya’lamu ta’weelahu ‘illallaah) which means “And only Allaah knows its ta’weel”, and these people, by Allaah, are more harmful to Islam than the Jews, the Christians, the fire-worshippers and the idol-worshippers. Indeed, the deviations of the non-Muslims are obvious, and the Muslims steer clear away from them, whereas these people have launched an attack on the religion and on the laymen in a way which can fool the weakest among them.

They have suggested these bad innovations to their followers, and they have introduced in their hearts the fact of attributing to the one who is worshipped subhaanah: members, senses, ascending, descending, lying down, sitting, as well as moving into the different directions.

Therefore, the one who goes by the apparent meaning, he will start to imagine, with his illusions, things which are perceptible by our senses, and he will then have as a belief unacceptable things, and the tide will take him away without him even realising.

He also says, page 179:

The truth of the matter is that the very people who prohibit others to make interpretations [actually] believe in assimilation, tashbih [i.e. making Allah resemble His creations] but they try to hide it by saying “Allah is attributed with a Yad which is not like other yads, and Allah is attributed with a Qadam but not like other qadams, and Allah is attributed with al-Istiwa’ by Himself, but not like the istiwa’ we can perceive.”

Let the person who is among the people of the truth and who has been granted [proper] understanding say to them: ‘These statements need further clarification. For you to say ‘We take the text according to its apparent meaning, but we cannot understand its meaning’, is contradictory.

If you take the literal meaning of the ayah يوم يكشف عن ساق ‘Yawma yukshafu ‘an saaq,’ which means: ‘A day when a saq is uncovered” then the literal meaning of ‘saq’ is the organ which is composed of skin, flesh, nerves, bone and marrow. And if you take this literal meaning, and make it binding upon yourself to accept these other organs, it is therefore blasphemy. And if it is not possible for you to take this literal meaning, then where is your rule of taking the apparent meaning (i.e. how is it that you claim to adhere to the literal meanings?). Wouldn’t you [actually] leave out the apparent meaning and acknowledge that the Lord ta’aala is free from what is suggested by the apparent meaning? And if the enemy says “These literal interpretations (adh-dhawaahir) do not have a meaning in the first place” then it is as if he is saying that these ayahs are invalid and that there is no benefit in these verses, and this is impossible.

http://sunnism.wordpress.com/2011/12...sts-must-read/

[Abu Najm Muhammad]

I'm not interested in discussing with those who are quick to make Takfir of others in such thinly veiled ways as calling them 'anthropomorphists', however I will say to the above what objective scholars said about the Shaykh:

وبالغ في التعصب للأشاعرة والغض من الحنابلة

and:

وبلغ الأمر في التعصب له مبلغا كاد أن يؤدي إلى الفتنة

Source

Also strange that you fail to see any correlations between the Shaykh and modern day situations:

لكن تعصبه لمذهب الأشعرية أدى إلى إشعال نار الفتنة بين أنصاره و الحنابلة مما أدى إلى الاقتتال بينهم . استطاع نظام الملك أن يسكن هذه الفتنة بعزل ابن القشيري عن التدريس في النظامية

"Nizam al-Mulk was only able to settle this Fitnah (between Ibn al-Qushayri [the Asha'irah] and the Hanabilah) by separating Ibn al-Qushayri from teaching in the Nizamiyyah..."


Source

Shaykh Abu Nasr bin al-Qushayri was very partisan towards the Ash'ari sect and there is no doubt he is referring to Ahl as-Sunnah [the Hanabilah] as 'anthropomorphists' as well, just as you are doing on this forum. So it is no wonder to find you quoting and calling to quotes of his that reflect the less savory parts of the Shaykh's biography.

It is his partisanship to his sect that led him to Fitnah, and it seems that you are well on your way to fulfilling a similar role.

You claim that this and that is the 'real' Hanbali Aqidah or school, yet you refer to unknown individuals, or Mashayikh who did not represent the school and who openly espouse the views of the Asha'irah on particular Masa'il. History has preserved very well the differences between the Asha'irah and Hanabilah as we are the only school that has effectively and persistently resisted absorbing rhetorical theology and Ash'ari views.

It's not possible to have it both ways where Hanbalis supposedly agree with Ash'ari views and they are historically and currently diametrically opposed to one another in Aqidah. Your efforts to disguise these glaring differences and posit a revisionist history of the Hanbali-Ash'ari conflict in Aqidah would be laughable if so many Ash'aris weren't silent about such claims, not challenging them or declaring them as the fabrications they are.

At the very least acknowledge that when you say 'anthropomorphist', you really mean 'Hanbali'. It is certainly what the above Shaykh intended in the above quote, even though the alleged Hanbali position that is 'refuted' is a fabrication in itself since no representative Hanbalis held those views.

May Allah AWJ protect and guide us all. Ameen.

[warea]

@Abu Najm

This is what the champion of your creed on asharisdotcom had to say:

The Hanbalis Who Erred

As for these Hanbalis, they are: Abu Abdullah bin Hamid(d. 403H), Abu al-Hasan al-Tamimi, Abu al-Fadl al-Tamimi (d. 410H), Rizqullah al-Tamimi (d.448H), al-Qadi Abu Ya'laa (d. 453H) and his son, Ibn Abi Ya'laa, Ibn Aqeel (d. 513H), Abu al-Hasan Ibn al-Zaghuni (d. 527H) and Ibn al-Jawzee (d.597H). All of these had something of departure, in large, small, or negligible amounts, from the way ofImaam Ahmad, and they attributed (directly or indirectly) to the creed of Imaam Ahmad that which was not from the creed of Imaam Ahmad. It is interesting to note that many of the Ash'arites who came afterwards relied upon the likes of these scholars in order to characterize some of the viewpoints of Imaam Ahmad, and they were in error in this regard, particularly on the issue of the Qur'an.

You can also add Najm ud din al-Tufi who opposed Ibn Taymiyya, to the above list.

Now keep all these above "errored" individuals aside. Since you claim you follow the pure authentic hanbali tradition then, prove from the authentic books of well known non-errored hanbali's authorities prior to the birth of Ibn Taymiyya, that you indeed follow the authentic hanbali tradition.

Do list out the names of the hanbali Imams and then list in brief the specific creedal aspects from those Imams, upon which you conclude that you indeed follow the authentic hanbali tradition; and that this tradition is in complete opposition to Asharis such that it neccessitates(as per common salafi assertion) that those pure hanbalis and us asharis have to label each other jahmis and anthropomorphists.

Note that, a argument from ignorance is not a proof. Clear positive proof is demanded. So lets see how many hanbalis you can bring on your side from pre-Ibn Taymiyyan era to prove your claim that you belong to the hanbali madhab.

[Abu Najm Muhammad]

@Abu Najm

Do list out the names of the hanbali Imams and then list in brief the specific creedal aspects from those Imams, upon which you conclude that you indeed follow the authentic hanbali tradition; ... So lets see how many hanbalis you can bring on your side from pre-Ibn Taymiyyan era to prove your claim that you belong to the hanbali madhab.

I don't know what has blinded and befuddled you so much that you ask a person to- 'prove that you belong to a school of Fiqh according to credal characteristics'.

Please learn the difference between Aqidah and Fiqh before coming to debate about 'In Depth Aqidah'.

Aside from the above, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ibn al-Qushayri criticizes the methodology of Ahl us-Sunnah in taking the Ayaat and Ahadith upon their 'Thahir'. If you doubt that it is in fact the methodology of Ahl us-Sunnah to do so, then be more direct in your questions and points In Sha Allah.

His criticism of 'anthropomorphists' is well-known to actually be directed at the Hanabilah of his time. Again if you argue that is not correct, then I've already provided historical proof and it's obvious to anyone who knows the history behind Ibn al-Qushayri and his disputes.

If you argue that the Hanabilah in the time of Ibn al-Qushayri weren't actually Hanabilah, then that's for you to prove, not for me to disprove, since it is you who is making the claim, not me.

And one last thing- this is not even about schools of jurisprudence. It is about Aqidah, which transcends schools of Fiqh. There's no point in suggesting that anyone who doesn't follow a certain aspect of the creed of Ahl us-Sunnah is not from this or that school of Fiqh. That's just plain nonsense.

And that is why you won't find me responding to many of your posts, because they are filled with nonsense and partisanship.

Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276H):

وَلَكنَّا نُسَلِّمُ لِلْحَدِيثِ، وَنَحْمِلُ الْكِتَابَ عَلَى ظَاهره


"And rather we submit to the Hadith and we convey the Book upon its Thahir..." [Ta'weel Mukhtalif al-Hadith]

And just in case you haven't read the book, Ibn Qutaybah rails against what he perceives as Tashbeeh, Tamtheel, and establishment of Hadd for Allah, and even though he may differ with Ahl us-Sunnah in some respects, we at least agree about taking the Qur'an and Sunnah upon the Thahir, unlike the Asha'irah.

That's for starters...

[warea]

I don't know what has blinded and befuddled you so much that you ask a person to- 'prove that you belong to a school of Fiqh according to credal characteristics'.

Please learn the difference between Aqidah and Fiqh before coming to debate about 'In Depth Aqidah'.

Aside from the above, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ibn al-Qushayri criticizes the methodology of Ahl us-Sunnah in taking the Ayaat and Ahadith upon their 'Thahir'. If you doubt that it is in fact the methodology of Ahl us-Sunnah to do so, then be more direct in your questions and points In Sha Allah.

His criticism of 'anthropomorphists' is well-known to actually be directed at the Hanabilah of his time. Again if you argue that is not correct, then I've already provided historical proof and it's obvious to anyone who knows the history behind Ibn al-Qushayri and his disputes.

If you argue that the Hanabilah in the time of Ibn al-Qushayri weren't actually Hanabilah, then that's for you to prove, not for me to disprove, since it is you who is making the claim, not me.

And one last thing- this is not even about schools of jurisprudence. It is about Aqidah, which transcends schools of Fiqh. There's no point in suggesting that anyone who doesn't follow a certain aspect of the creed of Ahl us-Sunnah is not from this or that school of Fiqh. That's just plain nonsense.

And that is why you won't find me responding to many of your posts, because they are filled with nonsense and partisanship.

Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276H):

وَلَكنَّا نُسَلِّمُ لِلْحَدِيثِ، وَنَحْمِلُ الْكِتَابَ عَلَى ظَاهره


"And rather we submit to the Hadith and we convey the Book upon its Thahir..." [Ta'weel Mukhtalif al-Hadith]

And just in case you haven't read the book, Ibn Qutaybah rails against what he perceives as Tashbeeh, Tamtheel, and establishment of Hadd for Allah, and even though he may differ with Ahl us-Sunnah in some respects, we at least agree about taking the Qur'an and Sunnah upon the Thahir, unlike the Asha'irah.

That's for starters...

Your beating around the bush. I am indeed NOT referring to fiqh. But what I do is asking you to prove that the authorities of the hanbali madhab in specific did follow the aqeedah that you claim to uphold.

The other three madhab and what aqeedah their authorites followed we can discuss seperately. No need to bring everything together and divert attention from the specifics. The shafis would discuss what aqeeda the authorities of their madhab is upon. And so would Malikis and hanifis. But since most propoganda of post-modern salafis is in using hanbali madhab as cover, lets keep aqeeda of the hanbali authorities in specific the matter of attention first. Later you can prove other assertions of yours.

This is also important because its a fact that anthropomorphists sects did exist in the past as in Khorasan and Sijistan. Its also a fact that Muqati Ibn Sulaiman rose up in opposition to Jahmi but ended up in the opposite end of anthropomorphist affirmations. And so one could dig up books of those anthrompormist of pasts, and their criticism against asharis, or association with some noble Imams, and try to create the false revisionist impression that every madhab followed the anthropomorphist creed of modern day salafis, until asharis tookover much later. Similarly, sufis indeed would also have some form of criticism against theologians naturally because of their inward and different perspective of discourse. Salafis would falsely without context hang onto such bits and pieces quoting randomly one scholar against the other to play the number game, and create false revisionist history. So being very specific in the discussion would not cause such false facts being manufactured.

Then your point is on his al-Qushayri's criticism of hanabilah. Even if that was the case it means nothing just as hanbalis themselves including Ibn Taymiyya admitted of anthropomorphists who associated with the madhab.

Finally, the "daahir" argument. This, as i mentioned elsewhere, is a word game, as salafis have not defined in close boundarys what they mean by dhaahir. Anything could be subjetively asserted by using the current salafi definition of dhaahir as it has no objective criteria or objective definition. Secondly, from the various definitions of "dhaahir", not everything opposes asharis whether its in tafwid or taweel. So therefore, the mere "dhaahir" argument in no way helps in being the sole criteria of distinction. When this is understood then it is also easy to understand that al-Qushyari is against a specific type of affirmation being made by some group under the premise of "dhaahir", and you can therefore see the arguments being made against it on that basis. It is not neccessarily against everybody on mere account of use of the word "dhaahir".

So back to doing your homework and proving the authorities of pre-Ibn taymiyyan hanbali madhab (excluding those "errored" ones according to salafis) in specific, were upon the same madhab of salafis of today.

[maneatinglizard]

Isn't Abu Najm Muhammad the fellow who used to keep some slanders against Imam Abu Hanifa in his signature on the IA forums (I unfortunately can't remember what exactly was claimed), and the one who believes that the Throne of Allah squeaked from the weight of Allah ?

I also wonder how this man can talk about the partisanship of a person towards his sect when his posts and opinions are quite openly available for everyone to see on the IA forums.

[al-boriqi]

Finally, the "daahir" argument. This, as i mentioned elsewhere, is a word game, as salafis have not defined in close boundarys what they mean by dhaahir. Anything could be subjetively asserted by using the current salafi definition of dhaahir as it has no objective criteria or objective definition. Secondly, from the various definitions of "dhaahir", not everything opposes asharis whether its in tafwid or taweel. So therefore, the mere "dhaahir" argument in no way helps in being the sole criteria of distinction. When this is understood then it is also easy to understand that al-Qushyari is against a specific type of affirmation being made by some group under the premise of "dhaahir", and you can therefore see the arguments being made against it on that basis. It is not neccessarily against everybody on mere account of use of the word "dhaahir".

I would link you to the proper source but the intellectual terrorism that permeates the underlying fabric of policy does not allow for such.

Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali says in Dham al-Ta’wil:

فإن قيل فقد تأولتم آيات وأخبارا فقلتم في قوله تعالى ( وهو معكم أين ما كنتم ) أي بالعلم ونحو هذا من الآيات والأخبار فيلزمكم ما لزمنا
قلنا نحن لم نتأول شيئا وحمل هذه اللفظات على هذه المعاني ليس بتأويل لأن التأويل صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره وهذه المعاني هي الظاهر من هذه الألفاظ بدليل أنه المتبادر إلى الأفهام منها وظاهر اللفظ هو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه حقيقة كان أو مجازا

‘If it is said: ‘You made ta’wil of verses and reports, for instance, you said with respect to Allah’s statement: ‘He is with you wherever you are’, meaning: with His knowledge, and the like of these verses and reports, and therefore, your arguments are as much applicable to you as us.
We say: We did not make ta’wil of anything, for to hold such texts in these meanings is not at all ta’wil, because ta’wil is to change the meaning of a word from its dhahir, and what we say here is the dhahir of the wording, that is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it is haqiqa or majaz.’

adh-Dhahabi further comments on this topic and says in his al-‘Uluw:

“The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the apparent meaning is not intended (dhahiruha ghayr murad).’

This follows that the apparent meaning (dhahir) could mean two things:

First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text (dilalat al-khitab), as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes.

Second; that the literal meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness”


As is easily grasped, there is no word play here except for the dogma that is implemented in heterodox doctrines like kalaam theology.

@Abu Najm

asalamu alaykum

You have raised a good point regarding the lack of objectivity on the part of the mutakalimeen infested with bigotry like the individual in question.

As a natural consequence to the subject, I have found that all speech connected to the pagans among the mushabiha, if it is not targetting the actually mushabiha, then all of its claims become obsolete. In other words, when Ahlu-Sunnah raised their attack on the mushabiha, they were attacking the raaafidha because that is where anthropomorphism began and ended, it began in their madhaab, and the existence of anthropomorphism ended with their adoption M'utazilism. Thus the continuence of "attacking the mushabiha" that came after this period was all promoted to attack ahlu-sunnah wal-jama'ah may Allah guide the jahmiyyah back to Islam

asalamu alaykum

[warea]

I would link you to the proper source but the intellectual terrorism that permeates the underlying fabric of policy does not allow for such.

Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali says in Dham al-Ta’wil:

فإن قيل فقد تأولتم آيات وأخبارا فقلتم في قوله تعالى ( وهو معكم أين ما كنتم ) أي بالعلم ونحو هذا من الآيات والأخبار فيلزمكم ما لزمنا
قلنا نحن لم نتأول شيئا وحمل هذه اللفظات على هذه المعاني ليس بتأويل لأن التأويل صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره وهذه المعاني هي الظاهر من هذه الألفاظ بدليل أنه المتبادر إلى الأفهام منها وظاهر اللفظ هو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه حقيقة كان أو مجازا

‘If it is said: ‘You made ta’wil of verses and reports, for instance, you said with respect to Allah’s statement: ‘He is with you wherever you are’, meaning: with His knowledge, and the like of these verses and reports, and therefore, your arguments are as much applicable to you as us.
We say: We did not make ta’wil of anything, for to hold such texts in these meanings is not at all ta’wil, because ta’wil is to change the meaning of a word from its dhahir, and what we say here is the dhahir of the wording, that is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it is haqiqa or majaz.’

You haven't even read my post and quick to harp onto quotes without noticing contradictions that emerge elsewhere.

I said, the dhaahir meaning if defined subjectively would not be a objective criteria. The quote defines dhaahir subjectively(what comes first to mind). So my point remains.

Secondly, I said, not all definitions of dhaahir necessarily opposes asharis. Its a massive fallacy to just come up with a definition not used by asharis and then try to ignite opposition. With this subjective definition, it does not necessitate any opposition to asharis by nature. Infact, since Ibn Qudamah ascribes in clear terms to the methodology of tafwid al-mana, as seen in numerous places of his work, it further strengthens the point that it is not in opposition to asharis. [Couple this with the statement of Ibn Taymiyya denouncing mufawwids who did stick to usage of "dhaahir", only shows that using "dhahir" does not neccesstate opposition to the methodology of asharis.]

Therefore this isolated quoting is lacking any credible standards, as usual with neo-salafi quotes. Ibn Qudamah was merely defending the validity of tafwid al-mana especially against the hanbalis who adopted tawil in their approach. So to defend against accusations of himself doing tawil, Ibn Qudamah codifies his methodology in this manner classifying dhaahir and tawill such that dhaahir would include a certain level of majaz and not just literal. If majaz is valid method, the debate is already over. Asharis are justified in using majaz as long it retains this subjective criteria as per Ibn Qudamah. Unlike the neo-salafi crusade against majaz. And this is completely consistent with what Ibn Qudamah's methodology was and says throughout, for his opposition to tawil as can be seen elsewhere is on grounds that tawil is not safe to do and that these verses which were not interpreted by Salaf should be left alone that way and interpretation left to Allah.

All of this comes down to first of all basing the foundation of interpretation on Quran 3:7 and the fact that there two ways in which the verses can be interpreted depending on the where the fullstop is placed. Ibn Qudamah interprets it such that the full stop is at "only Allah knows its tawil". So to him dhaahir is understood as equivalent or closer to what is categorized as "clear" verses of the Quran(and not the literalism of neo-salafis), while tawil is closer to what is interpreted of "unclear" verses of the Quran. Therefore he is justfied as per this to interpret certain verses as majaz because its majaz is still "clear", while in other cases to adopt tafwid al-mana since the majaz or meaning is not clear and so meaning or tawil is left to Allah's knowledge only.

When the neo-salafis first explain their own whole methodology with respect to Quran 3:7, then we can analyse how they fit in with the Imams methodology. And you can see the contradictions and opposition with neo-salafis right in the face then. But without that now its just word plays.

adh-Dhahabi further comments on this topic and says in his al-‘Uluw:

“The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the apparent meaning is not intended (dhahiruha ghayr murad).’

This follows that the apparent meaning (dhahir) could mean two things:

First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text (dilalat al-khitab), as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes.

Second; that the literal meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness”

As already explained before, al-Dhahabi is actually showing how what the theologians say and those who affirmed dhaahir in this sense say, do not contradict. As they both intend dhaahir in their own ways without any contradicitons in essence of what they mean.

As is easily grasped, there is no word play here except for the dogma that is implemented in heterodox doctrines like kalaam theology.

It is indeed full of word plays, as salafis in practise do not adopt this definiton. Its just a quote they stock in their pocket for some cheap debating points without any consistency in applying it real issues of difference.

And finally do care to start compiling in detail all the hanbalis pre-Ibn Taymiyya (minus the "errored" hanbalis) who are on the same method and creed of you neo-salafis.

[al-boriqi]

You havent even read my post and quick to harp onto quotes without noticing contradictions that emerge elsewhere.

Im sorry if that is why you feel that I did.

I said, the dhaahir meaning if defined subjectively would not be a objective criteria. The quote defines dhaahir subjectively(what comes first to mind). So my point remains. [/quote]

the phrase "what comes first to mind" is something Im not fully inclined towards resting the definition of dhawaahir upon, rather the rest of the 98 percent of the content is what the meaning of dhawaahir rest upon, and not this statement. So therefore, in my view, it would be more reasonable to address the rest of the academic speech on the meaning of dhawaahir rather than resting upon the contentous nature of the phrase "what comes first to mind" because from an academic standpoint, that phrase was understood from an Arab paradigm, and much of this polemic is driven through European and western paradigm, which convolutes the matter that much more, thus I personally feel that this phrase of "what comes first to mind" should be somewhat disgarded and focus on the issue of the menaing of dhaahir should rest on the rest of the speech as was expounded above.

Secondly, I said, not all definitions of dhaahir necessarily opposes asharis.

i would beg to differ as per the statement of your own Mutakiloon imaams.

Its a massive fallacy to just come up with a definition not used by asharis and then try to ignite opposition.

this is a red harring. The bone of contention here raised by you is the utilization of dhaahir as employed by us atharis. Therefore, Im merely bringing forth the criterion of the Atharis on the subject because it is we who are being marginalized here, not ash'aris. The opposition has already been lite through the inception of not only this thread, but the entire website. This is a polemic brother, and one must understand that it has always been a polemic since the concoction of the Ash'ari school into the Muslim world after 300 hijra and that polemic will continue to exist until there is no opposition to orthodoxy which would entail the extinction of all heterodox schools yes, that includes the ash'aris school.

With this subjective definition, it does not necessitate any opposition to asharis by nature. And infact, since Ibn Qudamah ascribes in clear terms to the methodology of tafwid al-mana, as seen in numerous places of his work, it further strengthens the point that it is not in opposition to asharis.

H was not a mufawwidh and the employment of my shaykh on tafweed bil-m'anawiyyah is the tafweed bil kayf after contextualizing how he employed the meaning of tafweed bil-m'ana. But the academic approach to contextualization goes far beyond Ash'ari contentions which is relegated by the Ash'aris as simple "word play" when in all honesty they do not have the intellactual capacity to understand these contextualities.

Therefore this isolated quoting is without credible standards.

i quote that WHILE taking the entirety of his credal doctrine into the mix because this is the methodology of the muhaqiqoon.

Ibn Qudamah was merely defending the validity of tafwid al-mana especially against the hanbalis who adopted tawil in their approach.

accepting the dhawaahir of the revelation as Ibnul-Qudaamah affirmed explicitly (which directly destroys the idea of him being a mufawid bil-m'anawi) has nothign to do with "t'aweel. The onyl schools to adopt "t'aweel" where the school of kalaam, among which were the ash'aris. You need to learn the meaning of t'aweel and how it was used in the realm of creed as opposed to how it was used in fiqh.

The hanaabilah who deviated into the adopt of t'aweel where those who opposed the athari creed like Ibnul-Jawzi, at-Tusi, and Ibn Aqil when he was a M'utazili.

So to defend against accusations of tawil, Ibn Qudamah codifies his methodology in this manner classifying dhaahir and tawill such that dhaahir would include a certain level of majaz and not just literal. If majaz is valid method, the debate is already over

The debate is not over rather it has just began, because our contention is not in "utilizing majaaz", rather our intention is the employing of far-fetched notions that is not accomodated into majaaz. This is where I would have cited to you the reference, but the forum does not allow for this as this would have clarified the whole issue and sealed the deal.

Asharis are justified in using majaz as long it retains this subjective criteria as per Ibn Qudamah. Unlike the neo-salafi crusade against majaz.

That right there is the problem. Ash'ari t'aweel has no connection to the Arabic construct of majaaz.

And this completely consistent with what Ibn Qudamah says throughout, for his opposition to tawil as can be seen elsewhere is on grounds that tawil is not safe and that these verses which were not interpreted by Salaf should be left alone that way and interpretation left to Allah.

he did not say the interpretation is left to Allah in its meaning, rather he was signfying that what is left to Allah is "how" the attribute is.

So to him dhaahir is equivalent or closer to what is "clear" verses of the Quran while tawil is closer to what is unclear verses of the Quran.

wrong, t'aweel according to the atharis and Ibnul-Qudamah is to carry a meaning opposing its dhaahir. That is the implication that t'aweel hasto the subject of Asmaa wa Sifaat.

Therefore he is justfied as per this to interpeet certain verses as majaz because its majaz is clear, while in other cases adopt tafwid al-mana since the majaz or meaning is not clear.

this is where your ignorance is manifested because if the majaaz is "clear" then that is what is identified in the language AS "dhaahir". If it is not "clear" then it is NOT "majaaz", hence your assessment of what Ibnul-Qudaamah is saying is at the very least faulty, and outright absurd.

When the neo-salafis explain their whole methoslody with respect to Quran 4:3, then we can analyse how they fit with the Imams methodology. And you can see the contradictions and opposition to neo-salafis right in the face. But without that now its just word plays.

ah yes, the word play card that is employed for the unwillingness to understand contextualities.

As already explained before, al-Dhahabi is actually showing how what the theologians say and those who affirmed dhaahir in this sense say, do not contradict.

It is a word play as salafis in practise do not adopt this definiton. Its just a quote they stock in their pocket for some cheap debating points without any consistency in applying it real issues of difference.

this is gibberish

[maneatinglizard]

So when did the Anthropomorphist Brigade decide to "grace" SF with their vitriol?

al-boriqi in particular is probably the most argumentative and rude, but also the most ignorant.

By the way, it's Ibn Qudama, not Ibn al-Qudama as you keep repeating (I'm no expert on the matter and Ibn al-Qudama may be valid, but I couldn't find anything referring to him as such).