Are the ashaa'irah kuffar??

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

What is the ruling upon the modern day ash'ariyyah???????



ans:The ash'areeyah are 2 categories


1-Al-ah'areeyatul-qubooreeyah(graveworshippers) and theyare mushrikoon

2-The pure ash'areeyah(almahdah) and they are 2 groups

1-The early ash'areeyah and they are the kullabeeyah and they are a deviant group and are not considered kuffar

2-the laterday asha'reeyah who are not considered kuffar by the majority of the 'ulamaa' due to their ta'weel and a small group of 'ulamaa declared them to be disbelievers like ibnul-jawzee and ibn hazm and addustee
and some 'ulamaa' of the hanabaliha

and the correct opinion concerning them(thesecond group) is that it differs depending on the place and time so if it is a time where the sunnah is wide spread and apparent or in a place where the sunnah is established like in the time of imaam malik or imaam ahmad or ashafi'ee and then one calls to the ash'aree mathhab then he is a kaafir,and if he is in a time where where ignorance is widespread and innovations are rampant and the sunnah is hidden and not known like the time of ibn tayimiyah or ibn adilwahhaab then one cannot declare them to be kuffar unless the hujjah is established upon them and they show stubornness.

observation:There is a group of scholars from ahli-sunnah generally(fil-jumlah)but they agreed with the ash'arreyah (incertain aspects)but their situation is not the situation of the ash'areeyah like giving precedence to ones logic over
the text but rather they give precedence to the text over the 'aql like imaam albayhaqee and ibn fawraq and what they fell into is to be called zallaat(mistakes) so one must reject the baatil they fell into and at the same time respect and preserve their status and benefit from their knowledge.


fatwa from shaikh ali alkhudair

comment:the shaikh forgot to mention albaaqalaanee and abulhasan alash'aree and all those who were before aljuwainee who was the founder of the modern day asha'irah who are clear deviants .

wassalaamu alaikum

[ibn abbas]

What do the kullabeeyah believe in?

What do the later asha'ira believe in?

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

As-salaamu alaikum

the asha'irah of today are upon the 'aqeedah al-kullabeeyah .As for the early asha'irah like al-baaqalaani and others well they have some minor ta'weel and are much better then the asha'irah to day and all those who came after al-juwainee.

wassalam

[ibn abbas]

What is 'aqeedah al-kullabeeyah? what is their beliefs?

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

the beliefs of the kullaabeeyah are the beliefs of the asha'irah(with some minor diffrences) and was the mathhab of abul-hasan al-ash'aree before he finally return to the 'aqeedah of the salaf.wallahu a'lam

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

he is abu muhammad abdullah ibn sa'eed ibn kullaab and was the shaikh of abul-hasan in his second phase .although ibn kullab was the founder of this mathhab all those who follow it today are attrbuted to abul-hasan al-asha'aaree because he was known to have spread it,The same al-ja'd ibn dirham was the founder of the jahmee bid'ah but those who fell into this bid'ah in later years were attributed to jahm ibn safwaan because h was known to have spread it and called to it.

[Abdullah]

Asalaam alaykum

Brother Abu Musa, can you please elaborate as to what exactly are the beliefs of the asha'ira as you have not explained yourself. I would like to gain some understanding regarding this issue, so I would appreciate it if you could shed some light. If you don't know nothing to be shy about as I don't know either.

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

as-salaamu alaikum


ya habeebi 'abdullah i know the ahs'aree 'aqeedah better then some ashaa'ira but the brother was asking about the kullabeeyah probably thinking there is a diffrence between them and the asha'irah when there isnt now if he doesnt who know the asha'irah are i will gladly tell him.

wassalam

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

In brief the asha'irah are mu'awilah in the siffaat,murji'ah jahmeeyah in the issue of imaan and jabareeyah in the issue of qadr.

1-In the sifaat they distort all the sifaat with the exception of 7 and some of them affirm 17(like the early asha'irah)So what do they do with the attributes like the hand and eyes and shins and al-istiwaa' well they explain them away as being symbolistic and not literal for example they say that al-istiwaa' means al-isteelaa' meaning the conquering which means allah didnt raise above his throne but he conquered his throne and they depend on the poem by an iraaqi christian to affirm this!Another principle the asha'irah use is that the apparent meanings of attributes like the hand and face are kufr because it neccesitates that allah is like his creation , so they became mushabihah(anthropomorphisists) before they were mua'wilah.how??well they assumed that if allah has a hand then it must like the creations hands and this is the essence of tashbeeh!!!!so they ranaway from this to make ta'weel or what att-ahreef.So in conclusion the asha'irah affirm all of allah's names but only seven of his sifaat and mainly due to the fact that they can be accepted logically.

2-The asha'irah 's main sourse in 'aqeedah is the human intellilect and and some asha'irah like al-juwainee and al-eejee and as-sanoosee clearly says that if the 'aql contradicts the naql then we must give the 'aql precedence!so they took the human intellilect as a taaghoot.

as-sanoosee says in his explanation of the usool of their 'aqeedah"to accept the apparent texts of the book and the sunnah in the area of 'aqeedah is kufr!"

3-As for the issue of qadr well the asha'irah themselves are confused in this to the extent that arraazi said"just say that the human is internally majboor(forced) but externally he mukhair(has free will)meaning that they reject in reality the law of cause and effect and say that if one was hit another person he wouldnt feel pain because the person hit him but it is beacuse allah created the pain at that moment!!!!!!!
4-In the issue of imaan they say that imaan is only in the heart and they call it attasdeeq-belief and that the statement of the tongue and actions of the limbs are not from imaan so there for imaan doesnt increase or decrease and that kufr can only ocur by rejction of the heart.However the asha'irah do say(unlike the pure jahmees)that actions are obligatory


The asha'irah have many issues in their corrupt 'aqeedah which will take volumes to explain.wallahu a'lam

One more thing i forgot to mention is the asha'irah's definiton of la ilaaha illallah-where they see it means-"no one is capable of creating or inventing but allah" and i hope the brothers dont ask me why this is baatil because it 's baatil ma'loom.

wassalam

[ibn abbas]

Can you give references abu musa to what you have stated?

You quoted from al-asha'ri and others, can you give the book name and page no?

[ibn abbas]

you said they affirm seven of his sifaat of Allah (swt), what are they? can you name them?

[Umm SaifulIslam]

Assalamu alaikum,

I am glad Alhamdulillah that this sly aqeeda has been exposed, I used to have a book in english about this but no more. This aqeeda is very dangerous because even Muslims of sound Tawheed can still have Ashari influences in their belief. They may have strong Al wala wal bara and strong supporters of Jihad Fisa Beelillah but when they speak they depend on rational theology too much especially when they are not intellectually convinced about what their senses cannot perceive, like the structure of the universe, Jinn possession etc so they use their knowledge of matter to explain. The dangerous thing when they do this is that sometimes it can be convincing or confusing which is why I like the advice of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal(RA) as regards to these deviants, although I dont have it word for word in front of me Insha Allah I hope someone can help me out. One thing is that he considered those from ilmal qalam as deviants and refuted them even if their rational theology coincides with the truth. Also how important it is not to sit with deviants for the simple two things that can happen, either you will walk away adopting their belief or you will walk away confused as to whom is right.

Also can ask whether Sayyid Qutb was influenced by Ashariya? Ma sha Allah I love his works like Milestones but the reason why I asked is because some of these Asharis really focus and hold such in high esteem like Sayyid Qutb and Salahudin Ayubi.

Wassallam

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

as-salaamu alaikum

As for sayyid qutb(may allah be merciful with him)then no just indivisual would deny his efforts in reviving al-haakimiyah and concentrating on it and refuting the secualrists and the other disbelievers and tawaagheet
who have nullifed this pillar of tawheed.As for sayyid being an
ash'aaree the no he wasnt but because sayyid wasnt a scholar he fell into some ta'weel like his saying that the throne is symbolic and that al-istiwaa' is symbolic and this is baatil without doubt and shaikh abdullah ad-duwaish pointed this out almost 20 yrs in his criticism of sayid qutb's thilaal before shaikh rabee' al-madkhalee knew the mistakes of sayyid.
Sayyid's mistakes in 'aqeedah were not more dangerous then the mistakes of ibn hazm and al-'zz ibn abdissalaam and other imaams of this deen but this doesnt mean we abandon the good they have.Sayyind qutb was raised in an environment where most the scholars were asha'irah so he followedthem blindly in this without knowledge and therefore he is more deserving of execuses then the imaams that fell inot this bid'ah and had knowldege.Lets ask a question here.Has any salafee read the books of sayyid and came out agreeing with sayyid in his 'aqeedah mistakes????
answer:no but for the sake of those who are not salafee or who maybe from the 'awaam we must show them where sayyid went wrong and refute his mistakes and that same time benenfit from his books in that which he was correct in and defend hom when he is being oppressed it.
may allah have mercy upon sayyid qutb and grant him and jannah.ameen



wassalaamu alaikum

[Umm SaifulIslam]

JazakAllah khairan.

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

as-salaamu alaikum


no problem akhee just give me the quote and i will give you the reference
ok? A s for the attributes that the asha'irah affirmed well count with me
1-knowledge-al'ilm
2-capabilty-alqudra
3-will-al-iraadah
4-al-kalaam(in general but they dont affirm that allah speaks with a sound and letters but they say that the words of the qur'aan are either the words of muhammad(alaihisalam) or jibreel
5-hearing-asam'
6-seeingal-basr
7-life-alhayaat
and they call theseattrbutes sifaatul-ma'aanee

ok? ya ibnu 'abbas?

hafithakallah

wassalaamu alaikum

[Abdullah]

Asalaam alaykum

Jazakallah kair brother aub musa.
Could please let us know the attributes they reject? and could you provide evidences in support of these attributes provide reffernces of which sahaba if any and scholars from the first three generations held the opinion you provided of the additional attributes.

Jazakallah kair may you allah reward you for efforts.

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

as-salaamu alaikum


abdullah my dear bro.why the strange questions????
i told you they affirm 7 attributes would like me to mention the rest of the attributes in the book and sunnah?? ?lool you are weird bro but let me ask you

Are you ash'aree????


anyhow this is what i have post about the deviant group of the asha'irah
and if you have sincere questions than ask them.

wassalaamu alaikum

[Abdullah]

wa alaikum asalaam brother, that's not nice bro calling me weird. As to what I am. I am in thirst of knowledge and wish to seek the haq, however i don't want to except things at face value I would like to get things checked out that's why I ask for reffernces. In terms being ash'ari, to be honest I don't where I stand brother. All I believe at the moment is that in order to preserve my deen it's has to be like that of the rasool allah (saw) and the sahabah (ra) and the first three generations (but I need to still check out the evidences for the first three generation, as at the moment that is just on taqleed).

In terms of the question (sometimes I don't make sense to my self) I want to know the evidences for what you propose if i remember you said there were more than 7 attributes, i am correct? If so what are the evidences for this and who among the sahabah and the first three generations held?

I hope that makes sense.

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

as-salaamu alikum


do you mean to tell me that you dont know whther there are more than 7 attributes in the qur'aan and sunnah?????come on akh i think some kuffar know this.I think that you should research and read the qur'aan
wassalamu alaikum

[Abdullah]

Wa alaikum asalaam

Brother let me tell you about my self. I have just found my self. I don't have no teacher or sheikh, I am not with any group. My knowledge is very basic. Most of what I get is probably from the net. So to answer your question I did not know how many attributes there were and I don't entirely know what differences exist.

In relation to reading the qur'an for my self. I don't think I am capable of extracing rules from the qur'an for my self.

If you know all of this brother why aren't you sharing the knowledge Allah has blessed you with I am sure there are others who can benefit insha allah.

ps I just read over that other post. It did sound weird didn't it? I was at work at the time so didn't read over it.

Help a brother out.

[Perestroika]

Help a brother out.

Brother I think a good place to find knowledge is www.islam-qa.com

and concerning asharis there is this answer:

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&CR=237&offset=0&recno=15&dgn=4


Wassalamu aleykum wr wb

[Abdullah]

JazakAllah kair Brother/sister.

[ibn abbas]

Assalamu Alaikum Abdullah

Go to the following webpages (Link to deviant site removed by Mod.) and (Link to deviant sire removed by Mod.)

You will see there the aqeeda of Ahlul Sunna and the refutation of the deviant sects. - Actually all you would have seen is reactionary stuff , some rhetoric and twisted and biased material in an attempt to hoodwink the Muslim, away from Ahl Us sunnah towards the so called and imaginary world of 'Traditional Islam'-Comment by Moderator.

The Wahabies are a subsect of the 'Khawarij' and they make tashbeeh and tajseem - liken Allah (swt) to His creation, which is kufr (blasphemy) belief.

There are 3 sects currently: the Shia, Sunnis and Khawarij.

The middle way is the way of Ahlul Sunnah, who are in the clear majority. The Wahabi aqeeda is kufr.

May Allah (swt) guide us. Ameen.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

move da bumbakiss habashie boy!

[ibn abbas]

what does your name mean?

[islamic@rebel]

slm alaykum

abu musa, hayakallah.

maybe u can write the whole thing again akh, this time make it a complete one, inshallah if u have the time. barakallahu feek. that would make an interesting read. also if u can, jzkallahu khair, put some of the sunni evidences alongside the refutations.

[ibn abbas]

The ahlul Sunna follow the aqeeda of Imam Abu Haneefa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafie, Imam Ahmad, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim, Imam Tahawi, Imam Ashari, Imam ibn 'Asakir, Imam Maturidi, Imam Nawawi, Imam ibn Hajar, Imam Sayooti and countless other Sunni Scholars.

The ahlul Sunna DONT follow the kufr deviant aqeeda of ibn taymiya and ibn abdul wahab. Period.

If you have any questions then please feel free to ask me or 'pm'

[Abu Ilyas]

Ibn Abbas said:

The Wahabies are a subsect of the 'Khawarij' and they make tashbeeh and tajseem - liken Allah (swt) to His creation, which is kufr (blasphemy) belief.


No, this is another Jahmee lie.

The 'wahabies' which to you means the followers of Ibn Taiymiyah call against likening Allah to his creation..lets quote one of Shaykh ul Islaams books to prove this point:

"Ibn Taymiyyah says in ‘at-Tadmuriyyah’ (pg. 20), "It is a must to affirm that which Allaah affirms for himself, whilst negating any likeness to Him with His creation…Whosoever says: His Knowledge is like my knowledge, His Power is like my power, or Love like my love, or Pleasure like my pleasure, or Hand like my hand, or Ascending like my ascending, or His Nuzool (descent) is like my descent - then he has resembled and likened Allaah to the creation. Rather it is a must to affirm (Allaah’s Attributes) without resemblance, and to negate (what Allaah negates for Himself), without ta`teel (divesting Allaah of His Attributes)."

This quote is from a series of articles found on this very website, which refutes many of the false accusations against Ibn Taiymiyah which are propogated by the websites you tried to promote...here is a link where you will see more such false accusations refuted :

http://www.as-sahwah.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=743&

Furthermore, there are another set of articles which might Interest you, again , refuting the false accusations of Anthropomorphism which are made against Ahl Us Sunnah by people who think they are Ahl Us sunnah.:

http://www.islaam.net/main/display.php?category=37

I hope you read the above carefully and then stop your false accusations against the likes of these Scholars

Abu Ilyas

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

subhanallah where is the admin????how can they allow this jahmee soofee to post 2 letters let alone a an entire post????abu zubair wake up akhee

[ibn abbas]

Abu Ilyas, actually ibn taymiya likened Allah (swt) to a body.

Please, I ask you to check the following references and see the kufr statements he has made ...

His saying that Allah (swt) is a body:

sharh hadeeth an-nazool (80) muwafaqat sareeh al-maqool le-saheeh al-manqool (1/62,148) & minhaj as-sunna an-nabawiya (1/180,197) & majmoo’ al-fatawa (4/152)

Also ibn taymiya said in majmoo' al-fatawa (vol.4/p.374) that "The Lord of Muhammad, Messenger of Allah, will make him sit next to him on the Arsh" which is major tashbeeh and tajseem and kufr.

to believe in what ibn taymiya wrote and said is kufr, and the refutation is very simple because Allah (swt) said in the Koran "... There is nothing like Him ..." [Surat As-Shura 42:11]

Please Abu Zubair don't remove me from the forums.

I have not insulted anyone on the forums as you can see from my messages.

thank you

[Samira]

That's so typical. Anyone disagrees with the 'salafis' and they get labelled as a sufi. Anyway, you can't label ME sufi, because according to ibn abdul wahhab, i'm a kafir (surprise surprise).

[Abu Ilyas]

Ibn abbas,

You said:

Please, I ask you to check the following references and see the kufr statements he has made ...

His saying that Allah (swt) is a body:

sharh hadeeth an-nazool (80) muwafaqat sareeh al-maqool le-saheeh al-manqool (1/62,148) & minhaj as-sunna an-nabawiya (1/180,197) & majmoo’ al-fatawa (4/152)


Well, if you are so sure of this, then why don't you quote exactly what Ibn Taiymiyah says , why just provide these references? Is it because you have not checked up these references ? Is it because you have just blindly copied these references from somewhere? It is enough to refute your accusation, that in each one of the above books of Shaykh Ul Islaam, Ibn Taiymiyah, he consistently refutes the idea of a Jism for Allah:

In Sharh Hadeeth an Nuzool (pp. 69-76), in ‘Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa’ (3/306-310, 13/304-305) and in ‘Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah’ (2/134-135, 192, 198-200, 527)

"Indeed in ‘Sharh Hadeeth an-Nuzool’ Shaykh al-Islaam has labelled ascribing Allaah with the term jism, by saying, ‘an innovation in the Sharee`ah, a corruption of the language, and a contradiction to the [sound] intellect. Rather it is repudiated by the Sharee`ah, the language and the [sound] intellect.’"

So what do you want us to beleive, a direct quote from Ibn Taiymiyah denying Allah has a Jism, or a reference to the same book, which you claim directly contradicts that explicit quote?? Now, the hardcore sufis and Asharis made up many lies about Ibn Taiymiyah but even they did not accuse him of suffering from Schizophrenia!!

The only quote you give, is something that makes no sense to me!? Anyone else?

I reproduce below an article which goes into this in more depth. I encourage you to read the artciles I provided you with., or there is little point in this discussion.

[Abu Ilyas]

The Accusation that ibn Taymiyyah held Allaah to be a 'body', of composite parts having organs

By Abu Rumaysah

Amongst those contemporary, and recent writers who accused Shaykh al-Islaam of this are: al-Habbashee al-Huraree, as-Saqqaaf and his mentor Zaahid al-Kawtharee. In fact all the attacks that are about to be raised will find their origins with one, or all of the three personalities mentioned above, from the writers of recent and contemporary times.

As-Saqqaaf says, after previously quoting an-Nawawees ruling of unbelief on the one who ascribes to Allaah a jism (body):

"Entering into this category is al-Harraanee (i.e. ibn Taymiyyah)…who has affirmed tajseem (Allaah having a body) in many of his books. So from this is his saying in ‘at-Ta`sees’ (1/101): ‘and there is not in the Book of Allaah, nor in the Sunnah of His Messenger, nor a statement from any of the Salaf of this ummah and it’s Imaams that He is not a jism, and that His Attributes are not bodily, consisting of organs…’ I say: By Allaah who originated the heavens and the Earth - your saying is ignorance and misguidance. Is not Allaah - the Most High’s - saying, "there is nothing like Him" sufficient in negating tajseem and it’s reality, O al-Harraanee?!! And what about the Imaams of the Ummah and the Salaf - O al-Harraanee - and their censure of tashbeeh…." [‘Daf Shubah at-Tashbeeh’ (pp 245-246) with it’s footnotes by Saqqaaf.]

Shaykh Mashur Salmaan said in reply to this, "these words are from one who does not know what fairness is, who acts haphazardly in his rulings, and who falsely accuses the scholars of wickedness. This becomes apparent in a number of ways:

From them: that the previously stated words are not from the writings of ibn Taymiyyah in which he is clarifying his own views, or even stating them. Rather he is quoting the saying of the People of Kalaam (innovated speech and rhetorics). However as-Saqqaaf has conveniently omitted the beginning of the quotation from Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah, where he clearly stated: Qaaloo (they said)!!

From them: that Saqqaaf overlooks the words of Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah - may Allaah have mercy upon him - concerning the overall usage of this term in reference to Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic - and he halted where he halted upon with knowledge. However justice is very rare - and there is no movement and power except with Allaah.

Shaykh al-Islaam said, in the course of this topic, ‘indeed the term al-Jism (body), al-Arad (organs), al-Mutahayyiz (extent) are newly invented terminoligies. We have mentioned many a time before that the Salaf and the Imaams have not spoken about such things - neither by way of negation, nor by way of affirmation. Rather they declared those who spoke about such matter to be innovators, and went to great lengths to censure them.’

This is what has repeatedly been affirmed by Shaykh al-Islaam - may Allaah have mercy on him - in many of his books, such as: ‘Sharh Hadeeth an-Nuzool’ (pp. 69-76), ‘Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa’ (3/306-310, 13/304-305), ‘Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah’ (2/134-135, 192, 198-200, 527). Indeed in ‘Sharh Hadeeth an-Nuzool’ Shaykh al-Islaam has labelled ascribing Allaah with the term jism, by saying, ‘an innovation in the Sharee`ah, a corruption of the language, and a contradiction to the [sound] intellect. Rather it is repudiated by the Sharee`ah, the language and the [sound] intellect.’

And from them: Shaykh al-Islaam mentions the intended meaning of ascribing Allaah with the term jism, by saying: ‘whosoever alleges that the Lord is a jism - with the meaning that he accepts division, separation and partition (for Allaah) - then he is the most disbelieving of people and the most ignorant. Indeed, his statement is more evil than the one who says that Allaah has a son - with them meaning that a part of Him split and thus became His son.’" [ ‘al-Asaalah’ magazine (no.4 pp.54-55), see also his ‘Rudood wat Ta’qubaat’ (pp 21-23) ]

And at this point we quote from a writer of the own ranks of the accusers: Dr. Sa`eed Ramadaan al-Bootee who says, "and we are amazed when we see the extremists declaring ibn Taymiyyah, may Allaah have mercy upon him, of being an unbeliever. And also at them saying that he was one who held Allaah to be a body (mujassid), and I have studied long and hard as to where I could find a statement or a word from ibn Taymiyyah that he wrote or said which would indicate his holding Allaah to be a body as was quoted from him by as-Subki and others [This is a clear indication from al-Bootee of the injustice done against ibn Taymiyyah by the likes of as-Subki and others], and I have not found anything from him like this. All I found was him saying in his legal rulings, ‘Indeed Allaah has a Hand as He said, and has risen over the Throne as He said, and He has an Eye as He said’"

And he adds to this, " I referred to the last work written by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`aree, ‘al-Ibaanah’, and I found him saying exactly what ibn Taymiyyah said [on the issue of the Names and Attributes of Allah]…" [‘Nadwa Ittjaahaat al-Fiqr al-Islaamee’ (pp 264-265) of al-Bootee.]

The Claims of ibn Batuta:

Amongst the contemporaries of ibn Taymiyyah who accused him of tajseem was the travelling historian, ibn Batuta who said, "I was present in Damascus on Friday where he (ibn Taymiyyah) was admonishing and reminding the people from the minbar (pulpit) of the congregational mosque. During his speech he said: Indeed Allaah descends to the lowest heaven of the world just as I am descending now. He then descended one step of the minbar…" [‘al-Rihlah’ (1/110) of ibn Batuta.]

The falsehood of this can be seen from many angles:

1. This contradicts the madhab of ibn Taymiyyah concerning the Attributes of Allaah - the Most High - which was the same as the madhab of the Salaf, being built upon the saying of Allaah, ‘there is nothing like Him, He is the Hearing and the Seeing’.

2. Ibn Taymiyyah says in ‘at-Tadmuriyyah’ (pg. 20), "It is a must to affirm that which Allaah affirms for himself, whilst negating any likeness to Him with His creation…Whosoever says: His Knowledge is like my knowledge, His Power is like my power, or Love like my love, or Pleasure like my pleasure, or Hand like my hand, or Ascending like my ascending, or His Nuzool (descent) is like my descent - then he has resembled and likened Allaah to the creation. Rather it is a must to affirm (Allaah’s Attributes) without resemblance, and to negate (what Allaah negates for Himself), without ta`teel (divesting Allaah of His Attributes)."

3. Likewise he said in ‘Majmoo` al-Fataawaa’ (5/262), "whosoever considers the Attributes to be like the attributes of the creation - such that Istawaa of Allaah is like the ascending of the creation, or His Nuzool is like the descending of the creation, or other than that - then he is a deviated innovator." And he repeats this principle over and over again in his works.

4. It is not possible that ibn Batuta witnessed ibn Taymiyyah deliver this speech, since ibn Batuta clearly states in his ‘Rihla’ (1/102) that he entered Damascus on the 9th of Ramadhaan in the year 728H. However Shaykh al-Islaam was - before, during and after that time - in prison. Ibn Katheer states in ‘al-Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ (14/135) that ibn Taymiyyah was imprisoned on the 6th of Sha’baan in the year 728H and remained there until his death on the 20th of Dhul Qa’dah 728H [These dates are endorsed in ‘al-A`laam al-Uliyyah’ (pg.84) of al-Bazzaar, and ‘Sahdharaat adh-Dhahab’ (6/80) of ibn al-Amaad.]

5. Ibn Batuta, may Allaah have mercy upon him, did not write the book ‘Rihla’ with his own hand, rather it was collected by Muhammad bin Jazee al-Kalbee who writes in the introduction to ‘Rihla’, "and I have quoted the meaning of the words of Shaykh Abu Abdullaah (ibn Batuta) with words that give the meaning that he intended…."

6. Ibn Batuta started his journey on the 2nd of Rajab 725H and completed it on the 3rd of Dhul Hijjah 756H and he did not write anything down, rather after this journey he dictated to al-Kalbee the events of his journey from memory. Hence the door is open for mistakes, and it is highly likely that ibn Batuta did not witness what he claimed to have witnessed, but merely conveyed the accusations that were in vogue at that time against Shaykh al-Islaam from his enemies.

7. Ibn Batuta himself was opposed to ibn Taymiyyah, for he states in ‘Rihla’ (1/309), ‘and from the great Hanbalee Legal Jurists of Damascus was ibn Taymiyyah, except that he was lacking in his intellect.’ Hence it would have been easy for him to take on board the accusations without verifying them.

8. Ibn Taymiyyah has a separate book concerning Allaah’s Descending called, ‘Sharh Hadeeth an-Nuzool’. In it is no trace whatsoever of the anthropomorphic beliefs that he has been falsely accused of.

9. Ibn Taymiyyah was not the khateeb of the aforementioned masjid, rather it was Qaadee al-Qazwaynee. Ibn Batuta himself says in his ‘Rihla’ (1/107), "and at the time of my entering it (Damascus) their Imaam was Qaadee Jalaal ad-Deen Muhammad bin Abd ar-Rahmaan al-Qazwaynee from the great legal jurists, and he was the khateeb of the masjid…."

10. Ibn Taymiyyah did not used to give admonitions and reminders to the people from the minbar, rather he used to sit upon a chair. Al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee said, "and he became very famous and well-known, and he started giving tafseer of the Might Book from his memory, on the days of Jumu`ah, sitting upon a chair." And ibn Batuta states in his ‘Rihla’ (1/108), "it was the habit of the scholars of hadeeth to read books of hadeeth on a raised chair." And a raised chair in the Arabic language is called, ‘minbar’. [‘Lisaan al-Arb’ (5/189)]

11. This is why ibn Hajr mentioned in his ‘Durar al-Kaaminah’, "and he used to speak on the minbar in the way of the explainers of fiqh and hadeeth, and he used to mention in an hour, what another was unable to mention in many sittings, as if the sciences were displayed in front of his eyes" Meaning by this that he sat on a chair as done by the scholars of hadeeth.

[The above discussion is taken from ‘Min Mashaaheer al-Mujaddidayn’ (pp 27-29) of Shaykh Saalih al-Fowzaan, and ‘ibn Taymiyyah al-Muftaraa alayhi’ (pp 50-60) of Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee.

Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee also mentioned in ‘Durar al-Kaaminah’ (pg. 154) quoting from at-Tufee that, "and they mentioned that he mentioned the hadeeth of Descent and he descended two steps of the minbar and he said, ‘Like this descending of mine’ so he was imputed with tajseem (fa nusiba ilaa at-tajseem)"

This statement is by no means an evidence against ibn Taymiyyah as it only states ‘they mentioned’ mentioning no eye witnesses, And in fact it only confirms, along with all that has preceded, that these were lies being spread against ibn Taymiyyah. This is the reason that at-Tufee only said, ‘he was imputed with tajseem’ using uncertain phraseology.]

So with the above it is clear that the account of ibn Batuta cannot be depended upon due to his obvious confusion and the lack of coherency of his account, and due to it’s clear contradiction to the written words of ibn Taymiyyah.

And with this the gross exaggeration of Taaj ad-Deen Subki can also be discerned, where he said, "none of them (scholars) denied that he had said, ‘Allaah had directions and is a composition of particles coming together’" [ See ‘Albani Unveiled’ (pg.116)]

[Abu Ilyas]

That's so typical. Anyone disagrees with the 'salafis' and they get labelled as a sufi. Anyway, you can't label ME sufi, because according to ibn abdul wahhab, i'm a kafir (surprise surprise).

As Salaamulaikum,

Why are you a Kaafir according to Ibn Abdul Wahaab?

[Abuz Zubair]

To Abu Musa

The whole point of having a forum is to discus and sort out our difference. If brother Abu Abbas's behaviour remains within the Shara'ee bounds, then there is no reason to delete his post, InshaaAllah.

To Abu Abbas:

sharh hadeeth an-nazool (80) muwafaqat sareeh al-maqool le-saheeh al-manqool (1/62,148) & minhaj as-sunna an-nabawiya (1/180,197) & majmoo’ al-fatawa (4/152)

I can perhaps say with near certainty that you do not have access to Sharh Hadeeth al-Nuzul, nor Minhaj, nor Majmu' al-Fatawa, so I would not ask you to quote from what you have read, for that is to ask you of the impossible.

However, I would say to you that if you really want to get involved in this discussion, then you should purify your intention, and that you eagerly look for the truth, and that you don't be judgemental. Unfortunately, many have been lead astray due to their blind support for the Ash'ari creed, or their hatred for the Wahhabis. Especially, nowadays, you have a trend amongst many Hanafi youth who are (perhaps rightly) sick of 'Salafi' attacks against the hanafi Madhab. So when they find anyone, criticising the 'Salafis' or 'Wahhabis' they just buy that without questioning.

Whatever the case, let us not talk about personalities, and let's get down to the principles. Since, you claim that the Madhab of Ahlus-Sunnah in 'Aqeeda is that of Abul-Hasan al-Ash'ari and Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, have you read any of their works on belief? Or any of their followers from the mutallimin at all?

For if you have, then I have a few questions for you in 'ilm al-kalam; and if you haven't then may be you do not even know what you are defending, nor what you are attacking, right?

In brief, the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah is that we affirm for Allah what He affirmed for Himself, and likewise we negate from Him, that which he negated from Himself. Since, the attributes of Allah are from 'Ilm al-Ghaib, there is no place for our intellects to decide what is possible or impossible for Allah. Therefore, to say that Allah is not inside the universe, nor outside of it, nor attached to it, nor detached from it, etc, which is the belief of the Ash'aris and Maturidis, none of this is based on a single divine text. Rather, it is based on what the Ash'aris regarded to be al-Qawati' al-'Aqliyah (principles affirmed by intellect). So if any divine text contradicts with their intellect, they either call it weak, or reject its literal and obvious meaning for a far-fetched meaning, found in the Shaadh and Ghaaraib of the Arabic language. Just like the Batini Kuffar, who reject the existence of Paradise and Hell, because it contradicts their al-Qawati' al-'Aqliyah. As for the divine texts confirming their existence, they conveniently, just like their brothers – the Ash'aris – give it a figurative interpretation, far from the literal intended meaning.

Contrary to that, the four Imams and Ahl al-Sunnah affirm what He affirmed for Himself, however, without likening Him to any of His creation. For example, follow the discussion below between a Sunni and an Ash'ari:

Ash'ari: We affirm for Allah, His Hearing, Seeing, Life, Ability, Speech and Knowledge. But we do not affirm that Allah has Hands, because a Hand is a bodily limb particular to the creation, which cannot be attributed to Allah because: there is none like him.
Sunni: Hearing, Seeing and Speech, etc are also human attributes, so why affirm them?
Ash'ari: Because, Allah Hears and Sees etc, in a way most suitable to His Majesty, not like we See and Hear.
Sunni: Likewise, Allah has two Hands that suit His Majesty, not like our Hands, or that of any of His creation.

The same arguments we use against the Mu'tazila who reject all attributes, because to them, they are all attributes of human beings. So they say: Allah is 'All-Hearing' but he cannot hear, and that He is 'All Seeing' but He does not see. Meaning, the merely affirm the names, without affirming the attributes these names entail.

As it is obvious to any reader, that their arguments contradict the sound intellect, not to mention the divine texts of the Quran and Sunnah, which affirm names and attributes of Allah in explicit terms, without telling the believers: 'don’t believe in them literally, though!'

Now, coming to your claim about the Prophet sitting on the throne of Allah being Tashbeeh:

Firstly, this has been authentically narrated from Mujahid (d. 102) – the student of Ibn 'Abbas, in reference to al-Maqam al-Mahmud in Surah al-Isra.

Secondly, this Athar has been narrated by many Imams in their books, such as the Imam of Mufassirin, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310) who said after narrating this Athar: "There is no Islamic sect that denies this".

Further to that, al-Dhahabi says (rough translation) that "it is impossible for Mujahid to say this without having learned it himself (from Ibn 'Abbas), for he said: "I read the Quran from the beginning till the end, 3 times, to Ibn 'Abbas. I would stop him at every verse and ask him about it!"

So this is Mujahid, the best of Mufassirin in his time, and the teacher of famous Qurra such as Ibn Katheer, Abu 'Amr and ibn Muhaisin.

Also, amongst those who affirmed the report of Mujahid and did not oppose it are:
Al-Hafidh 'Abbas ibn Muhammad al-Duri (d. 271)
Al-Muhaddith Yahya ibn Abi Talib (d. 275)
Al-Hafidh al-Tirmidhi (compiler of sunan d. 280)
Abu Ja'far Muhammad al-Daqiqi (d. 266)
Abu Dawud (compiler of Sunan d. 275)
Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Harbi (d. 285)
Al-Hafidh Abu Qilaba al-Raqashi (d. 276)
Al-Hafidh Hamdan ibn 'Ali al-Warraq (d. 272)

And many other scholars, from those I know and from those I do not know. However, it has come in an authentic Hadeeth that al-Maqam al-Mahmud is the right of intercession which will be given to our Prophet SAW" – End of quote from al-Uluw…

However, as Ibn Taymiyah says, there is no contradiction between Allah sitting the Prophet on His throne, and giving him the right of intercession, and Allah knows best.

Further to the names mentioned by al-Dhahabi, the following Imams also believed in the Athar of Mujahid:
Muhammad ibn Mus'ab
Ahmad ibn Hanbal (who said: "I condemn anyone who rejects this narration. As far as I am concerned, he is an evil person. I heard it from a group of scholars, and I did not see one of them criticise this narration. The only people I know criticise it are the Jahmis").
Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal
Ahmad al-Marrudhi (the devout companion and student of Imam Ahmad, who wrote a whole book on this topic)
Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari
Muhammad ibn 'Ali al-Siraj
Imam al-Darqutni

As for you to use the famous Quranic verse: 'there is none like Him'… Well, may be Mujahid didn't ask Ibn 'Abbas about this particular verse, which is why, according to you, he fell into Kufr, along with the Imams I mentioned above?

wasalam

[ibn abbas]

Firstly, I apologise if I have offended anyone. That was not my intention.
I am just defending the aqeeda of ahlul Sunna.

Secondly, from now on I will inshallah quote the reference and quotation of ibn taymiya so that there is no confusion.

Thirdly, just as I have given you homework to check up, I will do my homework by checking the statement of Mujahid (ra), the student of ibn abbas (ra), whether it is authentic or not.

Fourthly, I would urge participants not to become emotional over individuals as we dont have 'Hollywood stars' in Islam. We have no celebrities that we blindly follow.
We judge people by their aqeeda and put it in the balance of the aqeeda of ahlul Sunna wal Jama'a.

Shukren.

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

YA AKHEE ABU ZUBAIR YOU WITHOUT A DOUTB are WRONG IN THIS ISSUE BECAUSE ALLOWING THESE JAHMEEYAH TO SPREAD THEIR SHUBUHAAT WILLonly l EAD TO THE CONFUSION OF ALOT OF PEOPLE!JUST REMEMBER MOST THE OF THE SHABAAB AND SHAABAAT ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT STUDENTS OF KNOWLEDGE AND WOULDNT KNOW HOW TO REFUTE THE WEAKEST OF SHUBUHAAT.YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE INFORNT OF ALLAH IF YOU CONTIINUE TO ALLOW THIS JAHMEE AND HIS LIKES TO POST.


wassalamu alaikum

[Abu Ilyas]

YA AKHEE ABU ZUBAIR YOU WITHOUT A DOUTB are WRONG IN THIS ISSUE BECAUSE ALLOWING THESE JAHMEEYAH TO SPREAD THEIR SHUBUHAAT WILLonly l EAD TO THE CONFUSION OF ALOT OF PEOPLE!JUST REMEMBER MOST THE OF THE SHABAAB AND SHAABAAT ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT STUDENTS OF KNOWLEDGE AND WOULDNT KNOW HOW TO REFUTE THE WEAKEST OF SHUBUHAAT.YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE INFORNT OF ALLAH IF YOU CONTIINUE TO ALLOW THIS JAHMEE AND HIS LIKES TO POST.


wassalamu alaikum

As Salaamuaalikum,

Brother Abu Musa

I know the above was not addressed to me but I would like to say that if a forum such as this allows brothers to post their Shubuhaat and then clarifies those Shubuhaat for all concerned then what is the problem?! I can only see benefit. I fail to see a major difference between this methodology and the methodology of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahaab in his 'Kashf ash Shubuhaat' - that whole book was about showing the readers some of the shubuhaat of those who justify shirk and then refuting them. Personally, this is a most effective weapon. Perhaps, if the Shaykh had not written that book as he did, then more people would be confused by some of the weak evidence used to justify shirk. (And I am in no way comparinf the knowledge of the Shaykh with what little we know, but just comparing method.)

What is worse, that someone who lacks knowledge, like myself reads these shubuhaat here and then sees them clarified..or only sees them unrefuted on some deviant website..leaving him utterly confused?

Allah Knows Best

Was Salaam

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

may allah guide you ya aba ilyaas!did i say i have a problem withrefuting the shubuhaat of these jahmee deviants?????you gave an example of shaikh muhamad's book kashfu-shubuhaat and there is a big diffrence because he is a scholar and we are not.I would advise our brother abu zubair have tamee' with these deviants.

wasalamu alaikum

[Abu Ilyas]

As I said previously:

(And I am in no way comparing the knowledge of the Shaykh with what little we know, but just comparing method.)

Was Salaam

[ibn abbas]

I am compiling my answers and will post them soon inshallah, but it is not looking good for you Abu Ilyas, Abu Zubair and Abu Musa.

[Abuz Zubair]

I am compiling my answers and will post them soon inshallah, but it is not looking good for you Abu Ilyas, Abu Zubair and Abu Musa.

With all due respect, brother Ibn 'Abbas, doesn't your comment seem a tad arrogant?

[asharee_salafi]

Assalaamulekum,

i have some questions related to the ashariah, i will say it here as abu zubair is particpating, im the guy who wanted to speak to you abu zubair, i(at chicken cottage?....wont say much in public)

these following questions have been on my mind for near 2 years!

1.is the posistion related the allahs attributes an iktilafi matter? i dont understand why we muqalids are able to say that imam nawawi, ghazali were wrong,just after reading a few articles from abu rumaysah! if only imam juwani and nawawi met abu rumaysah in their time! how was it possible for these imams to get it wrong? are we saying that us individuals are able to know the posistion relating to allahs attributes better then they? are we, after readinga few translations able , to declare that we know the salafs posistion better then they?

if so...

one must ask how ignorant can those scholars of been to reject all these saying of the salaf!>?

they must of held those opinions if at least they thought they were iktilafi.

2. if people dont hold on the the ashari aqeedah, then have they contradicted following the path of the salaf, if so, doe sthis mean that other issues like khilafah will be delayed, since allah wont help us until we correct our beleif? so what im saying is, do we all have the follow bin baz and co in order for revival to come about?


3. if allahs attributes are literal, then what about christians, they say allah has a son, and when we say 'oh but how can you say that!?' they say, 'just is.... he can do whatever he wills' meaning they also say the same line' in a manner that befits his majesty' so what im trying to say is, anyone can say with anything to do with allah 'in manner that befits his majesty'

they can affirm any deficency and say in a maner that befits his majesty.

4. ibn abbas has done taweel over teh shin of allah saying it means hardship, he also did taweel over allahs hands saying it meant power? what do you say? are these statements valid?

5. does allah have parts in a manner that befits his majesty? since the beleivers heart is BETWEEN the 2 fingers of the most merciful.

6.allah is most high, but does that change when he rose above his arsh? or whne he descends? isnt he most high anymore?

7.why is it that the salafis dont have the standard for there own scholars while critiscing?

why is it when sheikh bin baaz puts fawats about the american bases and calls the obeying tawagheet, people merely say in toned down voices(salafis that is) 'oh...brother....the scholars.....the scholars, yaani....they know what they are doing,they have more knowledge then us, leave the ulema akhi,,,,,leave them alone '

so when sheikh bin baqaz falters upon loyalty amd hakimiyyah its ok,

but when great imams like ghazali , nawawi(pls dont paste me that article from islaam.net about imam nawawi.)

these salafis , they say, with a smile, with an arrogant look,

'' brother, scholars make mistakes, they had deviations, but we hope there good deeds were better then there bad ones''

HOW SO! DO YOU SEE THE CONTRADICTIONS?

im only asking these questions because i have a sincere heart and i would liek to know the truth, can someone please help me understand it since it causes me much confusion when i think about,

jazak Allah khairun and thank you, i ask allah to make it easy upon you to get back to me ameen,

ws wr wb. :wink:

[Mansoor Ali]

Ashari salafi,

In response to question 3 : Allaah Himself has denied that He has a son, so the Christians' point that God can
do whatever he wills, and in a manner which befits His majesty, is invalid when it comes to this belief of theirs.

[gag order]

in addition to what mansoor ali said i would like to add that the discussion is about something that allah has communicated very little to us isnt that so?

a knowledegable person will be able to tell us wether allah or the rasool eloborated on the issue of "hands"

in this circumstance we ALL agree that allah is UNLIKE his creation so would it not be sufficient for us to just say about the issue of allahs "hands" is as befitting the majesty of allah which he has comminicated very little and leave it that.

the statements of ibn taymiyyah is sufficient answer to all those who accuse him of "deviance"

and sister samira do not judge ibn abdul wahhab on account of the house of saud and opposition to al-saud should not be confused with opposition to ibn abdul wahhab.

i know that you are strong oppositionist of the rafidah, if you were truly sufi i would expect you to be somehow agreeable with the rafidah (which you are not) i remember how you became angry when a rafidah claimed divinity, if you were truly sufi it would not have bothered yo since many sufis belive they can be allah through rituals and incantations.

now you said on this topic and elswhere on the forum that ibn abdul wahhab made takfir on you. what is it that you do or belive that is considered kufr by ibn abdul wahhab? i just cant imagine you bieng anything but a beliver.

and ashari salafi did you know that when the mutazilites disbanded, they opted for "ashari-ism" as a compromise between ahl us sunnah and the mutazilah, ashari-ism is not the aqeeda of the 4 mujtahid imams. it is accepted that ashari and maturidi came about after mutazilism was discontinued and came well after the 4 imams and this is quite telling on the erroneous beliefs of ashari and maturidi

[Abuz Zubair]

As-Salaamu 'Alaikum wa-rahmatullah

In reply to:

1) Yes, the issue of Allah's Names and Attributes is an issue of khilaf, however, not the type of khilaf which is permissible. Nor is it permissible for anyone to make Taqleed of anyone else in Usul al-Deen (in matters of beliefs), according to the vast majority of the scholars from 4 schools. Taqleed is only allowed as a necessity in Furu' al-Deen (matters related to Fiqh and so on), for those who do not have the tools of Ijtihad.

Secondly, Abu Rumaysah isn't the first person to write on this subject. He has been preceded by Imams from the Sahabah, the Tabi'un, and their followers from the four Imams – especially Ahmad ibn Hanbal – as well as Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, Ibn Khuzaima and many others from the early generations. Surely, the early generation of Muslims know more about their Lord and His attributes than the latter scholars you mentioned such as al-Juwaini, et al., contrary to the claim of the Ash'aris that the path of the Salaf is the safest path, but the path of the Khalaf is wiser and more knowledge-based. Rather, it is the path of the Salaf that is the safest, wisest and more knowledge-based, otherwise, why would the Ash'ari Imams feel the need to repent on their death beds, like Imam al-Razi who complains about his utter confusion and wasting time learning Kalam (in Aqsam al-Ladhat), Shahrastani, or al-Juwaini himself who says: I left Islam and its people, and dived into something they forbade me from… or al-Ghazzali himself who said that those most doubtful about their beliefs at their deathbed are the philosophers (Ahl al-Kalam), and he died with Sahih al-Bukhari on his chest?

Moreover, these Imams whom you pointed to, themselves admitted that their method is contrary to that of the Salaf, for their method (which according to them is wiser) is that of allegorical explanations, where as the method of the Salaf is to 'narrate the texts is at is' – which they called Tafweedh – meaning believing in those narrations as detached Arabic letters with no meaning attached to them (like Alif-Lam-Mim). You will find this admission even in the books of contemporary Ash'ari scholars, such as Abu Zahrah – Rahimhullah.

As for scholars like al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajr and others, then they were not Ash'aris in the first place. Yes, they shared many Ash'ari beliefs, as they also contradicted them in many issues. However, if you ask an Ash'ari for the sources of Ash'ari 'Aqeeda books, he would not refer to any books authored by Ibn Hajar or al-Nawawi, because in many places they refute Ash'aris by name. (Example of that is Imam al-Nawawi refutation Ash'aris on the issue of 'first obligation on a person – is it to have faith, or to doubt his faith?')

As for your comment that: "one must ask how ignorant can those scholars of been to reject all these saying of the salaf"

Well, the same question can be thrown at you, that how can scholars such as the 4 Imams, their immediate followers, such as 'Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-Marrudhi, al-Khallal, Ibn Hamid, al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la, Ibn Qudama, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Muflih, Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Katheer, al-Dhahabi and many others be ignorant of this issue, and choose to contradict al-Nawawi and other scholars influenced by Ash'ari madhab?

2. Allah promises those who have faith and do good deeds that He will establish them in the land. This includes beliefs and actions, and Allah knows best.

3. Allah never attributed a son to Himself. In fact He negated it, so the Christians are wrong to affirm that for him.

As for your words: "anyone can say with anything to do with allah 'in manner that befits his majesty'"

That's the point, which the Ash'aris do not seem to (or do not want to) understand. No one can attribute to Allah, or negate from His attributes whatever he likes. This is the very problem with the Ash'aris that on one hand they reject the obvious meanings of the Quran and authentic narrations of the Prophet SAW, and on the other hand, they affirm for Allah attributes that have absolutely no basis in the Quran, nor the Sunnah nor any Athar from the Salaf! Such as, the Ash'aris claiming that Allah is not composed of particles, limbs, he is not contained in a place, and that he is not in any direction, and therefore, not above the world, nor below it, nor to its right, or left, not inside of it, nor outside of it… This is not how Allah – the Mighty and Majestic – described Himself. Allah describes Himself with specific qualities, the Mighty, the Majestic, The Most High, the one who gives and takes life, the best of Judges, or that He has two hands, and a Face, etc. where as He would only negate things from him in very general terms, such as: "Laisa Ka Mithlihi Shai'" there is none like Him. Or when He does negate something in specific, he does so in order to affirm the opposite of it. For example, when He says: No sleep or slumber overtakes Him, meaning He is al-Hay al-Qayyum, or that 'He is not unjust to His slaves', meaning He is just and wise.

Moreover, going on an 'attribute-negation-spree' is somewhat showing lack of respect to Allah. Imagine entering upon a king. Would you rather praise him saying: You are a just, and a kind king who does not oppress any of his citizens. Or would you say: You are not a barber, nor a cleaner, nor a cook, nor a carpenter, nor a shepherd! Surely, if you were to say that to a King, you would be punished, so how about the Lord of the Worlds? This is why, some of the contemporary scholars said: reading into Ash'ari Aqeeda is like reading into Allah's anatomy, which does nothing to boost someone's faith or place Allah's fear and awe in His heart – unlike the way Allah describes Himself in His book, and His Messenger in the narrations.

4) Ibn 'Abbas did say in relation to 'the day when the Shin will be exposed': meaning, this day will be of a great calamity.

However, the Prophet SAW said in explanation to this verse: "Our Lord will expose His Shin. Then every believing male and female will fall in prostration to Him, and only those will remain that used to prostrate in the world out of showing off and fame. They will try to prostrate, but their backs will be made straight" (al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Now, there are two ways of looking at this:

First, is to say that there is no contradiction between the two narrations, for the Day Allah exposes His Shin, that day, indeed, will be a day of great distress; and this is the best way of reconciling between two narrations, Wallahu 'Alam.

The second way, is to affirm that there is a contradiction between the Hadeeth of the Prophet SAW and an Athar of a Sahabi (which does seem far-fetched and unnecessary), in which case, the Hadeeth of the Prophet SAW takes precedence over the Athar, as it is known from Usul-al-Fiqh.

As for Ibn 'Abbas explaining the two Hands of Allah as 'His power', then this is new to me, and I would appreciate if you could provide me with a reference. However, perhaps I can say with a degree of surety, that none of the Salaf explained the 'two Hands' to be 'His power', except the Jahmis and Mu'tazilis, which is why Imam Abu Hanifah, specifically refuted them on this very point, very earlier on.

5) Did Allah ever affirm for himself the word 'Parts'? If no, then how can we or anyone else affirm that for Allah, and use it to describe Him?

Also, remember that these newly invented terms that have no presence in the divine texts have right and wrong meanings.

For example, if you mean by 'Allah having parts' meaning that he is divisible into different entities, then that meaning is surely rejected, because Allah is al-Samad. However, if you mean by 'parts', Allah's two Hands, a Face and Fingers, etc. then these attributes cannot be negated, because Allah Himself attributes these 'parts' to Himself, and the Prophet SAW explains to us these verses as they are; and Mujahid learns from ibn 'Abbas the meaning of every single verse in the Quran – three times – and transmits to us the literal meanings, without giving any allegorical explanations.

6) As for your words:
"Allah is most high, but does that change when he rose above his arsh? or whne he descends? isnt he most high anymore?"

This is the very result of likening Allah to His creation, which is what every Ash'ari is guilty of, which is what leads them to negate nearly all of Allah's attributes. For Allah rising above His throne, or descending in the last third of the night cannot be compared to His creation. For Allah – the Might and Majestic – descends to His creation – as it is affirmed in the revelation – which does not necessitate that he leaves His Throne, because He cannot be thought of in terms of His creation.

Specially, in our age we know for certain that the earth is spherical, and not flat, contrary to the Ash'aris, which means that Allah descends to every nation on this earth at their last third of the night, while at the same time, he is described with the attribute of Highness over His creation.

And because this very issue became a dilemma for the Ash'aris, they came up with their belief that Allah is not inside the world, nor outside of it – which in essence is a description of non-existence.

7) All scholars make mistakes and errors, and they are all to be treated equally, shown the due respect and made excuses for.

I hope this suffices.

wasalam

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

athaabakallah ya aba zubair .I knew this guy ibn 'abbas was up to no good and i have dealt with these types that act like their asking to know the haqq but in reality they are trying to argue.

[ali]

I say akh Abu Musa that let these shubha go forth if Allah so wills as for each shubha there is a radd for it and we will wait for it and refute it as is the sunnah.

Usually when people see two differing matters on the issues of deen then one is bound to be correct and Allah aids what is haq and authentic and leaves to stray what is baatil and shubha.

And so the people can see who is sided with the sunnah and who is sided with what opposses it.

asalamu alaikum.
oh by the way

im boriqee ya aba musa

[asharee_salafi]

ASSALAAMULEKUM,

FIRSTLY I'D LIEK TO THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS, IT WAS OF TREMENDOUS BENEFIT, MAY ALLAH REWARD YOU.

VERY WELL WRITTEN MASHALLAH. I LIKED TO ARGUEMNT ABOUT THE 'KING' MASHALLAH IT REALLY BANGED SENSE IN ME. :D


Can you please just confirm the following, even with 'yes' and 'no' in order to save time since i know you get busy.


1. when people say that Allah is not a body,a part , we ahl sunnah agree, but the problems we say that arise from this is the fact that the salaf never delved into these questions, they just affirmed, and disaffirmed what Allah said for himself, so in a way it was tafweed over the reality of the attributes but not tafweed over the meaning,like some scholars like ibn hajar al asqalalani have done( i think). am i right in thinking this?

YES or NO? :shock: :?: :roll: (i love these faces!)

2. am i right in thinking that Allah rose above the arsh,went to to the lowest heaven, in a maner that befits his majesty, while at the same time, being distinct and separate from his creation,being most high, and without anything overshadowing him or containing him and WITHOUT THE ARSH OR THE HEAVENS OR ANY PART OF CREATION BEING ABOVE HIM

(to me this is a very important question)


YES or NO :shock: ? :roll: :roll:


3. How true and valid is the statements of the asharees when they say that Allah doesnt change, i.e if something changes , and it was to the good, it means it hasnt always been perfect, and if soemthing changes from to bad, its no longer perefct, they say that change is specific to creation that is determined by SPACE AND TIME how can Allah be prone to CHANGE?

so they say if Allah rose above the arsh it would be imperfect since it shows the CHANGING of Allah,

is this a valid statement to make?

or is it another mental knot and another way in which Shaytaan causes confusion?


May Allah give you much barakah in your life,Ameen, and thanks again, please answer in a way which is most comfortable to you even if its short.

and Assalaamulekum

[asharee_salafi]

Oh by the way ! just anotherquestion


the asharees try and confuse us by saying that if you say that Allah is above his creation then what if someone is on the north pole and says Allah is aboove me, and what is someone is on the south pole and says Allah is above me? whats correct?

[Break The Cross]

as salaamu 'alaykum

I dont know where to post this question but ill state it here I guess Insh'Allaah. What Im tryign to do is backtrack everying so I can have a better understanding and not let otehrs confuse me as they have confused themselves and deviated. I have talked to a few people and asked them about the 'aqeedah differences. Some told me that there are three "legit" 'aqeedahs such as the maturidiyah, ashariyah and the salafiyah. :confused: Will it be proper for me to say that there could be only one correct 'aqeedah and that is the salafiyah one and the rest of them are false?

[Abuz Zubair]

Will it be proper for me to say that there could be only one correct 'aqeedah and that is the salafiyah one and the rest of them are false?

Absolutely. Salafiyya is Orthodoxy, which is Sunnism.

Ash'aris are heretics.

If someone disputes you on this, ask him the following question:

One who believes that the Quran is created, can he be a Sunni?

Ans: No

Ash'aris believe that the Quran is created, because they claim, Allah is unable to speak with letters and sound.

If they say: That's a lie, as them a simple question:

Who said Alif-Laam-Meen?

Then wait for them to reply for another decade.

End of argument.

[Break The Cross]

as salaamu alaykum

After reading about the Ashariyyah beliefs and confirming them with the Asharis themselves, I must say it is out right loathing. I would not even listen to the Qur'aan being recited from there mouths let alone take their fiqh rulings on daily life things. What is more absurd is that the ones who I asked about Istawa' did not believe in its apparent meaning but give it another interpretation due to the fear of falling into likening Allaah Ta'ala to the created. Is this not rejecting Istawa' all togather sine there is no other meaning to it except what was mentioned as rising over the throne? They are falling into the takfeer territory...