Sifaat of Yad etc are not limbs

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

salamu alaykum

This is from summary of fatwa hamawiyah (summary by ibn uthaymeen explaining)

There is a section of when ibn taymiyah was on trial and explained his book al wasitiyah and in foot note ibn uthaymeen mentions in a section this

Stated al-khateeb baghdaadee d.463h said, " So the basic principle (asl) is that speech about the attributes is speech about the essence (dhaat) of Allah, so it follows it in that and takes it as a model of example. So when it is known that the affirmation of the Lord of the worlds, the mighty and majestic, is affirmation of existence, then likewise, affirmation of His attributes is only an affirmation of existence, not an affirmation of limitation (tahdeed) and modality (takyeef). So when we say, "Allah has a hand, hearing and seeing,' then these are only attributes that Allah has affirmed for Himself. And we do not say that the meaning of Hand is POWER, nor do we say that the meaning of hearing and Seeing is knowledge. And we do not say that THESE are bodily limbs and tools to perform actions. Rather, we say that it is obligatory to affirm them, but to make tawqeef (stopping at the text of the book and the sunnah) of what is mentioned concerning them." Refer to Dhammut-Ta'weel no.15 of ibn qudamah and al uluww p.185 of adh-Dhahabi)

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

salamu alaykum

isnt this correct aqidah that yad is not qudra and that Yad is not a bodily limb (Because if it were animal of human it be bodily limb) however Yad of Allah is unlike creation.

So what does Faqir al mutazili and Salman and others have beef with ahlus sunnah.

[Abuz Zubair]

Ahlus Sunnah,

for argument's sake... so what if Allah had a limb? What is a limb exactly? And how is that a deficiency with respect to Allah?

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

Well akhi the reason i object to it is because Aqidah Tahawiyah which has ijmaa that its aqidah of ahlus sunnah said that Allaah is not made up of limbs.

And fiqh al akbar of imaam abu hanifa who said that Yad cannot be translated into farsi because it would indicate Allah having a Limb.

[Abuz Zubair]

Well akhi the reason i object to it is because Aqidah Tahawiyah which has ijmaa that its aqidah of ahlus sunnah said that Allaah is not made up of limbs. 1) al-Tahawi mentions no ijma' on this issue
2) Ijma does not suddenly come from nowhere, it must be based on some legal text
3) taqlid in 'aqida is not allowed according to Ash'aris and Maturidis anyway.

So the answer I am expecting is not that, 'because so and so said in such and such book'... but an answer with reasoning and proofs.

Why is against Allah's transcendence for Him to have limbs? How does that make him imperfect? How is that a blasphemy? And why didn't Allah negating parts and limbs from Him in His Book or His Messenger, especially if we were to argue that the issue is so serious that it can take one beyond the pale of Islam, and yet it has no mention in the Quran and the Sunnah?

So why cannot Allah have limbs?

[WM]

Bro Abuz Zubair, I missed you since you left. Allah accept your Hajj

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

Salamu alaykum

what i meant akhi is aqidah tahawiyah has ijmaa that the work itself is a work recognize as a work of ahlus sunnah.

Since it said Allah is not made up of limbs and parts (and there is ijmaa that its a book of ahlus sunnah) that is why i wondered.

And ofcourse fiqh al akbar of abu hanifa saying that youc annot translate yad into farsi because it indicates a limb.

So i thought it was a heresy but i have no knowledge to argue the case, i am just searching for truth so i know which group to study the deen with (the salafis or those who claim to follow traditional islam)

[Abuz Zubair]

Bro Abuz Zubair, I missed you since you left. Allah accept your Hajj Missed you too, bro... nice to see you back :)

Brother Ahlus Sunnah,

There are many points in al-Tahawiyya which the Ash'aris disagree with, as there are many points the Maturidiyya disagree with; as I am sure you know there are those points the Athariyya disagree with.

There is no such ijma' upon every article of al-Tahawiyya. Rather, Muslims scholars from all backgrounds have generally conceded to most of what is contained within al-tahawiyya.

al-Fiqh al-Akbar does not belong to Abu Hanifa, anyway.

The point is, Allah says He created Adam with His Two Hands. His Prophet tells us that Allah wrote the Torah with His Hand, and that He made the Paradise with His Hand. Ibn 'Umar used to say that Allah only made four things with His Hands.

Now, these Jahmis come and tell us: 'Allah cannot have hands'

We ask why?

They say: 'Because Allah does not have limbs'

We say: 'Why not?'

What do they say in reply? Is it because Allah says in His Book: 'Allah has no limbs?'

Did His Messenger ever say: 'Allah has no limbs'?

Did any of the Salaf say: 'Allah has no limbs'?

So from where did these Jahmis learn that their God has no limbs?

Why do they find it necessary to negate that Allah has limbs?

Remember, these are the Jahmis that tell us: no taqleed in 'aqida... So let them rationally prove their absurd beliefs to us.

(ever wondered why Abu al-Fa'ra who ironically calls himself 'Abul-Layth' would never dare to step in this territory?)

[abubakr]

Akhi Abu zubair the jahmites say that the ayat "there is nothing like him" is enough to prove that Allah has no limbs as we have limbs and this ayat negates any likeness?

[Abuz Zubair]

Akhi Abu zubair the jahmites say that the ayat "there is nothing like him" is enough to prove that Allah has no limbs as we have limbs and this ayat negates any likeness?
Then way say: The same verse could be used to prove that Allah has no knowledge, no will, no sight, no hearing and no seeing, because there is nothing like Him.

So this verse is not a proof for their argument that Allah has no limbs, since it is too general.

We want to know why in particular limbs are being negated from Allah. For that we want from them particular proofs, be they rational or textual.

[abubakr]

I think the jahmite response to that would be that if we affirm limbs for Allah then we are saying that Allah is a Jism. as a limb is a corporeal body. they say that you are implying that Allah has parts which contradicts qul huwwallahu ahad. Where as Allah is beyond having parts.

That is the response i have heard from some asharis.

[Contemplation]

Missed you too, bro... nice to see you back :)

Brother Ahlus Sunnah,

There are many points in al-Tahawiyya which the Ash'aris disagree with, as there are many points the Maturidiyya disagree with; as I am sure you know there are those points the Athariyya disagree with.

There is no such ijma' upon every article of al-Tahawiyya. Rather, Muslims scholars from all backgrounds have generally conceded to most of what is contained within al-tahawiyya.

al-Fiqh al-Akbar does not belong to Abu Hanifa, anyway.

The point is, Allah says He created Adam with His Two Hands. His Prophet tells us that Allah wrote the Torah with His Hand, and that He made the Paradise with His Hand. Ibn 'Umar used to say that Allah only made four things with His Hands.

Now, these Jahmis come and tell us: 'Allah cannot have hands'

We ask why?

They say: 'Because Allah does not have limbs'

We say: 'Why not?'

What do they say in reply? Is it because Allah says in His Book: 'Allah has no limbs?'

Did His Messenger ever say: 'Allah has no limbs'?

Did any of the Salaf say: 'Allah has no limbs'?

So from where did these Jahmis learn that their God has no limbs?

Why do they find it necessary to negate that Allah has limbs?

Remember, these are the Jahmis that tell us: no taqleed in 'aqida... So let them rationally prove their absurd beliefs to us.

(ever wondered why Abu al-Fa'ra who ironically calls himself 'Abul-Layth' would never dare to step in this territory?)

I have a question regarding the quote of Ibn 'Umar.

What are the four things Allah made with His Hand, because I see in the post only three things i.e. Adam, Torah and Paradise.

Jazaakum Allahu khayran!

[Logic lover]

Quote from Abuz Zubayr:

''We want to know why in particular limbs are being negated from Allah. For that we want from them particular proofs, be they rational or textual.''

Reply:

From the point of view of the rationalists - the issue is not just whether Allah has 'limbs', but whether what is described and mentioned in the texts is really what should be understood.

As for the point of view of the Ahlus Sunnah - we accept what is found in the texts and as far as I know, there is no mention of the word 'limbs'. If Allah is to be described as having the attributes of 'limbs' - do we not need textual proofs?

If Allah's Hands are to be described as 'limbs' - do we not need textual proofs to affirm, rather than to negate?

[abu-usaama]

Allaah says:

"And to warn those (Jews, Christians, and pagans) who say, "Allah has begotten a son (or offspring or children)."
No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. Mighty is the word that comes out of their mouths . They utter nothing but a lie.
" [Surah Al-Kahf aayah 4-5]

This statement of Allah begotting a son was enough for censure from Allah ta'ala. What I dont understand regarding these ash'aris or people who make tafweedh, is this:

If saying Allah has a Hand is kufr upon its literal sense, then why would Allah reveal it to be recited and stated that way? Wouldnt that mean that Allah is revealing kufr? And if not, why would Allah censure the jews, christians, and pagans for [I]saying with their mouths that Allaah has taken a son?

Is this a fair argument?

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

Thing that is confusing to me akhi is that imaam ahmad said bi la kayf wa la mana , which shaykh fawzaan hafidullah and others interpret it to be 'without meaning of the mutazilah, and jahmiyah'

Ibn qudamah also said bi la kayf wa la mana and against la mana is interpreted as not the meaning of the innovators.

and Imaam abu jaffar tahawi speaked about vision of Allaah and then submitting yourself and entrusting your affairs to Allaah anything that is ambigous

And imaam abu hanifa (which fiqh al akbar is attributed to him and i asked dr. salih as salih and he also said that it is his) says that attributes can be translated into persian except for yad because it indicates a limb.

The same aqidah tahawiyah which says allah is not made up of limbs

and abu hanifa in his al wasiyyah said that Allaah istiwa the Throne without having need of it and without TOUCHING it.

In aqidah tahawiyah it says Allaah is not within a direction the six directions.
Shaykh fawzaan interpreted it that abu jafar meant that Allaah is not in the created space directions etc.

and we have imaam ash shafii saying I believe in Allaah with what he intended and believe what th emessenger salalahu alayhi wa salam said about him and what he intended.


In the explanation of al-Bukhariyy in the chapter on Al-Jihad, Hafidh Ibn Hajar said: "The fact that the two directions above and below are impossible to be attributes of Allah, does not necessitate that Allah would not be attributed with aboveness, because attributing aboveness to Allah is a matter of status and the impossibility lies in it being physical."

Imam Abu Hanifah, who is one of the authorities of as-Salaf, said in his book Al-Fiqh al*Absat: "Allah existed eternally and there was no place. He existed before creating the creation. He existed, and there was no place, creation, or thing; and He is the Creator of everything."

Imam al-Hafidh al-Bayhaqiyy said in his book, Al-Asma'u was-Sifat, on page 400: ".... What was mentioned towards the end of the hadith is an indication of denying Allah has a place and denying the slave is alike to Allah, wherever he was in proximity or remoteness. Allah, the Exalted, is adh*Dhahir--hence, it is valid to know about Him by proofs. Allah is al-Batin--hence, it is invalid that He would be in a place." He also said: "Some of our companions used as a proof to refute the place to Allah the saying of the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam : 'You are adh-Dhahir and there is nothing above You, and You are al-Batin and there is nothing underneath You.' Therefore, if there is nothing above Him and nothing underneath Him, He is not in a place."


Imam Ash-Shaafi'i stated,

" إنه تعالى كان ولا مكان فخلق المكان وهو على صفة الأزلية كما كان قبل خلقه المكان لا يجوز عليه التغيير في ذاته ولا التبديل في صفاته " اهـ. [إتحاف السادة المتقين (2/ 24 ]


"Verily, He the exalted was, without makaan (station or place). He created Makaan and He was upon His attribute of eternality just as He was before he created makaan. It is not permitted upon Him to change his essence or to change in His attributes."

[It-Haaf As-Saadah Al Muttaqeen 2/24]


It seems tafwid al mana i dont know this is what im left to think, though this is not necessarily my aqidah for im still studying i just find so much inconsistancy but then again i also find inconsistancy within the ashari creed which gives me a big delema.

Allaahu alim

[Abdullah al-Shishani]

Allaah says:

"And to warn those (Jews, Christians, and pagans) who say, "Allah has begotten a son (or offspring or children)."
No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. Mighty is the word that comes out of their mouths . They utter nothing but a lie.
" [Surah Al-Kahf aayah 4-5]

This statement of Allah begotting a son was enough for censure from Allah ta'ala. What I dont understand regarding these ash'aris or people who make tafweedh, is this:

If saying Allah has a Hand is kufr upon its literal sense, then why would Allah reveal it to be recited and stated that way? Wouldnt that mean that Allah is revealing kufr? And if not, why would Allah censure the jews, christians, and pagans for [I]saying with their mouths that Allaah has taken a son?

Is this a fair argument?


This is the main argument in my opinion against their ideas. Also remember that these ayat and ahadith are many and none of the salaf (first three generations) warned us against understanding them as they are, while they did warn about much lesser things than kufr. The Prophet (saw) however, did warn us about 72 groups, and did warn us against asking too many questions, which has destroyed nations before.

So again, imho, this is the greatest argument against these ideas, scholars have different opinions, but they are prone to mistakes as all humans are, but rationally it is inconceivable that Allah swt or Rasulullah s.a.w., would not warn us against understanding the Quran as it is, or in the very least that Allah would punish us for understanding His Book as He has revealed it, and as the sahaba (ra) left it for us. But the guys who make far-fetched 'taaweel' could as well need to explain before Allah who gave them the right to change His word.

[Abuz Zubair]

'Ahlus Sunna',

One of the reasons you remain confused is that you delve into too many issues simultaneously. You start on an issue, then before you have even solved it, you quickly jump on to the next one and become even more confused.

So let us stick to what we were discussing here. (other points you have mentioned in your post have been answered in great detail, anyway)

Please tell us, why is it a must that we negate that Allah has limbs?

I think the jahmite response to that would be that if we affirm limbs for Allah then we are saying that Allah is a Jism. as a limb is a corporeal body. they say that you are implying that Allah has parts which contradicts qul huwwallahu ahad. Where as Allah is beyond having parts.
Yes, this was the response of the one who knows nothing about Ash'arism.

The fact that Allah is ONE, has no bearing on Allah having parts or not. You can have ONE car with many parts to it.

So why can't Allah have limbs? Is it because they are limbs? or is it because they are parts?

From the point of view of the rationalists - the issue is not just whether Allah has 'limbs', but whether what is described and mentioned in the texts is really what should be understood.
Remember, the text for the rationalists is a secondary consideration.

Their primary consideration is whether or not Allah can be described with certain qualities rationally or not. On this premise, they concluded that Allah must not be of parts... why?

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

The fact that Allah is ONE, has no bearing on Allah having parts or not. You can have ONE car with many parts to it.

So why can't Allah have limbs? Is it because they are limbs? or is it because they are parts?

Well the reason why i think Allaah cant have limbs is just because of what is said in aqidah tahawiyah and what comes from abu hanifa since they were from the salaf. Though im unsure because it seems even if i take an ashari or maturidi position there is still confusion , for abu hanifa affirmed Yad but said it cannot translate into farsi for it will be a limb which is odd , because im wondering what he is affirming.

Their primary consideration is whether or not Allah can be described with certain qualities rationally or not. On this premise, they concluded that Allah must not be of parts... why?

I dont like the ashari terminology etc.. I just wish things were more clear from the Salaf in affirming the attributes as they are (upon the dhahir) or rather they negated dhahir and affirmed the sifaat while consigning the knowledge of it to Allaah all together.

Because like the qoutes i qouted in my post above it just seems most of them are in view of making tafwid al mana.

Allaahu alim

[Logic lover]

Yes brother Abuz Zubayr - the rational reason given by the rationalists for negating Allah having 'limbs', does not stand. The example of a 'car' and its 'parts' is sound.

Now, what point are we discussing?

Can Allah have 'parts' or 'limbs' according to rational thinking? The answer is yes.

But, is there any textual proof to affirm or negate the 'parts' or 'limbs'?

[Um Abdullah M.]

Abu az-Zubair,
jazaka Allahu khayran
could u just give the brother a clear answer, instead of repeating questions to him, since it seems he doesnt' have clear knowledge on the issue of sifat, and it will only cause more confusion to him.

in regards to ur question about limbs, I think it is because it is a part, a part that is connected to another part.
so if i means that it is a part that breaks apart from another part than Allah can't be described like that, because Allah does not break into parts.

I have read shaikh Ibn Uthiamin rahimahu Allah in his explanation of aqeedah safriyniyyah, that if one means by "jism" (body) something that is created from parts that can be broken off (or fall apart), and there will still be a body after some falling off, then Allah is not like that.

but if u mean a "jism" that stand alone and has described with attributes that are befitting Him, the one who does what He wills, then we affirm this meaning (notice he said ma'na not lafth-word) to Allah 'azza wa jal, but the word al-jism we push it far away, we do not affirm it or negate it.
But we ask details about what is meant by it, but to say "jism" or not "jism", then it is not for us to speak, because Allah didn't say about Himself a jism\body or not a jism\body.

(I translated this from Arabic, I am not perfect in translating Arabic text and try my best, if u want the Arabic text I can post it for u to make sure of my translation).

[abubakr]

asalamu alaykum

some nice points.
I spoke to an ashari and he said the following regarding limbs:

"You salafis do not negate limbs for Allah. However, a human hand is defined as a limb so according to you with the ayat "there is nothing like him" Allah's hand cannot be defined therefore you have to negate limbs otherwise you are making similtude with the creation"

so my question is do we still neither affirm nor negate limb in the sense of hand?

Also Imam Bayhaqi said wiht regards to hand that limb is negated

Jazakallah

[Husain]

I don't know how many times these Ash'aris will ask the same question. Anyhow, in general when talking about attributes that Allaah and human beings share, there are two possibilities (and only two, not more):

1. We say Allaah does also have these attributes, but they are - of course - different in nature. Nevertheless He does have them. This is what the Companions and the Salaf believed.

2. We negate them for Allaah completely because "there is nothing like Him" and affirming such an attribute would be considered a violation of this principle. However, in this case we would have to negate knowledge, hearing, seeing, mercy, anger, etc., for Allaah as well, because all these attributes we human beings share with Allaah, too.

So if Allaah cannot have hands because hands are limbs (which is quite arguable) and Allaah cannot have limbs because we also have them, then how can He have knowledge in view of the fact that every human being has knowledge as well?

If somebody says we cannot affirm limbs for Allaah due to lack of textual evidence, then this is another story. But saying so because "there is nothing like Him" is nonsense.

- Husain.

[Um Abdullah M.]

and same thing could be said about sight, hearing speech, and other attributes, they are all found in humans
so we should negate them too because humans also have them?

Isn't that why the jahmiyyah negated ALL of ALlah's attributes?

because most are found in His creation?

[Abuz Zubair]

Brother Ahlus Sunnah,

Well the reason why i think Allaah cant have limbs is just because of what is said in aqidah tahawiyah and what comes from abu hanifa since they were from the salaf.

By the agreement of Ash'aris and Maturidis, one cannot hold a belief, just because Abu Hanifa or others from the Salaf held a belief. You have to justify rationally why you believe what you believe.

This means that you must not mention Abu Hanifa, al-tahawi or anyone else.

Secondly, even they do not have the authority to describe Allah, or negate anything from Allah, for which they have no proof.

Thirdly, as I have said before, refrain from saying: 'Abu Hanifa said:..." because al-fiqh al-akbar is not his.

Don't get into the many side issues, otherwise, you will always remain confused.

So, why can't Allah have parts?

Now, what point are we discussing?

Can Allah have 'parts' or 'limbs' according to rational thinking? The answer is yes.

But, is there any textual proof to affirm or negate the 'parts' or 'limbs'? We are not affirming parts for Allah either. Our question is as to why we must negate that Allah has parts?

Moreover, as we'll see, inshaaAllah, 'parts' is a very general and undefined term, and how even the Ash'aris affirm parts for Allah.

in regards to ur question about limbs, I think it is because it is a part, a part that is connected to another part.
so if i means that it is a part that breaks apart from another part than Allah can't be described like that, because Allah does not break into parts.

Nearly there.

In other words, they say that parts must be negated from Allah because Allah is self-sufficient. If Allah had parts then that would mean that some of Allah is in need of some of His parts to reach completion, otherwise, Allah would be incomplete. Yet, Allah is self-sufficient and therefore, not in need of parts.

Another reason they also deny that Allah be of parts is because only a body is made up of parts, and bodies are made up of substances, which are subject to accidents. Anything subject to accidents is emergent and therefore created, and therefore, Allah must not be made of substances, bodies and parts.

This is the main rational argument the Ash'aris use to insist that Allah is not made of parts.

Did you understand that, brother Ahus Sunnah?

I spoke to an ashari and he said the following regarding limbs:

"You salafis do not negate limbs for Allah. However, a human hand is defined as a limb so according to you with the ayat "there is nothing like him" Allah's hand cannot be defined therefore you have to negate limbs otherwise you are making similtude with the creation"You spoke to a pseudo Ash'ari who probably has never read a primer on Ash'ari theology.

The key word here is not LIMB, but parts. They insist that a hand is nothing but a limb, which is nothing but a part. It is the parts they want to negate.

Now, if we understand the Ash'ari argument, we can move on to its counter-argument.

[abu-usaama]

In other words, they say that parts must be negated from Allah because Allah is self-sufficient. If Allah had parts then that would mean that some of Allah is in need of some of His parts to reach completion, otherwise, Allah would be incomplete. Yet, Allah is self-sufficient and therefore, not in need of parts.

Would the correct response be that if parts are attributed to Allaah it does not necesitate that they are in need of each other?

[Abuz Zubair]

Would the correct response be that if parts are attributed to Allaah it does not necesitate that they are in need of each other?

Well, a standard and the most obvious response is that 'parts' is an ambiguous term, which could have correct or incorrect meaning.

If by negating the term 'parts', one means that Allah is wajib al-wujub, independent and necessary existence, self-sufficient, that His existence does not depend on parts, then yes, this is true.

If by negating the term 'parts', one means that Allah is just one whole entity, or as the philosophers termed it, 'the absolute existence' free of any attributes or qualities, then in reality, nothing exists beyond our imagination which is absolutely attribute-less. Anything that actually exists has attributes. There is no such thing is 'absolute existence' without any attributes beyond our imagination.

Here we notice the difference between the Mu'tazilas and the Ash'aris.

The Mu'tazila said that Allah is all-Hearing bi dhatihi, in His Essence.

The Ash'aris said that Allah is all-Hearing with Hearing.

What is the difference between the two beliefs?

Mu'tazila are saying: Allah's essence itself is hearing, seeing, knowing, etc... So Allah does not have an attribute, which is unlike another of his attribute; rather Allah's sight, is His hearing, His knowledge, His power, etc. They say this in order to free Allah of being parts.

The Ash'aris are saying: Allah's hearing is NOT His Seeing, which is NOT His Knowledge, which is NOT His Speech, etc... So they fell into what the Mu'tazilas were fleeing from, i.e. dividing up Allah's attributes into parts, and seven of them to be precise!

So in that sense, even we believe that Allah's attributes are divisible AND are in parts.

Take for instance Allah's Speech. When Moses heard Allah's speech, did he hear all of it? Or Part of it?

If they say he heard all of it, then that means that Moses was given all the knowledge of the past, the present, the future, the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran! Which is absurd!

But if they agree with the obvious, that Moses only heard part of Allah's speech, and Allah's Speech is His Attribute, then they have conceded that Allah's Attributes accept division, and are in parts.

Point to note here is that whenever a person throws such intellectual garbage at you, do not rush to agree or disagree, until you have figured out what exactly he is saying. It is possible that what he might be saying is correct, as it is equally possible that, although, on one hand he seems to be glorifying God, whilst on the other, he is calling to atheism.

Consider those who tell us in praise of Allah: God! Glory be to Him! is perfect! He is beyond time and space!, etc, etc

Now, a person would listen to this and say: SubhaanAllah... what a way to glorify God and claim His transcendence.

Yet, when you get to the bottom of this statement, you realise that the person is actually divesting God of His ability to do time-specific things, and negating Him from existence!

[Um Abdullah M.]

Brother Ahlus Sunnah,
By the agreement of Ash'aris and Maturidis, one cannot hold a belief, just because Abu Hanifa or others from the Salaf held a belief. You have to justify rationally why you believe what you believe.

This means that you must not mention Abu Hanifa, al-tahawi or anyone else.

This is true, Ash'aris believe that one can't do taqleed in aqeedah, so one can't say I believe in it because so and so scholar said it.
that would be taqleed.
and I read in fath al-bari a refutation of such believe by Imam al-Qurtubi rahimahu Allah, and I think that Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani also is against it, but not sure, I have to review it.



Nearly there.

In other words, they say that parts must be negated from Allah because Allah is self-sufficient. If Allah had parts then that would mean that some of Allah is in need of some of His parts to reach completion, otherwise, Allah would be incomplete. Yet, Allah is self-sufficient and therefore, not in need of parts.

Another reason they also deny that Allah be of parts is because only a body is made up of parts, and bodies are made up of substances, which are subject to accidents. Anything subject to accidents is emergent and therefore created, and therefore, Allah must not be made of substances, bodies and parts.

This is the main rational argument the Ash'aris use to insist that Allah is not made of parts.

jazaka Allahu khayran, not it is more clear to me.

[aMuslimForLife]

This is true, Ash'aris believe that one can't do taqleed in aqeedah, so one can't say I believe in it because so and so scholar said it.
that would be taqleed.


Actually there are two opinions in the Ashari school. Majority of the scholars say there is no taqled in Aqidah, a few scholars, such as Imam Subki have said there is taqleed in aqidah and both opinions are followable.

[Um Abdullah M.]

so which one do u go by aMuslimForLife?

and what do most Ash'aris go by today?
Taqlid or no Taqlid?

[qadri]

Actually there are two opinions in the Ashari school. Majority of the scholars say there is no taqled in Aqidah, a few scholars, such as Imam Subki have said there is taqleed in aqidah and both opinions are followable.

So which Asharite refuted which Asharite ?

The ones who did Taqlid refuted the ones who said there is no Taqlid !

Asharism has many splinter sects and factions... It is a creed full of inconsistencies.

how about checking out these links:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/sunnipress/index.php?showforum=11&prune_day=100&sort_by=Z-A&sort_key=last_post&st=40

[aMuslimForLife]

Asharism has many splinter sects and factions... It is a creed full of inconsistencies.


So you've discovered the Ashari scholars differ on some issues.

News Flash:

It is not uncommon for scholars of the same Madhab to disagree on a particular issue. it exist within every madhab.

Difference of opinion even exist among scholars of the Arabic language. Did you know that???

This is what you call difference of opinion within the madhab.

Rulings tend to fall into one of these categorizes.

The Dominant opinion of the madhab (in some madhabs they may be two or more dominant opinions like in the Maliki madhab)
Strong opinion.
Weak but followable opinion.
Weak and unfollowable opinion.

And every madhab may have its own breakdown of the different types of opinions and the categories for them.

But it doesn't mean that madhabs are confusing, it only becomes confusing when one studies on his own, reads books and tries to figure things out himself.

If one simply sits and studies a book with a Shaykh, the shaykh will be able to clarify what opinions to follow and which ones not to follow this is how confusion leaves.

Believe it or not, if a Salafi Shaykh teaches from a book, they will do what every scholar in every madhab does when they teach from a book, they will say the imam said this but the correct opinion is this, or it would be better to say it this way, or it would be better to do it this way, or this opinion is correct but so is the opinion of so and so. Or if they agree with the Imam who wrote the book they will simply read from and explain its meaning, or sometimes the text may be a bit ambiguous in which the shaykh will clarify what is meant by the Shaykh's statement.

And Allah knows best.

[aMuslimForLife]

so which one do u go by aMuslimForLife?

and what do most Ash'aris go by today?
Taqlid or no Taqlid?

I tend to want proof for what I believe. So I only follow that which I feel is textually and rationally sound.

As for the Asharis around the world, I don’t know.

[Abuz Zubair]

Aristotelian-Kid-on-the-block-4-life, please get a life, or go and learn the Ash'ari 'aqida from a reliable manual with a reliable Shaykh, and then come back and defend the Ash'aris all you like.

There are no two opinions in the Ash'ari madhab about taqlid as this ignorant person re Ash'arism has claimed. If we go back to Hashiya of al-Bayjuri to Sharh Jawharat al-tawheed, which this kid is ought to have studied before airing his unfounded opinions, we find that the difference between al-Subki and the rest is superficial. This is because al-Subki never said that taqlid is allowed in aqida. He only said that the iman of a muqallid is examined, and then judged. Thus al-Bayjuri states that the difference is superficial, and therefore the Ash'ari madhab only has ONE view: it is haram to make taqlid in 'aqida...

I tend to want proof for what I believe. So I only follow that which I feel is textually and rationally sound. Textually and rationally sound?! Says the one who believes in an imperfect deity who was not even able to create him in 1980s?! And someone who does not even know who created him?

Allah's refuge is sought from such blasphemies.

[qadri]

as salaamu 'alaykum.

Jazakallah for the good posts brother abu Zubair.

a-Lost-kid-4-life doesn't have a clue about Ashari / Maturidi sect. He posted difference of opinion theory for Furu issues (fiqhi masaail) and he is trying to apply the concept for Aqida (belief)

Tell me, how is it is possible to differ in Aqida ? Asharis say Allah 7 attributes and then came the Maturidis who said, 'no no wait, we think Allah has 8 attributes'

it is a difference of one or none... attributing or denying an attribute leads to what ?

the aAshari4hopelessLife suggested to study the AShari bible with some ASHari shaykh. But when this raises a serious question, why did Fakhr Razi repent from his Asharism at the end ? Why did SHahrastani, Juwayni, Ghazali and many other Asharis did tawba from Asharism and joined the Sunni - Athari Creed ?

and why do the so many contemporary Asharites converting into SUnni Athari Creed ? example: students of Ghumari, Ahmed Hijazi Saqqa and many more.

Which all points to that Asharism is Confusion = Not Sound Creed !

[Um Abdullah M.]

You could have at least said "May Allah guide you" in addition to ur comments, although I feel it is kind of little harsh even if he is misguided.

I remember reading somewhere that he used to be Salafi (I am talking about aMuslimForLife) then changed to Ash'ari, it sounds like he didn't really know the full Salafi aqeedah before he left it (probably even misunderstood it), and now he doesn't fully know his ash'ari aqeedah also.

That is why one should study his aqeedah issues good before discussing it, or judging it to be right (haq) or wrong (batil) .

I ask Allah to guide all of us.
and keep us steadfast on the straight path.

p.s. remember, our duty is dawah, even if the other side is harsh in their discussions and maybe even attack us or use bad language, for we should be better than them.
I am not directing this towards a certain poster, it is a reminder to all of us,
including myself.