oh so now Ibn Qudamah(rh) is anthropomorphic!

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Actually, it is the other way around. Many salafis mistakenly assume that preferring Tafwid at a later stage, means that it it a contradiction to the position of Ta'wil. They fail to realize that both positions are within the school. If anything, the contradictions are to be found in the works of many of the Hanbalis who were Mujassim, such as Ibn Abi Ya'la, al-Zaghuni, Ibn Qudamah etc.


.....................

Of course, what does his Fiqh have to do with his anthropomorphic statements? He is reliable in Hanbali Fiqh, but some of his works on creed were problematic.

......................

Ib Qudamah affirmed a direction for Allah as well as ascribing voice and letters to His speech-even though the speech of Allah is pre-eternal.

Yes, I would agree that Ibn Qudamah might not be like many of the salafis around today, and that he had words supporting Tafwid, but reality is reality. If he was just like the Ash'aris except that he was extra against Ta'wil, then surely he must have been aware that the Asharis also hold fast to Tafwid.



http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17641&page=2

i wonder what "al-hanbali" has to say about that? maybe he shall have to write a "bananas and melons" article about tafweed and hanabilah and jahmi'ism

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

and who are the hanbalis who have sound 'aqeedah?

not safarini

al-Safarini also held that Allah was in a direction and that Allah speaks with letters and a voice. But his book on creed is quite confusing to say the least. He quotes from Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn al-Qayyim throughout the book, while at the same time saying that Ahl al-Sunnah include all three; Atharis, Ash'aris, and Maturidis.

I can name three Hanbalis:

Imam Ahmad
Ibn al-Jawzi
Ibn Aqil

[Abuz Zubair]

al-Hamdulillah... some acknowledgement for our efforts! Another step forward (to Aristotelianism!)

[abootalha]

Subhan'Allah Jazakallahu Khair Abu Iman for point to that load of crap. Are these guys out of there mind or something. To me this whole sufi traditional garbage thing is sounding like a movement that has more to do with class in terms of individual having finances and worldly education. If you try to talk with one of them they will talk about philosophy, anthropology, which nobody understands and ofcourse they also claim they have hold on Tazkiyatun Nufus. All the traditionalist in the west are like robots. If you ask them to speak of Istiqima they will talk about the planetary movement and the negation of pluto (The incidents i have of their Khutbas, blow my mind away, using such high vocabulary where the majority of audience is West African and have difficulty with English, but it is "deep". ). So it should come as no surprise that they have a hard time understanding simple direct statements from the Quran and the Sunnah. They have to look for the way of Hazrat Aristotle which leads to nothing except calamity but ofcourse to the average Abdullah you sound, deeeeep

[Um Abdullah M.]

They are "anthropomorphic" in the definition of the modern day Ash'aris, they are not anthropomorphic in the defintion of scholars of the Salaf.