Who are the Jahmiyya?

[WM]

as-Salamu 'alaykum,

Who are the Jahmiyya and what are their beliefs in regards to Allah's asma and sifat? What do the books of history and the muhaqiqun say? In included this from Abu Rumaysa's article as part of 'my' refutation:

At-Tirmidhee writes in his Sunan (1/128-129):

"It has been said by more than one person from the People of Knowledge about such ahaadeeth that there is no resemblance to the Attributes of Allaah. And the Lord - the Blessed, the Most High - descends to the lowest heaven every night. So they say: Affirm these narrations, have faith in them and do not deny them, and do not ask how. The likes of this has been related from Maalik ibn Anas, Sufyaan ath-Thawree, ibn 'Uyaynah and 'Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak, who all said about these ahaadeeth: 'Leave them as they are without asking how.' Such is the saying of the People of Knowledge from Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. However, the Jahmiyyah oppose these narrations and say: This is making resemblance (tashbeeh)! However, Allaah - the Most High - has mentioned in various places in His Book the Attribute of Hand, Hearing and Seeing.

So the Jahmiyyah make false interpolation (ta'weel) of these verses and explain them in a way other than that explained by the People of Knowledge. They say: Indeed, Allaah did not create Aadam with His own Hand. And they say that the meaning of Hand is: Power.

Ishaaq ibn Raahawaiah (one of the famous teachers of al-Bukhaaree) said: 'Resemblance is if it is said: Hand like my hand, or similar to my hand. Or Hearing like my hearing, or similar to my hearing. So when it is said: Hearing like my hearing, or similar to my hearing, then this is making resemblance. But if what is being said is what Allaah has said: Hand, Hearing, Seeing, and it is not asked how, nor is it said: like my hearing, or similar to my hearing, then this is not making resemblance. Allaah - the Most Blessed, Most High - said in His Book: There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing."

[Abu_Abdallah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahm and check this: www.jewishheritage.us "It is our distinct honor to congratulate the Jewish American Heritage Month (JAHM) Coalition on the announcement of its official creation!..." LOL :D

[Sawtul Islam]

If Jahimiyya believe Allah's Hand means His power, then I do not share their belief and cannot be accused of such (As I explained on post 42 of this thread http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=7796&page=5)

[Abu_Abdallah]

If Jahimiyya believe Allah's Hand means His power, then I do not share their belief and cannot be accused of such (As I explained on post 42 of this thread http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=7796&page=5)

The Jahmiyyah say Allah is everywhere. And you say that too, right?

The Jahmiyyah believe that Allah is everywhere, according to al-Shahrastani:

"In every place, pervading everything."

Consequently they deny His Elevation and the verses which say that Allah is above the Throne. No, according to them Allah is:

"In his entirety in every place" and even "in Himself"

What is the difference between them and you - tell me that.

[Abu_Abdallah]

The Imam of the Ahl al-Sunnah, the most knowledgeable of his generation of the Sunan, Ahmad b. Hanbal wrote:

"XII. Where Allah is and Where He is Not

Bab: An exposition of the denial by the Jahmiya that Allah is on the throne.

We asked them: Why do you deny that Allah is on the throne when He said: The God of Mercy sitteth on His throne? 20-4 And again, ...Who in six days created the Hevaens and the Earth... then mounted His throne. 25-60 They replied: He is under the seven earths as He is on the throne; He is in heaven, on earth and in every place; there is no place where he is not, no is He in one place to the exclusion of any other. And they quoted the verse: And He is God in the Heavens and on the Earth. 6-3 We said: The Muslims know of many a place where there is no trace whatsoever of the might of the Lord. They said: And where is that? We replied: Your bodies, your insides and pigs’ insides, in privies and unclean places, in all of which there is no trace of the Lord’s might.

Allah told us that He is in Heaven, saying: What are ye sure that He who is in Heaven will not cleave the Earth beneath you?..Or are you sure taht He who is in Heaven will not send against you a stone-charged whirl-wind? 67-16,17 And again: ...The good word riseth up to Him. 35-2 And again: ...O Jesus! Verily I will cause thee to die, and will take thee up to myself. 3-48 And again: ...But Allah took him up to Himself. 4-156 And again: All beings in Heaven and in Earth are His, and they who are in His presence... 21-19 And again: They fear their Lord who is above them... 16-52 And again: ...The Master of those ascents 70-3 And again: His servants... 6-18 And again: ...He is the High, the Great. 2-256 This then tells us that He is in Heaven.

The following verses show us that all beneath Him are villainaous: Verily the hypocrites shall be in the lowest abssy of the fire...4-144 And again: And they who believe not shall say, O our Lord! Show us those of the jinn and men who led us astray: both of them will we put under our feet that they be of the humbled. 41-29 We added: Do you not know that iblis has his place and the devils have theirs? Allah and Iblis can not be both in one place. The meaning of Allah’s word: ‘He is God in heaven and upon earth’ is that to him belong those in Heaven and those in earth; that He is on the throne and that His knowledge embracess all that lies beneath the throne; and that there is no place not embraced by His knowledge. As He said: ... That ye may know that Allah hath power over all things, and that Allah in His knowledge embraceth all things. 65-12

An example illustrating this is that of a man holding in his hand a cup of clear crystal full of a limpid draught; every man’s eye takes in the cup without each man lying within the cup. And Allah, who is to be likend to what is loftiest, takes in all His creation without being in any of it. Another apt illustration is that of a man who built a house with all its accessories. He then closed the door and went out: he will not fail, thereupon, to know the number of rooms in his house and their size without being inside it. And Allah, who is to be likened to what is loftiest, embraces all that He has created, knowing how and what it is, without being inside any of His creation.

XIII. Allah is by His Knowledge Omnipresent

Bab: An exposition of the Jahmiya interpretation of Allah’s word: ...Three persons speak not privately together, but He is their fourth... 58-8

We said, (referring them to be opening of the same verse), Allah says: Dost thou net see that Allah knoweth all that is in the Heavens and all that is in the earth, by which Allah informs us that He knows what is in the Heavens and on Earth. To which He added: ...Three persons speak not privately together, but He is their fourth... that is, He is so by His knowledge; and, ...Nor five, but He is their sixth –by His knowledge: and ...Nor fewer nor more, but wherever they be He is with them... –by His knowledge: and, ...then on the day of ressurrection He will tell them of their deeds: for Allah knoweth all things. The verse thus begins and ends with Allah’s knowledge.

XIV. A Refutation that Allah is Every Place

Bab: If you wish to know that the Jahmi lies against Allah, in saying that Allah is in every place abd is not in one place to teh exclusion of any other,

Say: Was there not Allah when there was nothing else? He will assent. Then say: When He made a thing, did He do so inside or outside of Him? Three possibilities follow: If he asserts that Allah created all things within Himself, including jinn, men and devils, he denies the faith. If he says that He created them outside of Himself and then entered into them, including all the wild, squalid and vile places –this too infidelity. And if he says He created them outside of Himself and then did not enter into them, he has abandoned his position for that of the ahl-Sunna."

Do you realize now, that all what you've said concering where Allah is, the meaning of the Verse {Three persons speak not privately..} end, the textual affirmation that Allah Rose on His Throne, Above Heaven, etc. diametrically opposed to what Ahmad b. Hanbal - who memorized hundreds thousand of Hadith and Tafsir - expressed and believed, while at the same they you agree 100% with respect to this issue with Jahm b. Safwan and his followers?

Do you have any shame after this? Or is Kufr dearer to you then Islam? By Allah, the Almighty, if you disbelieve in Allah's Highness while affirming that He's everywhere in every place after all the Bayân from the Qur'an and the Sunnah - you are nothing but a stubborn unbeliever. Or as Ahmad b. Hanbal said:

"It has evetually become clear to me that the people (i.e. Jahmites) are Kuffâr."

[Sawtul Islam]

The Jahmiyyah say Allah is everywhere. And you say that too, right?

The Jahmiyyah believe that Allah is everywhere, according to al-Shahrastani:

"In every place, pervading everything."

Consequently they deny His Elevation and the verses which say that Allah is above the Throne. No, according to them Allah is:

"In his entirety in every place" and even "in Himself"

What is the difference between them and you - tell me that.

Just because I may agree with them in some of the things they said about Allah doesnt mean Im one of them.

By that logic, you are also a Jahmi because they believed in the Quran and so do you!!!

I gave the example of the Hand of Allah because I agree with Salafis in that we should not interpret His hand to say it means something else like "power" (which is something that both the Asharis and the Jahmiyyah said).

However, I dont agree that Allah is restricted to only being above us and I have given clear proof from Qur'an and Sunnah that He is present everywhere on the other thread, which no one has yet managed to refute (except by saying "someone among the Tabi'een said something else so youre wrong!!" which gives the implication that the Tabi'een were infallible even though they clearly were not).

[Sawtul Islam]

I have actually refuted the points made by Imam Ahmad and many other scholars on this issue.

The problem is you think Pigs are dirty for Allah. No they are dirty for us, not for Allah. It is wrong for us to cause death, but not for Allah. It is wrong for us to cause suffering, but not for Allah. Stop comparing Him to us by saying "this is dirty" or "this is bad", because these things were all created by Allah including the dirtiest and filthiest things. If you say it's an insult to Allah to say He is in dirty places too, then that is like saying it is an insult to Allah to accuse Him of creating dirty and evil things, and that leads to Zoroasthrianism because it was/is the Zoroasthrians who believe there are two gods, one for every good thing and another for every evil thing.

We have one God, Allah, He has created everything and predestined everything and He is everywhere. There is nothing that He has not created, there is nothing that He does not see or hear, and there is place where He is not.

[Abu_Abdallah]

Just because I may agree with them in some of the things they said about Allah doesnt mean Im one of them.

By that logic, you are also a Jahmi because they believed in the Quran and so do you!!!

I gave the example of the Hand of Allah because I agree with Salafis in that we should not interpret His hand to say it means something else like "power" (which is something that both the Asharis and the Jahmiyyah said).

However, I dont agree that Allah is restricted to only being above us and I have given clear proof from Qur'an and Sunnah that He is present everywhere on the other thread, which no one has yet managed to refute (except by saying "someone among the Tabi'een said something else so youre wrong!!" which gives the implication that the Tabi'een were infallible even though they clearly were not).

Keep on going. Ignore everything, repeat your thing.

You are a stubborn, ignorant, wicked and transgressive person (I say not Muslim). I don't want to waste my time with you, as I said earlier, I'm just making clear to others your wicked Jahmite tenets so that others can see clearly that you share in their wickedness.

I Thank Allah for saving me from the wickedness of Jahm and his party, for many have been deluded by his innovation (read: innovation, not tradition of believing in the Qur'an; but alas, you make truth falsehood and falsehood into truth). May Allah Curse the Jahmites!

[ahmedjbh]

I have actually refuted the points made by Imam Ahmad and many other scholars on this issue.

The problem is you think Pigs are dirty for Allah. No they are dirty for us, not for Allah. It is wrong for us to cause death, but not for Allah. It is wrong for us to cause suffering, but not for Allah. Stop comparing Him to us by saying "this is dirty" or "this is bad", because these things were all created by Allah including the dirtiest and filthiest things. If you say it's an insult to Allah to say He is in dirty places too, then that is like saying it is an insult to Allah to accuse Him of creating dirty and evil things, and that leads to Zoroasthrianism because it was/is the Zoroasthrians who believe there are two gods, one for every good thing and another for every evil thing.

We have one God, Allah, He has created everything and predestined everything and He is everywhere. There is nothing that He has not created, there is nothing that He does not see or hear, and there is place where He is not.

Brother in what sense do you believe Allah is everywhere?

Also, we must all recognise that if we sat here for a million years we would not be able to rationally understand the nature of Allah, as that in itself would limit Allah. So there is no point sticking to a purely reasoned argument.

[macb]

Subhanallaah. An unknown on the internet claiming he has refuted the Imam of Ahul Sunnah in his time Imam Ahmed, the foolishness does not cease. :eek: :eek:

Michael

[ahmedjbh]

Are you under the impression that any of the 4 Imams is infallible and can not be wrong?

[macb]

Are you under the impression that any of the 4 Imams is infallible and can not be wrong?


If you are speaking to me then let me put it this way. I would take every word of all the 4 Imams over the words of an unknown, ignorant with no credentials who seems to make up his own understanding of Islam as he goes along with the help of Shaytan.

But to answer your question no the 4 Imams are not infallible. But I see no evidenced based refutation of Imam Ahmed from this jaheel.

Michael

[Sawtul Islam]

If you are speaking to me then let me put it this way. I would take every word of all the 4 Imams over the words of an unknown, ignorant with no credentials who seems to make up his own understanding of Islam as he goes along with the help of Shaytan.

But to answer your question no the 4 Imams are not infallible. But I see no evidenced based refutation of Imam Ahmed from this jaheel.

Michael

Did you read all my posts on the "refuting Salafi belief of..." thread??? Dont make up your mind before giving equal time to studying both sides of an arguement.

If you are so sure that Im wrong then you should have no trouble refuting me. But refute me using Quran and Sunnah and nothing else, because these are the most important and true sources of Islam.

There are some Ayaat and Ahadith that some people think are "proof" of Allah only being above, but I have explained why they are not proof and I have actually proven that He is present everywhere by quoting many different Ayaat and a number of Authentic Ahaadith.

[Sawtul Islam]

Brother in what sense do you believe Allah is everywhere?

Also, we must all recognise that if we sat here for a million years we would not be able to rationally understand the nature of Allah, as that in itself would limit Allah. So there is no point sticking to a purely reasoned argument.

A reasoned arguement is good, there is nothing wrong with reason, but we cant imagine or fully comprehend Allah.

When I say Allah is everywhere I do not mean what the Sufies mean, who say "Allah is everything". That is a blasphemy and easy to refute.

What the Authentic Hadith tell us is that TIME IS ALLAH. This has been narrated through many chains of narration which are authentic so there is no doubt regarding its authenticity. Now this does not mean that Allah is just Time, but Time is one of the things that Allah is, and since Time is everywhere Allah is everywhere. That is one of the proofs that He is everywhere and in the same way that Time is not affected by filth or harmed by fire or sharp things, in that sense Allah is everywhere.

Some people on this Forum say silly things like "when we spit are we spitting on Allah if He is everywhere??".
Well I ask them, "when we spit are we spitting on Time???" Now we can see how ridiculous their question is.

Since Allah is infinite He must be everywhere and there is no limit to the places where He is. He is not just in our universe, He is infinitely great so that the places where He is are infinitely greater than our universe.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Sawtul Islam, you said that you base ur interpretation of the Quran on the Sunnah (hadith).

But on what do you base ur understanding of the Sunnah (hadith)?
your own understanding of it?

And do you believe that Islam is to be interpreted by one's own logic?
so every person just interprets its teachings anyway their mind tells them?

[ahmedjbh]

sawtul islam,

I understand your point, and I have heard a hadith that says something like

"dont curse time, for surely Time is Allah"

However, when you think about it, time is created, and therefore can not be Allah Himself. However time now, can be reffered to Allahs Will, as without Allahs will nothing will happen in any time. As time is the ability to do events in a sequence. If a series of events all happened instantly, time is not applicable. In order to do anything, like I said previously, Allahs Will is neccassary.

So the link that Allah is time, is an indirect allogorical one. It is better to say, Allah created time, and it is by that, that He allows events to happen for us.

However to say Allah IS time, i think is incorrect, as to say Allah is something that is created is to limit Him, and there is nothing like Him. So its impossible to say Allah is like anything, Allah is unique, and we have no clue or tools to understand Him. We only have a couple of hints about Him, which only show flickers of His greatness.

[Sawtul Islam]

sawtul islam,

I understand your point, and I have heard a hadith that says something like

"dont curse time, for surely Time is Allah"

However, when you think about it, time is created, and therefore can not be Allah Himself. However time now, can be reffered to Allahs Will, as without Allahs will nothing will happen in any time. As time is the ability to do events in a sequence. If a series of events all happened instantly, time is not applicable. In order to do anything, like I said previously, Allahs Will is neccassary.

So the link that Allah is time, is an indirect allogorical one. It is better to say, Allah created time, and it is by that, that He allows events to happen for us.

However to say Allah IS time, i think is incorrect, as to say Allah is something that is created is to limit Him, and there is nothing like Him. So its impossible to say Allah is like anything, Allah is unique, and we have no clue or tools to understand Him. We only have a couple of hints about Him, which only show flickers of His greatness.

Where is your evidence that Allah created time????

We have clear evidence from the Hadith that Time is Allah, so unless you prove that Time is not Allah and that it is a creation seperate from Him then your arguement has no basis.

[Sawtul Islam]

And do you believe that Islam is to be interpreted by one's own logic?
so every person just interprets its teachings anyway their mind tells them?

Isn't that what the Salaf themselves did?

We have the Qur'an which has been revealed (as it says in the Quran itself) in a way that is easy to understand.

Furthermore we have the Hadith that give more explanation about Allah's Ayaat.

We are also given a brain by Allah so we better use that too or else we may end up like many other religions who follow illogical and false teachings that people outside the religion can easily point to and discredit.

Mind, logic and reasoning are not bad things, Allah says in the Qur'an that when we read it we must THINK, not just read it without thinking.

As for the famous scholars of this Ummah and the Salaf, they too used their minds to understand the Qur'an and Hadith, did they not? What other sources do you think they had?

If we blindly follow everything scholars or even the Salaf said, then we may fall into the same trap that the Jews and Christians fell, that is what they took their clerics and religious men as their gods. The Prophet (pbuh) was asked about this and he said they took them as gods means that they obeyed them even when what they said contradicted what Allah said.

So if we prove that something that a scholar or a Salaf, even a Sahabah said contradicts the Qur'an or Sunnah, we should certainly favour the Qur'an and Sunnah over the words of that person or people.

That doesnt mean that we go as far as cursing or condemning a scholar or Salaf due to a mistake that they made, or to assume they were wrong based on false assumptions and weak arguements like those presented by deviant sects, but we must take the middle path and that is to prefer Qur'an over all sources and then the Hadith. The words of the Salaf are also a source but they are not to be used as arguement against the Qur'an or Hadith, nor should the Hadith be used as argument against the Qur'an.

So if the words of a Salaf (Sahabah or Tabi'een) contradicts the Hadith, we prefer the Hadith, and if a Hadith contradicts the Qur'an we prefer the Qur'an (especially since some Hadith and narrations about Sahabah and Tabi'een are forged or badly narrated).

So we should neither go as far as turning away from the way of the Salaf (and their way was to obey Qur'an and Sunnah directly from the sources) nor should we consider them to be infallible or irrefutable. This is clearly and undoubtedly the middle path.

Wassalam

[Skillganon]

Isn't that what the Salaf themselves did?

We have the Qur'an which has been revealed (as it says in the Quran itself) in a way that is easy to understand.

Furthermore we have the Hadith that give more explanation about Allah's Ayaat.

We are also given a brain by Allah so we better use that too or else we may end up like many other religions who follow illogical and false teachings that people outside the religion can easily point to and discredit.

Mind, logic and reasoning are not bad things, Allah says in the Qur'an that when we read it we must THINK, not just read it without thinking.

As for the famous scholars of this Ummah and the Salaf, they too used their minds to understand the Qur'an and Hadith, did they not? What other sources do you think they had?

If we blindly follow everything scholars or even the Salaf said, then we may fall into the same trap that the Jews and Christians fell, that is what they took their clerics and religious men as their gods. The Prophet (pbuh) was asked about this and he said they took them as gods means that they obeyed them even when what they said contradicted what Allah said.

So if we prove that something that a scholar or a Salaf, even a Sahabah said contradicts the Qur'an or Sunnah, we should certainly favour the Qur'an and Sunnah over the words of that person or people.

That doesnt mean that we go as far as cursing or condemning a scholar or Salaf due to a mistake that they made, or to assume they were wrong based on false assumptions and weak arguements like those presented by deviant sects, but we must take the middle path and that is to prefer Qur'an over all sources and then the Hadith. The words of the Salaf are also a source but they are not to be used as arguement against the Qur'an or Hadith, nor should the Hadith be used as argument against the Qur'an.

So if the words of a Salaf (Sahabah or Tabi'een) contradicts the Hadith, we prefer the Hadith, and if a Hadith contradicts the Qur'an we prefer the Qur'an (especially since some Hadith and narrations about Sahabah and Tabi'een are forged or badly narrated).

So we should neither go as far as turning away from the way of the Salaf (and their way was to obey Qur'an and Sunnah directly from the sources) nor should we consider them to be infallible or irrefutable. This is clearly and undoubtedly the middle path.

Wassalam

What the sister is saying that we take the Quran and the Prophet words over any intellectual innuendo.

Hence if our intellectual aspersion contradicts or goes against word of Allah(swt) and his Messenger than our intellect is at fault not the former.

So you have go and check ones logic and reasoning and by all means not re-intepret, twist or remove the apparent meaning of the text.

As any person who has any intellect would note that our intellect is limited. Our logic and reasoning can be false.
Things that was once not so clear may become clear.
That our logic and reasoning are always subject to change. Something once we hold to be logical and reasoned gets replaced by another. This is well demonstrated by our history and by the fact that their are so many people out their that have their own logic and reason.

Secondly one should not even our logic and reason are limited, by our intellect and by how much we know.

Also our logic and reasoning is based on out current perception of this world.

So even if you base logic and reasoning it may be applicabe to certain particular or subject not all.

Like placing our logic and reasoning that is true for creation i,e, what we know of this world (which is sometime subject to change and is limited), may well not be exactly and/or same regarding Allah(swt).

This is why it is not the way for the Muslim to say something about Allah(swt) that he has nought knowledge of. We affirm what Allah and his messenger affirmed.

I am not saying not to excercise some of the faculty you are given but I am saying to know you limit.

On the topic of salaf. The Salaf understood the religion better than you or me. That is the point.

Wassalam.

[Um Abdullah M.]

The Salaf are the first 3 generations:
1. Sahabah
2. Tabi'een
3. Tabi'i Tabi'een.

There is a hadith in which the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said that these 3 generations are the best of the ummah.

Also, the Sahabah lived with the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, so they would get their teachings directly from him and they witnessed the revelation come down, and the incidents for that.
So they there understanding of the texts are not from their own brains, it is from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and Allah has chosen them to be the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to spread the deen after his death.
So if your saying that they explained it by their own desires and logic, and not with guidance from Allah and His messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, then the deen would be lost !
everyone just interpreting the texts however he understands it, and people are differnet in their understanding !

One of the reasons why there are many sects in Islam is that they go by their own understanding of the texts, so you have all these groups coming out.
But we stick to the understanding of the best generations of Muslims.

As for the Tabi'een, they took their knowledge and understanding from the Sahabah and so did the one's after, taking it from them through the Tabi'een.

As for the rest of generations, we only accept from them what is according to the understanding of the Salaf.

[Sawtul Islam]

The Salaf are the first 3 generations:
1. Sahabah
2. Tabi'een
3. Tabi'i Tabi'een.

There is a hadith in which the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said that these 3 generations are the best of the ummah.

Also, the Sahabah lived with the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, so they would get their teachings directly from him and they witnessed the revelation come down, and the incidents for that.
So they there understanding of the texts are not from their own brains, it is from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and Allah has chosen them to be the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to spread the deen after his death.
So if your saying that they explained it by their own desires and logic, and not with guidance from Allah and His messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, then the deen would be lost !
everyone just interpreting the texts however he understands it, and people are differnet in their understanding !

One of the reasons why there are many sects in Islam is that they go by their own understanding of the texts, so you have all these groups coming out.
But we stick to the understanding of the best generations of Muslims.

As for the Tabi'een, they took their knowledge and understanding from the Sahabah and so did the one's after, taking it from them through the Tabi'een.

As for the rest of generations, we only accept from them what is according to the understanding of the Salaf.

When I said by their own understanding I meant they had the Qur'an and Sunnah and their minds. For example, why did they think Allah is only above? They read the Hadith that says Allah is above and thought in their minds that it means He is ONLY above even though the Hadith doesnt say so.

I am not saying you should change the text of the Qur'an or do Ta'wil and find so called "secret meanings" like the Sufis and Shias do, Im saying that we should think about what Allah is saying in the Qur'an. We should think about what is being said, but we should not forcefully try to insert our own ideas into Islam and quote verses and ahaadith out of context. When someone does do that, we can prove them wrong quite easily through the Qur'an and Sunnah.

[ahmedjbh]

sawtul, time is something created. If it is not created, then Allah would not be unique. If time is Allah, then Allah has parts, as time exsists in our reality, whereas Allah doesnt. If He did, we would be destroyed like the mountain was destroyed, when Nabi Musa AS asked if anyone could see Allah.

[Um Abdullah M.]

When I said by their own understanding I meant they had the Qur'an and Sunnah and their minds. For example, why did they think Allah is only above? They read the Hadith that says Allah is above and thought in their minds that it means He is ONLY above even though the Hadith doesnt say so.

I am not saying you should change the text of the Qur'an or do Ta'wil and find so called "secret meanings" like the Sufis and Shias do, Im saying that we should think about what Allah is saying in the Qur'an. We should think about what is being said, but we should not forcefully try to insert our own ideas into Islam and quote verses and ahaadith out of context. When someone does do that, we can prove them wrong quite easily through the Qur'an and Sunnah.

You either did not read my post, or you just skimmed through it quickly.
Read my post over again carefully.

[IbnShaykh]

Where is your evidence that Allah created time????

We have clear evidence from the Hadith that Time is Allah, so unless you prove that Time is not Allah and that it is a creation seperate from Him then your arguement has no basis.

The explantion of the hadeeth is that Allaah is time because he alternates day and night therefore what we regonise as time is Allaah at work. So to say Allah is literally thee time is taking it out of context. As the sister Umm Abdullah said bring your evidence according to the understanding of the salaf that this hadeeth means that which you are saying.

By the way this is a random question I suppose in the context of this discussion but we are talking about the salaf, was any of the 4 imaams of the tabi'een? Or were they taba tabi'een?

[Yasir]

By the way this is a random question I suppose in the context of this discussion but we are talking about the salaf, was any of the 4 imaams of the tabi'een? Or were they taba tabi'een?Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah is considered to be from the Tabi’în.
The other three Imams were from the Taba at-Tabi’în. May Allah shower His Mercy upon them all.

[Sawtul Islam]

sawtul, time is something created. If it is not created, then Allah would not be unique. If time is Allah, then Allah has parts, as time exsists in our reality, whereas Allah doesnt. If He did, we would be destroyed like the mountain was destroyed, when Nabi Musa AS asked if anyone could see Allah.

Where is your evidence that "Allah does not exist in our reality"???

When the Hadith say Time is Allah, I say Time is Allah.

Brother IbnShaykh, if someone from Tabi'een or later scholars said it means something else then surely they have only expressed their opinion and interprted the Hadith based on their way of thinking, which ironically is what Im being accused of by members of this Forum!!!

[ahmedjbh]

So you believe Allah is phyiscal and in our creation literally?


So how did He exsist before the creation then?

[Sawtul Islam]

So you believe Allah is phyiscal and in our creation literally?


So how did He exsist before the creation then?


What???

I said Time is Allah and you concluded based on that that I believe Allah is physical?????????????!????

So you think Time is physical??

[IbnShaykh]

Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah is considered to be from the Tabi’în.
The other three Imams were from the Taba at-Tabi’în. May Allah shower His Mercy upon them all.

Jzack Allaahu Khayra for the response ackhi but I thought Imaam Shafi was a student of Wakee' Ibn al-Jarraah who was from the salaf? So wouldn't that make him a tabi'een?

[Um Abdullah M.]

Brother IbnShaykh, if someone from Tabi'een or later scholars said it means something else then surely they have only expressed their opinion and interprted the Hadith based on their way of thinking, which ironically is what Im being accused of by members of this Forum!!!

We would rather follow the "opinion" of a righteous person who is from the best generations of Muslims who took his knowledge from the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi was sallam, then take the opinion of an ignorant unknown person, who has come over 1400 years after the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, having beliefs that go against the ijma' (agreement) of scholars of Islam.

[Sawtul Islam]

We would rather follow the "opinion" of a righteous person who is from the best generations of Muslims who took his knowledge from the companions of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi was sallam, then take the opinion of an ignorant unknown person, who has come over 1400 years after the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, having beliefs that go against the ijma' (agreement) of scholars of Islam.

I dont want people to follow me as a person, just read what I write and if it makes more sense and fits in better with the Qur'an and Sunnah than what someone from the Salaf said, then accept it. If it does not then refute me if you think you can.

[ahmedjbh]

I feel there is something not right here.

So salafis are of the understanding that the follow exactly what the previous scholars have thought, and the older the better basically?

What makes those scholars more likely to be right?

[Sawtul Islam]

I feel there is something not right here.

So salafis are of the understanding that the follow exactly what the previous scholars have thought, and the older the better basically?

What makes those scholars more likely to be right?

Actually they were MORE LIKELY to be right (because they were closer to the time of the Prophet pbuh and met the Sahabah and were one of the best generations) BUT that does not mean that they were always right.

[ahmedjbh]

So if they were not always right, how do you determine what is?

Do the salafis basically pick and choose between the different salaf beliefs?

[Um Abdullah M.]

Do the salafis basically pick and choose between the different salaf beliefs?

No we don't, the Salaf had one aqeedah, they didn't differ in it, so their sayings in matters of aqeedah would be the same, and we take them all.

They differed in some matters of fiqh, but not in creed.

[Abu_Abdallah]

No we don't, the Salaf had one aqeedah, they didn't differ in it, so their sayings in matters of aqeedah would be the same, and we take them all.

They differed in some matters of fiqh, but not in creed.

The Salaf were united in the principle issues of creed and the methodology of finding out the sound beliefs. They also agreed upon many smaller issues of creed and mostly on how to express their beliefs.

They had small differences, which do not affect the pillars of the religion, and some expressed matters in their own way.

I think this is better expressed.

[Um Abdullah M.]

yes, jazakallahu khayran
ur explanation is much better, May Allah reward you.
sorry for my sloppy English.
still need to work on it.

[Abu_Abdallah]

yes, jazakallahu khayran
ur explanation is much better, May Allah reward you.
sorry for my sloppy English.
still need to work on it.

Not about you English.. I'm sloppy (whatever that means). I just meant:

In case people (mis)use small differences the Salaf had as being allowed to differ on big issues.

[Sawtul Islam]

So if they were not always right, how do you determine what is?


Through the Qur'an and then the Sunnah.

[Sawtul Islam]

The Jahmiyyah denied the speaking of Allah to Moosa (pbuh), denied Allah having hands,legs etc. and denied all attributes of Allah except creation and power.

Abu-Abdallah, if you had read my posts carefully and honestly, you would have seen that none of the above applies to me or what I have been saying.

[Abu_Abdallah]

The Jahmiyyah denied the speaking of Allah to Moosa (pbuh), denied Allah having hands,legs etc. and denied all attributes of Allah except creation and power.

Abu-Abdallah, if you had read my posts carefully and honestly, you would have seen that none of the above applies to me or what I have been saying.

Scholars of the past named or called people Jahmites or their beliefs Jahmi based upon several considerations.

1.People who profess all of their doctrines.

Such as Jahm b. Safwan himself and a few of his direct followers, but whom we do not know.

2.People who profess most of their doctrines.

Such as the Mu'tazilah. They agreed on the concept of Tawhid, yet they opposed them on Qada' & Qadar.

3.People who profess part of their important doctrines.

Such as the Ash'ariyyah. They agreed on the Qada' & Qadar, some of Tawhid etc.

Now: if a person shares one tenet of the Jahmites, for example: Allah being everywhere. Then the scholars of the past would declare someone like him a Jahmite.

Many Mu'tazilites were called Jahmites, yet none of them professed Jabr. In fact, the Jabriyyah are mostly found among the Ash'ariyyah of old. Some of the Ash'arites professed Jabr, therefore called Jahmites.

It's like Shi'ism. There are several degrees of Shi'ism, like there are degrees of Jahmism.

[waziri]

Aalamualaykum,


off topic but is this "Ash'ariyyah" plural of Ashari ?


I ask because I thought the plural of Ashari is Asha'irah.

wasalam

[Sawtul Islam]

Scholars of the past named or called people Jahmites or their beliefs Jahmi based upon several considerations.

1.People who profess all of their doctrines.

Such as Jahm b. Safwan himself and a few of his direct followers, but whom we do not know.

2.People who profess most of their doctrines.

Such as the Mu'tazilah. They agreed on the concept of Tawhid, yet they opposed them on Qada' & Qadar.

3.People who profess part of their important doctrines.

Such as the Ash'ariyyah. They agreed on the Qada' & Qadar, some of Tawhid etc.


hmmm, so even Ash'aris are Jahmis? Anyone who agrees with them in even a part of their beliefs is a Jahmi???

That doesn't make any sense as it would mean that almost everyone is a Jahmi.

Also another problem is that Shiahs share a lot of Jahmi beliefs, for example they deny that Allah has hands and they believe Allah is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, so by that logic Shias are Jahmis!!!

Also Jahmis didn't say Allah is time or that He is literally everywhere (like I did) and you yourself quoted Imam Bukhari saying that Jahmis believe there is NOTHING above the Throne.

So this means when Jahmis said Allah is everywhere they meant something completely different from what I mean, and so in fact I have less in common with Jahmis than even the Ash'aris and I actually have more in common with Salafis than Jahmis and the difference between me and Salafis is Salafis restrict Allah to being only above the sky while I say He is present everywhere and gave clear evidence from Qur'an and Sunnah.

[Abu_Abdallah]

hmmm, so even Ash'aris are Jahmis? Anyone who agrees with them in even a part of their beliefs is a Jahmi???

That doesn't make any sense as it would mean that almost everyone is a Jahmi.

What does make sense and what not? It is a matter of knowledge, or a matter of convenience. I don't know for sure.

Fact is: scholars of the past named people Jahmiyyah because they believed the Qur'an was created. The Salaf named all the Mu'tazilah Jahmites because of this, yet the Mu'tazilah are Qadariyyah opposed to Jabr. The Salaf named all Nufât Jahmiyyah, yet Hafs b. Fard, Dirar b. 'Amr and al-Ash'ari affirmed Qadar, and the latter inclined to Jabr even though he also affirmed many Attributes.

I find following the Salaf making sense. If they called someone a Jahmite just for believing that 'the pronunciation of the Qur'an is created', I trust their judgement.

If I exercise some reasoning with it, I would say: Well, they have a point. After all, people are named after a doctrine initiated by a first person or party. The Jahmites are the first to express such a doctrine of createdness, thus everyone coming after them agreeing with this doctrine are entitled to such a accusation. The people may differ in other matters, such as Qadar or Tawhid, but if they share one feature originally expoused by a sect then the adherent of this feature is exposed to be called after them. This the Salaf did, and this is in my opinion fully supported.

Does that mean that everyone should be called a Jahmite, with no regard for the degree of 'Jahmism' he expounds? No. Some are and some not. It depends on different reasons and different circumstances. After all, people and their environment are different; so judgements and even its articulation differs from person to person, group to group, and from time to time.

Also another problem is that Shiahs share a lot of Jahmi beliefs, for example they deny that Allah has hands and they believe Allah is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, so by that logic Shias are Jahmis!!!

Yes, indeed.

The Zaydiyyah, the Imamiyyah and many others of the Shi'ites sects have Jahmite doctrines and are Jahmites. The official Imamiyyah doctrines on Allah, His Names and Attributes, Predestination etc. is Mu'tazilite-based. Or to be more precise: Bahshamite. That is: they are Jahmites in Tawhid, Qadarite with respect to Qadar, and they add Rafd to it. So they are from the worst sects that exist. Maybe the Isma'ilites are only worse, but they are unbelievers by universal agreement so they don't count really.

Also Jahmis didn't say Allah is time or that He is literally everywhere (like I did) and you yourself quoted Imam Bukhari saying that Jahmis believe there is NOTHING above the Throne.

Whether Jahmites say Allah is Time or not, I don't know. In fact, you are the first one who discusses this matter according to my knowledge. There is a book entitled 'Fikrat al-Zaman 'ind al-Asha'irah', and maybe you can purchase it to learn more about this discussion. I fear however to speak about something I have no Salaf for.

Understand me, I have no problem in repeating the best Salaf's words: Allah is Dahr. Not at all. I think no one would dispute this. Yet, we dispute your interpretation.

Jahmites DID say Allah is everywhere.

I've cited also CLEARLY what the Jahmites IMPLIED or UNDERSTOOD whence saying Allah is not on the Throne. They mean: not ONLY there.

Why are you deceptive?

Bab: An exposition of the denial by the Jahmiya that Allah is on the throne.

We asked them: Why do you deny that Allah is on the throne when He said: The God of Mercy sitteth on His throne? 20-4 And again, ...Who in six days created the Hevaens and the Earth... then mounted His throne. 25-60 They replied: He is under the seven earths as He is on the throne; He is in heaven, on earth and in every place; there is no place where he is not, no is He in one place to the exclusion of any other. And they quoted the verse: And He is God in the Heavens and on the Earth. 6-3 We said: The Muslims know of many a place where there is no trace whatsoever of the might of the Lord. They said: And where is that? We replied: Your bodies, your insides and pigs’ insides, in privies and unclean places, in all of which there is no trace of the Lord’s might.

Bab: If you wish to know that the Jahmi lies against Allah, in saying that Allah is in every place abd is not in one place to teh exclusion of any other

And you are not just a deceiver, You are also a liar. Why? Cause you read this and realized it:

I have actually refuted the points made by Imam Ahmad and many other scholars on this issue.

So this means when Jahmis said Allah is everywhere they meant something completely different from what I mean, and so in fact I have less in common with Jahmis than even the Ash'aris and I actually have more in common with Salafis than Jahmis and the difference between me and Salafis is Salafis restrict Allah to being only above the sky while I say He is present everywhere and gave clear evidence from Qur'an and Sunnah.

Read Imam Ahmad's observation, again. You are really sick, you know that?

Tell me, are you an Iranian, Afghan? I'm just curious.

[Sawtul Islam]

Whether Jahmites say Allah is Time or not, I don't know. In fact, you are the first one who discusses this matter according to my knowledge. There is a book entitled 'Fikrat al-Zaman 'ind al-Asha'irah', and maybe you can purchase it to learn more about this discussion. I fear however to speak about something I have no Salaf for.

Understand me, I have no problem in repeating the best Salaf's words: Allah is Dahr. Not at all. I think no one would dispute this. Yet, we dispute your interpretation.

Jahmites DID say Allah is everywhere.

I've cited also CLEARLY what the Jahmites IMPLIED or UNDERSTOOD whence saying Allah is not on the Throne. They mean: not ONLY there.

Why are you deceptive?


You yourself quoted Imam Bukhari saying that Jahmis believe there is NOTHING above the Throne, now you're trying to interpret this as meaning that Jahmis belived that He is "not ONLY there"??? Imam Bukhari said they believed there was NOTHING above the Throne, he didn't even say that they dont believe Allah to be above the Throne so there is no room for your "understanding" unless Imam Bukhari was mistaken.

From what I know about the Mu'tazilah and/or Jahmis, they believe Allah is everywhere AND NOWHERE at the same time. In other words, they dont seem to believe that He is LITERALLY everywhere, this is while I believe that He is literally everywhere the way Time is because He is Time (when I say Literally I still don't mean physically like the creation).

So even on this I do not agree with the Jahmis and I have nothing in common with their innovations.


Also it's wrong to call someone a Jahmi just for having something in common with them, because by that logic I can call you a Jew because many of the Jews also believe that God is just above and Jews came before you did.