Results 1 to 5 of 5

My discussion with a Jahmi.

This is a discussion on My discussion with a Jahmi. within the Islamic Theology and Ideology forums, part of the Islamic Knowledge category; As Salam Elekum wr wb, He is trying to prove Ibn Qudama and Dhahabi as mufawid. I tried show him ...

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default My discussion with a Jahmi.

    As Salam Elekum wr wb,
    He is trying to prove Ibn Qudama and Dhahabi as mufawid.

    I tried show him these

    Ibn Qudama says in Rawdhat al-Nadhir (2/25 with Ibn Badran’s comments):

    القسم الثاني الظاهر وهو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه عند الإطلاق معنى معتجويز غيره وإن شئت قلت ما احتمل معنيين هو في أحدهما أظهر

    ‘The second type: al-Dhahir (literal), and that is the meaning that comes first to the mind when uttered, while other meanings might also be possible. If you wish, you may say: That which has two possible meanings, one of them more obvious than the other’
    Ibn Badran al-Dimashqi al-Hanbali says in his Madkhal (p.
    187, al-Turki’s edition):

    اعلم أن اللفظ إما أن يحتمل معنى واحدا فقط أو يحتمل أكثر من معنى واحد والأول النص والثاني إما أن يترجح في أحد معنييه أو معانيه وهو الظاهر

    ‘Know, that the word may either only have one meaning, or more than one meaning.
    The first type is called al-Nass. The second type, is the obvious of the two
    or more meanings, and that is the dhahir.’

    Hafidh adh-Dhahabi -rahimahu Allah- said in his book al Uluw:

    المتأخرون من أهل النظر قالوا مقالة مولدة ما علمت أحدا سبقهم بها قالوا هذه الصفات تمر كما جاءت ولا تأول مع إعتقاد أن ظاهرها غير مراد فتفرع من هذا أن الظاهر يعني به أمران

    أحدهما أنه لا تأويل لها غير دلالة الخطاب كما قال السلف الإستواء معلوم وكما قال سفيان وغيره قراءتها تفسيرها يعني أنها بينة واضحة في اللغة لا يبتغى بها مضائق التأويل والتحريفوهذا هو مذهب السلف مع إتفاقهم أيضا أنها لا تشبه صفات البشر بوجه إذ الباري لا مثل له لا في ذاته ولا في صفاته

    الثاني أن ظاهرها هو الذي يتشكل في الخيال من الصفة كما يتشكل في الذهن من وصف البشر فهذا غير مرادفإن الله تعالى فرد صمد ليس له نظير وإن تعددت صفاته فإنها حق

    “The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the apparent meaning is not intended. ’ This follows that the apparent meaning (dhahir) could mean two things: First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text, as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes. Second; that the apparent meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness”


    He (Hafidh adh-Dhahabi) also said in his book “Siyar A’lam an Nubala’ “(19\449)

    قلت: قد صار الظاهر اليوم ظاهرين: أحدهما حق، والثاني باطل، فالحق أن يقول: إنه سميع بصير، مريد متكلم، حي عليم، كل شئ هالك إلا وجهه، خلق آدم بيده، وكلم موسى تكليما، واتخذ إبراهيم خليلا، وأمثال ذلك، فنمره على ما جاء، ونفهم منه دلالة الخطاب كما يليق به تعالى، ولا نقول: له تأويل يخالف ذلك.والظاهر الآخر وهو الباطل، والضلال: أن تعتقد قياس الغائب على الشاهد، وتمثل البارئ بخلقه، تعالى الله عن ذلك، بل صفاته كذاته، فلا عدل له، ولا ضد له، ولا نظير له، ولا مثل له، ولا شبيه له، وليس كمثله شئ، لا في ذاته، ولا في صفاته، وهذا أمر يستوي فيه الفقيه والعامي، والله أعلم.

    I said: Today, the dhahir meaning has become 2 dhahir (meanings):
    One is haqq (Truth), and the other is batil (falsehood).
    The haqq (truth) is for one to say: He (Allah) is all hearing, all seeing, wills, speaks, alive, all knowing, everything perishes except His wajh, created Adam with His two hands, and spoke to Musa, and took Ibrahim as a khalil, and similar to that. So we pass it on like it came, and we understand from it the meaning of the text that is befitting of Allah Ta’ala, and we do not say: it has an interpretation (ta’wil) that contradicts that.

    And the other dhahir, which is falsehood and deviance: is to compare the abscent to the present, and to liken Allah (al Bare’) to His creation, exalted be Allah from that; but His attributes are like His essence, there is no equal, no opposite, no like, no similar to Him, and there is nothing like Him, not in His essence, and not in His attributes; and this matter, the faqih and the laymen are equal in, and Allah knows best.
    But his reply was

    You have put "meaning" in the words of al-Dhahabi whereas the term Ma'ana wasn't USED trying to fool the people again.

    The words of Ibn Qudamah, is clear:

    وما أشكل من ذلك وجب إثباته لفظا وترك التعرض لمعناه ونرد علمه إلى قائله

    at the end he says: "and we consign it's knowledge to the it's sayer (Allah)".

    This is Tafweedh, this is not ambiguous! This is CLEARLY Tafweedh!!

    And in al-Dhahabi's statement:

    قلت: قد صار الظاهر اليوم ظاهرين: أحدهما حق، والثاني باطل، فالحق أن يقول: إنه سميع بصير، مريد متكلم، حي عليم، كل شئ هالك إلا وجهه، خلق آدم بيده، وكلم موسى تكليما، واتخذ إبراهيم خليلا، وأمثال ذلك، فنمره على ما جاء، ونفهم منه دلالة الخطاب كما يليق به تعالى، ولا نقول: له تأويل يخالف ذلك.والظاهر الآخر وهو الباطل، والضلال: أن تعتقد قياس الغائب على الشاهد، وتمثل البارئ بخلقه، تعالى الله عن ذلك، بل صفاته كذاته، فلا عدل له، ولا ضد له، ولا نظير له، ولا مثل له، ولا شبيه له، وليس كمثله شئ، لا في ذاته، ولا في صفاته، وهذا أمر يستوي فيه الفقيه والعامي، والله أعلم.

    He is affirming what has came in the Qur'an, so what has this got to do with anything? is this even the bone of contention? He is talking about Af'aal (action) which is Bi Laa Kayf, and we are talking about Sifaat, whether we know the meaning of it or not! But Since your using his Siyar, then i already got two plain QUOTES from the very same BOOK regarding Tafweedh al-Maa'ana:

    الكتاب : سير أعلام النبلاء
    برنامج المكتبة الشاملة -

    قلت: من أقر بذلك تصديقا لكتاب الله، ولاحاديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وآمن به مفوضا معناه إلى الله ورسوله، ولم يخض في التأويل ولا عمق، فهو المسلم المتبع

    Here he CLEARLY says to affim what is in the Kitabullah and the Ahadith of Rasulullah, to believe in it and to consign the meaning to Allah and His Rasul.


    الكتاب : سير أعلام النبلاء
    الموسوعة الشاملة - سير أعلام النبلاء

    بهذا اللفظ، فقولنا في ذلك وبابه: الاقرار، والامرار، وتفويض معناه إلى قائله الصادق المعصوم.


    "With these text: Our saying in this and what falls under it is: Submission to the text, passing it on as it came and consigning the knowledge of its meaning (tafwidh m’anahu) to its Sacrosant and Truthful Sayer"

    And Ibn Qudamah's two quotes are also plain that is for Tafweedh al-Ma'ana, one from his Lum'ah and the other from his Dhamm.

    The only conclusion is that they were BOTH anti Ta'weel, but they practiced Tafweedh al-Ma'ana regarding the Sifaat but with Af'aal (actions) they said pass them as they come without how.

    this is the simple conclusion.
    This is getting nowhere. How to solve this? Any suggestion?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Re: My discussion with a Jahmi.

    ونرد علمه إلى قائله

    'And we return its knowledge to its speaker' NOT 'And we consign its knowledge to its speaker'.

    Allah and His Messenger 'know' what they were saying and the purpose of making the statements were to convey that knowledge to the listeners. This is in opposition to those who give an interpretation which contradicts the context of the statements or those who reject that there is any knowledge communicated through the statements such that they state 'What is intended cannot be known', i.e. the meaning is consigned to Allah alone.

    Perhaps a different angle:

    The inclusion of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, in the formula of Tafweedh imply that what is communicated can be known to human beings. If the meanings of the Sifaat could not possibly be known then there would be no point to relegate or consign the meaning to anyone other than Allah AWJ. For example, something that cannot be known to anyone but Allah AWJ is the Hour. Something that cannot be known except to Allah (or arguably those commanded with carrying out Allah's decree, i.e. the angels) is in which land a person will die or what his fate will be, happy or sad. None of this knowledge is relegated or consigned to anyone but Allah AWJ. If the Sifaat were like this, then it could not be consigned to the Prophet SAWS.

    وآمن به مفوضا معناه إلى الله ورسوله

    'And believe in it, consigning its meaning to Allah and His Messenger'

    So either Ibn Qudamah and adh-Dhahabi were Mufawwidhah or they were not. What do we do with Ibn Qudamah's work Ithbat as-Sifat al-Uluww? In it are statements which clearly go against the methodology of Tafweedh. What do we do with adh-Dhahabi's Kitab al-Arsh? In it also are statements which clearly go against the methodology of Tafweedh.

    The simple conclusion is not to impose a conflicting methodology on this or that scholar but to accept that in context they may have intended other than the 'Thahir' of a statement.

    Adh-Dhahabi clarifies what he means by 'Mufawwidhaan' by saying:

    ولم يخض في التأويل ولا عمق

    'And he did not specify regarding the interpretation nor did he delve into it'

    So does adh-Dhahabi's definition of Tafweedh fit that of the neo-Mufawwidhah? Of course not. They state that the purpose of Tafweedh is to relegate the entire meaning to Allah, and they reject the 'Thahir' of the Ahadith which appear to further explain the Sifaat. They say one does not have to do with the other and that no knowledge can be derived from the 'Thahir' of the Qur'an and Ahadith which mention the Sifaat. In fact many of them have a minor coronary when they see even translations of the Sifaat.

    That is clearly not the methodology of either Ibn Qudamah or adh-Dhahabi or the many, many fine examples of knowledgeable, righteous, verifiable Salaf whose statements of belief also contradict the methodology and approach of the neo-Mufawwidhah.

    In fact, even among the early Mufawwidhah, one does not find a blanket Tafweedh of all Sifaat, and among the neo-Mufawwidhah statements of specific Ta'weel and delving into the meanings are rampant, in complete contradiction to their own stated methodology.

    There is no point in arguing with a people who are inconsistent in their own methodology much less rely on them to clarify inconsistencies in the usage of terms among the various scholars. A person who cannot see their own inconsistencies is utterly incapable of detecting differences of this nature.

    W'Allahu Ta'ala A'lam

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Ibn al-Iskandar For This Useful Post:
    ubaid88 (19th February 2012)

  4. #3
    Senior Member Logic lover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005

    Default Re: My discussion with a Jahmi.

    The root cause of their form of rejection (tafwid) may be attributed to the fact that they have not received the explanation of the attributes or they cannot 'rationally' explain it (according to their reasoning - 'there is nothing like Allah). This is similar to the attitude of the disbelievers in al-ghayb:

    Quran 10:39. Nay, they deny that; the knowledge whereof they could not compass and whereof the interpretation has not yet come unto them. Thus those before them did deny. Then see what was the end of the Zâlimûn !
    Do they not then consider the Quran carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions (Quran 4:82)

    'Ibn Taymiyyah Against the Logicians' p. 114:
    'What truth there lies in logic can be known without the logicians'

  5. #4
    Peculiarly Ostrobogulous Expergefactionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Follow Expergefactionist On Twitter Add Expergefactionist on Facebook Add Expergefactionist on Google+

    Default Re: My discussion with a Jahmi.

    I dealt with Ibn Qudama's views at length in one of my posts:

    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair
    As-salaamu ‘alaikum dear brother Abu Wakee,

    If one were to look at the quote you pasted alone, it would give the impression that Ibn Qudama is a Mufawwidh, and indeed, some scholars have opined that.

    However, upon reading the rest of his statements in Lum’at al-I’tiqad, as well as his other books in theology, it is clearly noticed that he affirms the dhahir of the texts, and therefore, by the term tafwidh, he means tafwidh of the kayf and not negation the dhahir.

    The following examples will prove beyond doubt that Ibn Qudama affirmed the dhahir, and he was not a mufawwidh.

    1) Ibn Qudama says in Lum’at al-I’tiqad: ‘From the verses that have come in relation to Allah’s attributes is the saying of Allah, ‘the Face of your Lord…’, and His saying, ‘Rather His two Hands are outstretched’. He then mentions a number of verses affirming a self for Allah, His Coming, His Pleasure, His Love, His Anger and Dislike. He then mentions the Hadeeth about Allah’s descent every night, His Amazement, and His Laugh, and considering it all from His Attributes. He then says:فهذا وما أشبهه مما صح سنده وعدلت رواته نؤمن به ولا نرده ولا نجحده ولا نتأوله بتأويل يخالف ظاهره

    ‘These texts and the like, the chain of which has been authenticated, and the narrators of which are upright, we believe in them, and do not reject them nor deny them, nor do we give them a ta’wil which opposes their dhahir.'

    From this we deduce, a) If he had negated the dhahir of the texts, he would not have affirmed the Face and Hands of Allah as His Attributes, and b) his objection to any ta’wil which opposes the dhahir of the texts clearly shows that he does not negate the dhahir, rather he affirms it, and therefore, he is not a mufawwidh.

    2) He then quotes various textual proofs from the Quran and the Sunnah about Allah being above the heavens and clearly makes ithbat of the dhahir implications of such texts and believes that Allah is literally above the heavens. If he was a mufawwidh, he would have sufficed at simply narrating the texts as they are, without affirming the dhahir, which he did. In fact, he wrote a whole book called al-'Uluw, dedicated to affirming the dhahir of the texts pertaining to Allah’s literal highness over the creation, and thus he says in its introduction:اما بعد فإن الله تعالى وصف نفسه بالعلو في السماء ووصفه بذلك رسوله محمد خاتم الانبياء واجمع على ذلك جميع العلماء من الصحابه الاتقياء والأئمة من الفقهاء وتواترت الأخبار بذلك على وجه حصل به اليقين وجمع الله تعالى عليه قلوب المسلمين وجعله مغروزا في طباع الخلق اجمعين فتراهم عند نزول الكرب بهم يلحظون السماء باعينهم ويرفعون نحوها للدعاء ايديهم وينتظرون مجئ الفرج من ربهم وينطقون بذلك بألسنتهم لا ينكر ذلك الا مبتدع غال في بدعته

    ‘As for what follows, then surely Allah Ta’ala has described Himself with being Elevated in the Heavens, and similarly He has be described by His Messenger Muhammad, the last of the prophets; something upon which all of the scholars from the pious companions held a consensus, as did the Imams from the jurists. The reports concerning that became so numerous, that a level of certainty was achieved. Allah Ta’ala united the hearts of the Muslims on this issue, and made it a part of the natural instincts of Allah the creation, and therefore, you notice them when some calamity befalls them that they look with their eyes to the sky, and raise their hands towards it, waiting for alleviation of calamity from their Lord, while their utter [this belief] with their tongue. No one denies this except a heretic, fanatic in his heresy…’

    This clearly shows that Ibn Qudama certainly affirmed the dhahir of the texts pertaining to Allah’s elevation over His creation, and therefore, he was not a mufawwidh.

    3) He says about Allah’s speech and affirms that Allah speaks with a sound, a further proof that he affirmed the dhahir of the texts, which confirm that Allah Speaks with a sound. In fact, in his violent rebuttal of Ash’aris in his time, he calls them heretics for saying Allah speaks without sound and letters.

    4) He then has a whole section about the Quran being the Speech of Allah, consisting of letters, words, ayat, surahs, in the Arabic language, a belief that a mufawwidh would never hold.

    5) In his work Dham al-Ta’wil (Censure of Ta’wil), Ibn Qudama states:ومذهب السلف رحمة الله عليهم الإيمان بصفات الله تعالى وأسمائه التي وصف بها نفسه في آياته وتنزيله أو على لسان رسوله من غير زيادة عليها ولا نقص منها ولا تجاوز لها ولا تفسير ولا تأويل لها بما يخالف ظاهرها

    ‘The Madhab of the Salaf is to have Iman in the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala and His Names, with which He described Himself… without giving explanation, or a ta’wil that opposes its dhahir.

    It clearly implies that Ibn Qudama affirms the dhahir, due to which he opposes any ta’wil that contradicts the dhahir. For if he was a mufawwidh, he would have negated any type of ta’wil, irrespective of whether or not it opposes the dhahir.

    6) Ibn Qudama then explains exactly what the Salaf meant when they negated the ‘meaning’:وعلموا أن المتكلم بها صادق لا شك في صدقه فصدقوه ولم يعلموا حقيقة معناها فسكتوا عما لم يعلموه

    ‘[The Salaf] knew that the one who conveyed to us [the information about Allah’s Attributes] is truthful, with no doubt in his truthfulness. Hence, they believed him, without knowing the reality of the meaning, and remained silent over that which they did not know.’

    Hence, Ibn Qudama declares that the Salaf made tafwidh of the reality of the meaning, and not the dhahir itself, and therefore, he was not a mufawwidh.

    7) In the same book he quotes the statement al-Hafidh Abu Bakr al-Tayyib in his support, without showing any discontent or disagreement:أما الكلام في الصفات فإن ما روي منها في السنن الصحاح مذهب السلف رضي الله عنهم إثباتها وإجراؤها على ظاهرها

    ‘As for the subject of Allah’s Attributes, then whatever has been narrated in the authentic collections of Sunan, the Madhab of the Salaf is to affirm them and accept the dhahir of it.’

    This further proves that Ibn Qudama affirmed the dhahir, and therefore, was not a mufawwidh.

    8) He also comments on Imam Malik’s statement on Istiwa, that ‘Istiwa is not unknown’, saying:وقولهم الاستواء غير مجهول أي غير مجهول الوجود لأن الله تعالى أخبر به وخبره صدق يقينا لا يجوز الشك فيه ولا الإرتياب فيه فكان غير مجهول لحصول العلم به وقد روي في بعض الألفاظ الاستواء معلوم

    Their statement: ‘al-Istiwa is not unknown’, meaning, its existence is not unknown, because Allah Ta’ala informed about it, and His information is certainly the truth, and it is not permissible to doubt it, nor to waver therein, and hence, it [the rising] was not unknown, for the knowledge thereof has been achieved. It has also been narrated in some of the wordings: ‘The Rising is known’.

    The mufawwidha explain this statement of Malik saying: the fact that al-Istiwa is mentioned in the verse is known, but what it actually means is not. While Ibn Qudama affirms more than the wording, for he affirms that The Rising actually took place, and therefore he was not a mufawwidh.

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

    ‘If it is said: ‘You made ta’wil of verses and reports, for instance, you said with respect to Allah’s statement: ‘He is with you wherever you are’, meaning: with His knowledge, and the like of these verses and reports, and therefore, your arguments are as much applicable to you as us.

    We say: We did not make ta’wil of anything, for to hold such texts in these meanings is not at all ta’wil, because ta’wil is to change the meaning of a word from its dhahir, and what we say here is the dhahir of the wording, that is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it is haqiqa or majaz.’

    Hence, Ibn Qudama explicitly states that he believes in the dhahir of these texts, and therefore he is not a mufawwidh.

    10) He says in his rebuttal of Ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali, Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam:

    ‘There is no need for us to have knowledge of what Allah meant with His Attributes. For no action is required of us based on that [the meaning of His Attributes], nor is there any legal responsibility (taklif) attached to it, except to have Iman therein. It is possible to have Iman therein, without knowing the meaning, for Iman in that which is unknown is correct. For Allah Ta’ala ordered us to believe in His angels, His books, His messengers, and what He revealed to them, even if we do not know of the aforementioned except names.’

    Therefore, Ibn Qudama likens our belief in the verses about Attributes of Allah, like our belief in Angels, Books etc. Hence, just as we affirm the existence of Angels, literally, by accepting the dhahir of the texts, we also accept the verses and narrations about Allah’s Attributes, literally, acknowledging the dhahir of the text. This also proves beyond doubt that Ibn Qudama was not a mufawwidh.

    11) In the same book, Ibn Qudama presents his argument against Ta’wil saying:

    ‘The muta’awwil combines between (two errors, a) describing Allah with an Attribute, Allah did not describe Himself with, nor attributed to Himself, (and b) denying the Attribute He attributed to Himself. So if one says: The meaning of Istawa (rose over) is Istawla (took control), then he has described Allah Ta’ala with istila (taking control), while Allah has not described Himself with that; as He has also negated the Attribute of Istiwa (rising over), even though Allah Tabarak wa Ta’ala mentioned it in the Quran in seven different instances.’

    If Ibn Qudama negated the dhahir meaning of the text, he would not have condemned the muta’awwila for negating the Attribute Allah which He attributed to Himself, which is the dhahir of the text. For the mufawwidha negate the dhahir, and therefore, do not affirm any Attribute for Allah, whereas Ibn Qudama believes in the dhahir, and therefore, affirms the attribute.

    12) In the same book Ibn Qudama says:
    I heard some of our (Hanbali) colleagues say: A people said to us: ‘The Hanbalis say, ‘The Most Merciful Rose over the Throne!’ So I said to them: Dear people! For Allah’s sake! You are attributing to the Hanbalis something they are not worthy of! This is the statement of Allah, and you attributed it to the Hanbalis and elevated their status!’

    If Ibn Qudama didn’t believe in the dhahir of these texts, he would have said in reply: In fact, we do not believe that Allah Rose over the Throne, we simply affirm the wording. But Ibn Qudama showed no qualms about affirming the dhahir, and that is: Allah literally Rose over the Throne.

    13) In the same book Ibn Qudama says about Ibn ‘Aqil:
    ‘He clarified that if one asks us about the meaning of these words (with respect to sifat), We would say: We do not add more to the wording anything that will give a meaning. Rather, its recitation is in fact its meaning (tafsir), without any particular meaning or tafsir.’

    Therefore, Ibn Qudama clearly believes that the texts about sifat have a tafsir, and that is the dhahir of the wording.

    14) Ibn Qudama then says: ‘But we do know that these texts generally do have a meaning, known by the one who spoke these texts, and we believe in those meanings. Hence, if one took such stance, how can he be asked about the meaning, when he says: I do not know? How can he be asked of the kayfiyya, when he regards the question to be an innovation’. He then makes a reference to Malik’s statement about Istiwa.

    This clearly shows that by the terms, ‘meaning’ and ‘tafsir’, he is referring to the ‘kayfiyya’, and not the tafsir/ma’na which is the recitation itself, i.e. the dhahir.

    15) He then speaks about the Speech of Allah, and that He Speaks with a sound; then mentions the Quranic verse about Musa: ‘He was called out (nudiya): Indeed, I am your Lord’, to prove that Allah speaks with a Sound, and further says: ‘The Sound has been explicitly mentioned in the narrations’.

    If he was a mufawwidh, he would have affirmed the wording ‘nudiya’ (he was called), without using that to affirm a sound for Allah. However, because he affirms the wording and the dhahir, he deduces from the word nida’, that Allah Speaks with a sound.

    If he was a mufawwidh, he would have said that only the wording of ‘sound’ has been mentioned, although we negate the dhahir thereof, and simply do not know what it means. Nor would he have made a big deal out of Ibn ‘Aqil denying that Allah speaks with a Sound. However, Ibn Qudama is a muthbit, and not a mufawwidh, and hence, his fierce attack on Ibn ‘Aqil.

    16) As for his book: Hikayat al-Munadhara fil-Qur’an Ma’a Ba’dh Ahl al-Bid’a, his rebuttal of the Ash’aris in the issue of Sound and Letters, then the book in its entirety proves that he is a muthbit and not a mufawwidh.

    In light of the above quotes and references, it becomes more than clear that when Ibn Qudama affirms the wording, he affirms the dhahir of it as well, because ‘its recitation is in fact its tafsir’.

    An important point to note is that one would only perform tafwidh, in the Ash’ari sense of the word, if he finds the dhahir problematic and contradictory to his kalami principles. For example, the Ash’aris negate any movement from Allah, because movement is an accident that comes into being from nothingness, and any object that allows movement to subsist in itself, then that object must also have a beginning.

    If Ibn Qudama subscribed to this view, then it would make sense for him to negate the dhahir. But if he doesn’t subscribe to this view, which clearly is the case because he is not a mutakallim, why then would he find problematic affirming the dhahir of the texts that Allah Rose over the Throne, or that He descends to the lowest heaven, or that He will come on the Day of Judgement?

    Another equally important point to note is that when the Salaf said: ‘transmit these narrations as they have been narrated’, they did not at all mean negating the dhahir of those traditions. Rather, ‘transmitting them as they have come’, while negating the dhahir, was a relatively new phenomenon, at least according to al-Dhahabi who says in his book al-‘Uluw: ‘The latter ones from Ahl al-Nadhar (people of Kalam), came up with a newly invented belief. I do not know of anyone who preceded them in that. They said: These Attributes are to be accepted as they are, and not made ta’wil of, while believing that dhahir is not the intent.’

    This shows that the Salaf never negated the dhahir of these texts, and that to negate that was something newly introduced. Ibn Qudama, as shown above, was no different to the Salaf in his approach, and to him, the recitation was itself the tafsir, meaning the dhahir.

    These are 16 proofs to establish that he was not a mufawwidh. Ask him to answer this point by point.

    Lastly, inform him that his Jahmi friends at the so-called al-Marifa and sunniforums also believe that Ibn Qudama was in fact a 'mujassim'.

    Case closed.
    A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.

    Albert Einstein

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Expergefactionist For This Useful Post:
    Abu'Aaminah (19th February 2012), Hamza Patterson (19th February 2012), Ibn al-Iskandar (20th February 2012)

  7. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010

    Default Re: My discussion with a Jahmi.

    As Salam Elekum wr wb,
    Az and others. Who likes take part in this dsicussion at fb. Here you go.

Similar Threads

  1. Jahmi allegation on Ibn Uthaymeen and Ibn Qayyim
    By ubaid88 in forum Islamic Theology and Ideology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 4th June 2011, 07:00 AM
  2. Question Fahuwa jahmi: Understanding what Imaam Ahmed states
    By Abu'l 'Eyse in forum Islamic Theology and Ideology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 6th December 2009, 06:10 PM
  3. Another Jahmi, masquerading as Hanbali, bites the dust
    By Expergefactionist in forum Islamic Theology and Ideology
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10th October 2009, 05:21 PM
  4. Jahmi Pop Singers (Allah is nowhere..Authubillah)
    By Abu Maryam PK in forum Islamic Theology and Ideology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 3rd October 2007, 08:31 PM
  5. Jahmi Ramblings about Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah)
    By Abu'l 'Eyse in forum Islamic Theology and Ideology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 3rd September 2007, 11:22 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49