My discussion with a Jahmi.

Discussion in 'Islamic Theology and Ideology' started by ubaid88, Feb 19, 2012.

  1. ubaid88

    ubaid88 New Member

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

    I tried show him these

    But his reply was

    This is getting nowhere. How to solve this? Any suggestion?
  2. 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. Logic lover

    Logic lover Well-Known Member

    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 !
  4. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

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

    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.
  5. ubaid88

    ubaid88 New Member

Share This Page