Subscribe via RSS
Sign up on our Email list
Join the Facebook Group
Twitter Newsfeed
Podcast of Multimedia
iTunes ChannelThe Theological Implications of the Story of Ibrahim & the Stars (Ibn Taymiyyah vs the Mutakallimun) | Yasir Qadhi
Share
Introduction
The Qurʾān informs us, in 6:74-83, of the story of Ibrahīm with his people, and how he argued with them about God and His existence by successively rejecting the stars, moon and Sun to be real Lords, and finally turning his face to the One who created Him.
This story has been understood in various manners by different groups. Most mutakallimūn (scholars of kalām ) used this story as the solitary Qurʾānic evidence for the proof of the existence of God through the proof of the createdness of accidents (the dalīl al-ʾaʿrāḍ wa ḥudūth al-ajsām – henceforth ‘dalīl’). The Ahl al-Ḥadīth, on the other hand, never accepted this proof in the first place, much less ascribe it to the great patriarch Ibrahīm, the ‘Friend of God’. The most vocal opponent of this interpretation was Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H./ 1327 C.E.). In this article, the different theological implications of this story as understood by these two groups will be discussed.1
The Proof of Creation from the Createdness of Accidents
The mutakallimūn devised a unique proof in order to prove the existence of God. Most authorities ascribe this proof to Abū al-Hudhayl al-ʿAllāf2 (d. 226 A.H./841 C.E.); however, Ibn Taymiyyah believed that it was Jahm b. Ṣafwān (d. 124 A.H./ 741 C.E.) who first introduced this proof into the Muslim intellectual world.3
Regardless of who the first proponent of this theory was, it was to become the standard proof for the createdness of the world (and hence, the existence of a Creator) for the Muʿtazilites, Ashʿarītes and Maturidites, with differences amongst them regarding the nature of an ‘accident’ and the various premises associated with this proof. The Muʿtazilite Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār (d. 415 A.H./1024 C.E.) was one of the first to succinctly articulate the four premises of this proof, all of which were accepted by the Ashʿarites as well. Firstly, one must acknowledge that there are, within bodies, certain ‘meanings’ (maʿānī) or ‘accidents’ (aʿrāḍ) such as movement and rest. Secondly, that these ‘meanings’ or ‘accidents’ are created, and not eternal. Thirdly, that bodies are concomitant with these ‘meanings’, and not preceding them. And lastly, that if bodies are not free of accidents and do not precede them, then the bodies themselves must be created.4 If all of these premises are true, then ipso facto there must be a Creator, whom we call God, who originated these bodies along with their accidents.
This evidence was mentioned by Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī5 (d. 330 A.H./941 C.E.) and al-Bayhaqī6 (d. 458 A.H./1065 C.E.), but it was al-Bāqillānī7 (d. 403 A.H./ 1012 C.E.) who was the first Ashʿarīte to expound on this dalīl and make it a fundamental principle for their school.
A few decades later, ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādi (d. 429 A.H./1037 C.E.) was to make this proof the second fundamental (aṣl) out of the fifteen fundamentals of the religion, and to then proclaim, “And every opinion that conflicts with the dalīl that proves bodies and accidents are created must be rejected.”8 All subsequent scholars of kalām incorporated this dalīl in some form or fashion in their theological works.
The Story of Ibrahīm As The Basis of this Dalīl
Although the dalīl was almost unanimously agreed upon by all the mutakallimūn, only a handful of them actually provided any Qurʾānic basis for it. The sole evidence that was supplied was the story of Ibrahīm with the celestial objects.
The earliest reference to theological opinions being derived from the incident of Ibrahīm appears to be that of Bishr al-Mirrīsī (d. 218 A.H./833 C.E.). Al-Dārimī (d. 289 A.H./901 C.E.), in his refutation of Bishr, claimed that Bishr denied God’s descent to the lower heavens in the last third of the night because of Ibrahīm ’s statement, “I do not love the āfilīn .” [The precise translation for this Arabic term (āfilīn) is crucial for our theological understanding of the verse, hence it will be left untranslated where possible.] al-Dārimī writes,
And you claimed that Ibrahīm repudiated any love for a God that moves, meaning that if God descends from one heaven to another, or descends on the Day of Judgment in order to judge between His servants, then He has afala and moved, just as the Sun and moon did. And therefore Ibrahīm denied lordship to these two objects. 9
Al-Dārimī then proceeded to refute this premise, and claimed that if God descends on the Day of Judgment, this does not necessitate that He will disappear (afala) into anything. The fact that the Sun or moon seems to ‘disappear’ into other matter when they set cannot be extrapolated and applied to God.10 From this refutation, it can be assumed that Bishr understood afala to mean ‘disappear’, and that he used this story to prove that accidents (in this case, motion, which is a corollary to the disappearance of these objects) cannot subsist in a Divine Essence.
Abū al-Hassan al-Ashʿarī also alluded to these verses, albeit in a slightly different context, for he states, after quoting 6:76-77, “And so (Ibrahīm ), may God’s blessings be upon him, combined between the stars and moon in that neither of them could possibly be a god or lord since they both shared the attribute of ufūl. And this is the inspection (nadhar) and proof (istidlāl) that rejecters seek to reject and deviants deviate away from.”11 Al-Ashʿarī stated this in the context of trying to prove the legitimacy of ‘inspection’ (nadhr), and not in the sections pertaining to the createdness of the world, although once again it is evident that he considered the basic premises of the ‘Proof of Accidents’ to be applicable in the story of Ibrahīm , since he sees Ibrahīm as denying the divinity of an object in which accidents subsist.
It appears that the first Ashʿarīte to give prominence to this verse in light of the ‘Proof of Accidents’ is, once again, al-Bāqillānī. Unlike al-Ashʿarī, however, al-Bāqillānī believed this Proof to be the primary evidence for the existence of the Creator. In a chapter concerning the evidences that the world is created, he mentions one of the forms of the ‘Proof from Accidents’, and then states,
And so too was the ‘Friend of God’, Ibrahīm, may God’s mercy be upon him. For he proved the createdness of objects by the changes they undergo and the fact that they move from one state to another, because when he saw the star, he said ‘This is my Lord’, to the end of the verses. So he realized that this object, since it changed and moved from one state to another, was ephemeral, controlled and created, and that it must have a creator. And that is why he said after that, ‘I turn my face to the One who created the Heavens and Earth.’ [6:79]12
From the quote and its context, it appears that al-Bāqillānī understood ‘afal’ to indicate movement and change, and that he considers Ibrahīm to have been searching for God, eventually rejecting these celestial objects in favor of the true God.
Al-Bayhaqī, another early Ashʿarīte (despite the strong influence that the Ahl al-Ḥadīth had on him, which can be seen in his theology), also referenced this verse to show that Ibrahīm proved the existence of God by showing that no body in which an accident occurs could be worthy of divinity.13 He was followed by Al-Juwaynī (d. 468 A.H./1085 C.E.) shortly afterward.14 Another scholar of the Ashʿarites of that ear was Abu Isḥāq al-Shirāzī (d. 476/1084), who was the first Director of the Nizamiyya School in Baghdad, and an immediate predecessor of the position of al-Ghazali. In his al-Ishara ila madhab ahl al-haqq (p. 152, 166) he quotes verse 6:72, and then writes,
It is not possible for the Lord to change from one state to another, or to move from one place to another. God says 6:72, and afala means to move from one direction to another and to change from one state to another. So Ibrahim said that he does not like that which changes place, or changes [in any way]. Therefore, whoever described God in a way that Ibrahīm negated is not from the Muslims… As we have explained before, Ibrahim demonstrated that the stars, sun and moon were created by change, and uful, and movement from one state to the next. And God commanded us to follow Ibrahim in order to arrive at the truth, not like one who believes and describes the Lord with descent, and movement, and changing from one state to another, and believing in these texts in a literal manner, without interpretation.
It is interesting to note that al-Ghazālī (d. 505 A.H./1111 C.E.), the next Ashʿarite of importance, had a much more philosophical and Avicennian understanding of this story, and did not view it in the kalām perspective but rather an esoteric mystical one.15 The next Ashʿarite who had a major impact was Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606 A.H./1209 C.E.), to whom we shall return later in the article.
The Ashʿarītes were not the only mutakallimūn who viewed the incident of Ibrahīm in such a light. Of the Maturīdites who understood this story in a similar manner was Abū al-Maʿīn al-Nasafī (d. 508 A.H./1114 C.E.). In the context of denying any attributes that necessitated movement being ascribed to God (such as God’s istiwā over the Throne), he stated since Ibrahīm denied the divinity of celestial objects because they moved from one place to another, God himself could not be characterized by any accident.16
The Muʿtazilite al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538 A.H./ 1143 C.E.) also agreed with this view. He stated that Ibrahīm was chosen by God to guide his people to the correct method of inquiry and proof for His existence. He was to teach them that true inquiry leads one to believe that no idol or celestial object could be worthy of worship ‘…since accidents are subsiding in them, and therefore there must be a creator who created them’.17 Al-Zamakhsharī stated that Ibrahīm said of these objects ‘This is my Lord’, not because he believed this, but rather to state the belief of the opponent, fully knowing that the statement was false, but being fair to them and showing them that he was not dogmatically inclined to believe his own teachings blindly and without conviction. Although it is stated the he said this actually believing them to be his Lords, it appears, according to al-Zamakhsharī, that the former opinion is stronger. Thereafter, Ibrahīm stated, ‘I do not like the āfilīn’, meaning that he does not like worshiping lords that change from one state to another, that move from one location to another, that hide by coverings – for all of this is inherently characteristic of bodies (ajsām).18 It is significant to note that al-Zamakhsharī clearly states that Ibrahīm did not actually believe these celestial objects were gods, but rather was trying to prove to his people that they were not divine. This is different than the view of al-Bāqillānī, who views Ibrahīm has having been searching for God through this incident; it is possible that he derived this interpretation from al-Ashʿarī himself, although al-Ashʿarī’s quotes are ambiguous and can be read both ways.
Thefore, before proceeding, this section can be summarized by stating that all the groups of kalām (the Muʿtazilites, the Ashʿarites and the Maturidites) affirmed that the primary proof of God’s existence was the ‘Proof of the Createdness of Accidents’. Many of the primary architects of these three schools also sought to prove the legitimacy of this proof from the story of Ibrahīm. In order to understand the story as substantiating this Proof, they translated afala as ‘motion’; hence, they claimed, since this great Patriarch denied divinity to the stars, moon, and Sun because of ‘motion’, and motion was an accident, the Qurʿānic story was in fact a direct evidence for the validity of the ‘Proof of the Createdness of Accidents’.
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī and the Story of Ibrahīm
Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606 A.H./1209 C.E.), the single greatest Ashʿarite theologian of medieval Islam, took the story of Ibrahīm to a new level. He used this incident as one of the primary evidences in proving that God cannot have a direction or body, or occupy space. Al-Rāzī states that Ibrahīm proved the createdness of the celestial bodies by the fact that change occurs in them, which eventually led him to turn his face to the true God. He claims that this story proves, in three ways, that God cannot be a body, have a direction or occupy space:19
Firstly, since all bodies share certain similarities, what is allowed for one body must also be allowed for others. Therefore, if God were a body, He would be characterized with what bodies are characterized with, and accidents could subsist in Him just as they subsist in other bodies. But since Ibrahīm clearly showed that objects which change from one state to another cannot be divine, it follows that God, who is divine, cannot be a body.
Secondly, at the conclusion of this inspection, Ibrahīm said that he turned his face to the One who created the Heavens and Earth (‘alladhī faṭar al-samāwāti wa al-arḍa’, [6:79]), for which God praised him. And the very fact that God praised him at this point shows that all that was required of Ibrahīm was to acknowledge God as the creator, for if God were also a body or substance, an Ibrahīm was required to know this, God would not have praised him until Ibrahīm had reached this knowledge.
Thirdly, if God were a body, this would necessitate that other bodies be similar to Him in His Essence. This, in turn, would imply that He had partners similar to Him. Yet Ibrahīm says, in these same series of verses, “…and I am not of those who ascribe partners to Him” [6:79], thus showing that God does not have a body.
From this, it can be seen that al-Rāzī gave this story more theological prominence than any Ashʿarīte before him, specifically in denying ‘bodiness’ (jismiyyah), spatial occupation (taḥayyuz) and change (taghayyur) in God through it.
In his tafsīr, al-Rāzī discusses this incident in far greater detail, and, as is characteristic for him in this work, mentions dozens of issues pertaining to it.20
Of these issues is the question: was Ibrahīm sincere in his claim that these celestial objects were actually gods, or was he merely arguing with his people in this manner? According to al-Rāzī, many scholars of exegesis of the past believed that Ibrahīm grew up in a cave, sheltered from society, and that his mother had placed him there and occasionally came to take care of him in order to protect him from the King, who had promised to kill all male babies born in that year (due to a vision he had seen). When Ibrahīm came of age, he began questioning his parents and the people around him, ‘Who is my lord?’ and, not being satisfied with their answers, embarked on this journey in which he eventually ‘discovered’ the One True God. According to this interpretation, the story is to be taken as Ibrahīm’s personal journey and quest to discover God. However, according to al-Rāzī, this cannot be the correct opinion, for twelve reasons, which he lists (one of which is that the claim that these celestial objects are creators is blatant disbelief, and this cannot be presumed of Ibrahīm).21
Therefore, according to al-Rāzī, there are only two possibilities left. The first is that Ibrahīm did not intend to ascribe lordship to these celestial objects, but rather intended something else (and here he lists seven possibilities of what might have been intended and how this phrase can be correctly interpreted; for example, that he was merely stating what his people believed in order to show them the futility of that belief). The second possibility is that this incident occurred before Ibrahīm became an adult (i.e., before puberty), and thus it would not be considered a sin (since before this age one is not held accountable for what one does). This second opinion, states al-Rāzī, is plausible, even though the first one is stronger.22
Al-Rāzī also discussed the precise meaning of ufūl. ‘Ufūl’, he claims, means ‘to disappear after an object has appeared’. And the reason that ufūl shows the createdness of a body is because it indicates motion. Now it is possible that one might question, al-Rāzī states, as to why Ibrahīm had to wait until the objects disappeared before pronouncing their createdness, since the objects would have been moving ever since their appearance? To this, he replies that, while there is no doubt that the rising of these objects and their setting both show that they are created, the fact of the matter is that the evidences that are employed by the prophets must be crystal-clear, such that even the most foolish person can see their validity. And the evidence of the createdness of an object by its motion, whilst completely valid and indubitable, is really only understood by the most honored of God’s servants. As for the evidence from their disappearance, this is a matter that all of mankind will be able to comprehend. Hence, in Ibrahīm ’s wisdom, he used the actual disappearance of the object instead of its motion to prove its createdness.23
Al-Rāzī also derives three rulings from Ibrahīm’s testimony of ‘I do not love the āfilīn’ [6:79]. Firstly, this proves that God cannot be a body (jism), since if He were a body, He would also be hidden (āfil) from us, and thus not worthy of divinity. Also, this would imply that He cannot descend from the Throne to the skies, otherwise this would be a type of ufūl as well. Secondly, this verse clearly proves that created attributes cannot subsist in God, otherwise He would be subject to change. Thirdly, this verse also proves that the religion must be based upon examination, not blind following, otherwise there would be no benefit in Ibrahīm’s search and investigation.24
As a last point that is relevant to this discussion, al-Rāzī states that this incident is one of the greatest evidences against the ḥashawiyyah25 since Ibrahīm was praised by God for his being guided to the truth through this examination and investigation. This proves, according to al-Rāzī, that there is no station (maqām) after that of the prophets which is better than the station of investigation and research,26 meaning ʿilm al-kalām.
It is interesting to note that in this section of his tafsīr, al-Rāzī did not explicitly mention the ‘Proof from Accidents’ and its premises, although it is clear that he alluded to it more than once.
We have seen how some of the famous proponents of kalām viewed the story of Ibrahīm. It is now time to turn our attention to one of the greatest critics of ʿilm al-kalām, Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H./1327 C.E.), and see his perspective on the ‘Proof’ and its relationship to the story of Ibrahīm.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s Response to This Proof
Ibn Taymiyyah dedicated a significant portion of his writings to refute the premises and implications of this Proof; in fact he claimed that the salaf’s disapproval of ʿilm al-kalām was due primarily to this very Proof.27
For Ibn Taymiyyah, the Qurʾānic methodology of proving the existence of God was far superior than the ‘Proof of Accidents’ employed by the mutakallimūn. Ibn Taymiyyah believed that man had ingrained in him a belief in God, and that this belief, embodied in the fiṭrah, or innate subconscious nature of man, was an integral part and parcel of the human conscience. And since the Prophet had stated that ‘Every child is born upon the fiṭrah…’, Ibn Taymiyyah felt there was no need to construct elaborate proofs for the existence of God. According to him, the existence of God is more obvious that the existence of man himself. And it is for this reason that the overwhelming majority of mankind, from all generations and in all places, acknowledged a belief in a supreme deity, and those who strayed from this belief are the exception rather than the rule.28
However, Ibn Taymiyyah did believe that the Qurʾān addresses those who denied the existence of God. He felt that the strongest proof, after the fiṭrah of man, was the proof from the ephemeral nature of creation itself, including the createdness of man. For man knows instinctively that he is created, just as he knows that the other animals, plants, minerals, clouds and objects around him are created. And every creation is in need of a Creator. Thus, the fact that man is a created object is evidence in and of itself of the existence of a Creator, and is itself not in need of evidence. The Proof of the people of kalām, however, is meant to prove the createdness of man, whereas the Qurʾānic methodology is to take this for granted and use it to prove the existence of a Creator, as, for example, in 52: 35, “Were they created from nothing, or did they create themselves?”29
Another Qurʾānic proof of the existence of God, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, is the miracles of the prophets, such as the miracles given to Moses, Jesus, and Muḥammad.3
In light of these authentic, Qurʾānic evidences, Ibn Taymiyyah argues, there was no need to resort to methods which none of the prophets ever called to. For no one can argue that the prophets of God proclaimed to mankind that they should believe in ‘substances’ and ‘accidents’ and try to prove the existence of God through such means. In fact, none of the Companions of the Prophet did so either. Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah argues, it must be that those who use this evidence are following a path other than the path of the Prophet and his Companions.31
Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah felt that this Proof was overcomplicated in its premises, and self-evident in its conclusions. Additionally, the groups of kalām differed amongst themselves in many of the premises of this dalīl, most of which were not indubitable, and the rest of which were so perplexing that only the most intelligent of people could understand them. This Proof, according to him, is ‘…like a piece of lean camel meat placed on the peak of a steep mountain; neither is it easy to climb nor is it juicy meat [worthy] to take’. 32
Ibn Taymiyyah reserved his harshest criticism for this Proof because of its implications in the theological understanding of God’s Attributes. Ibn Taymiyyah pointed out that the mutakallimūn relied primarily on this Proof in order to reinterpret God’s Attributes away from what he perceived to be their primary meanings. This is because, from the perspective of Ibn Taymiyyah, the mutakallimūn did not even spare God from the premises and intricacies of this Proof, and in their over-zealousness to ensure that God was not a ‘body’, denied ‘accidents’ (ʿaraḍ) as subsisting in Him. Since each group amongst the people of kalām had its own definition of ‘accident’, they differed in their understanding of God’s Attributes. For the Muʿtazilites, all of God’s Attributes could be construed as accidents, whereas for the Ashʿarītes it was only those Attributes which changed over time (i.e., those related to the Will of God). Based on this distinction, Ibn Taymiyyah said, the Muʿtazilites rejected all affirmatory Attributes and claimed that to affirm such an Attribute as subsisting in God would imply that God was a body, hence created.33 The Ashʿarites, on the other hand, affirmed eternal, unchanging Attributes, but refused to affirm God’s ‘descent’ (nuzūl), ‘rising over the throne’ (istiwā), a speech that was related to His Will, and most other attributes mentioned in the Divine Texts. In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah states, the majority of theological deviations of the groups of kalām stem from the implications of this Proof.34
And since the solitary Qurʾānic evidence that the mutakallimūn had for this Proof was the story of Ibrahīm, Ibn Taymiyyah critiqued their understanding of it in many works. Ibn Taymiyyah writes of the mutakallimūn, “So they said: any accident that occurs within Him (i.e., God) is ufūl, and the Friend of God (i.e., Ibrahīm ) said, ‘I do not love the āfilīn’’, and an āfil is a being that moves – one which is a place of accidents. Thus, the Friend of God negated his love for any being that is a place for accidents, for it cannot be a God.”35
Ibn Taymiyyah’s Understanding of the Story of Ibrahīm
Ibn Taymiyyah criticized the mutakallimūn in a number of ways for reading this Proof into the story of Ibrahīm ; below is a list of the primary critiques found in his writings.36
The First Point
Ibn Taymiyyah argues that this story has been entirely misunderstood by the mutakallimūn. According to the mutakallimūn, when Ibrahīm said to the three celestial bodies, ‘This is my Lord’, he actually meant in his heart that this celestial object was the being that created him.37 In other words, Ibrahīm was sincerely searching for the divine being that created him, and so in turn presumed this being to be a star, then the moon, then the Sun, and finally realized that it was a Divine God that was different from these celestial objects.
However, Ibn Taymiyyah sees Ibrahīm as a ḥanīf, one who was always turned to God, and not as an atheist or idol-worshiper searching for the true God. The purpose of the story was not Ibrahīm’s personal search for God, but rather his way of arguing with his people and showing them the futility of their worship of celestial objects. In other words, Ibrahīm was not actually ascribing divinity to these celestial objects, but rather merely showing this people the error of their ways; this entire story is a debate tactic against his people, and not a personal search for the truth.
Ibn Taymiyyah calls this misunderstanding of the mutakallimūn ‘…the most misguided of all their misguidances’.38
The Second Point
The scholars of kalām, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, understood the meaning of ufūl as ‘movement’, and this was the basis of their taking the story of Ibrahīm as the sole Quranic evidence for their Proof. According to them, Ibrahīm denied the Lordship of a being that moves, because movement is an accident, and accidents are created, thus rendering the bodies they reside in created as well.
However, Ibn Taymiyyah argues, ufūl does not mean ‘movement’ (al-ḥaraka wa al-intiqāl) in the least. In fact, all linguists and grammarians of the Arabic language have agreed that ‘afala’ means to disappear and be covered up (al-ghayb wa al-iḥtijāb), and not merely to move.39 Never once did the Arabs call any object that moved āfil, or any object that changed āfil, for one who walks or prays is not called such, despite his movement or change in posture. And nor did the Arabs use this word to describe temporary attributes that a body is characterized by, such as sickness or change in color, for one does not say that the Sun afala if it becomes yellowish or red, but only if it disappears.40
Ibn Taymiyyah argues that had the meaning of ‘afala’ been ‘to move’, Ibrahīm would not have had to wait until the Sun and moon were fully apparent, as the verse states that he waited until after the Sun and moon had become apparent in the horizons (‘fa-lamma raʾā al-qamara bāzighan…’ and ‘…al-shamsa bazighatan’ [7:74,75]). Rather, he could have deduced this Proof from the very first instance the Sun and moon had risen up into the horizon. So the fact that Ibrahīm had to wait until the particular object was fully visible in the sky (bāzigh), and then the ufūl occurred, shows that it was not by the movement of the objects but rather by their disappearance that Ibrahīm claimed these beings could not be the Lord.41
The Third Point
To believe that Ibrahīm actually intended that the star, moon and Sun was his Lord when he said ‘This is my Lord’ is actually an evidence against the Proof, and not for it. For Ibrahīm saw the star rise and set, and likewise the moon and Sun, and they continued to move throughout this rising and setting. Yet never once while witnessing this motion did Ibrahīm deny divinity to these celestial objects, rather, he waited until they manifested themselves and then eventually disappeared before making this claim. Thus, according to the interpretation of the mutakallimūn, Ibrahīm tacitly allowed these beings the attribute of divinity despite their motion, showing that motion in and of itself does not disqualify an object from being divine.42 Rather, Ibrahīm did not concern himself with the accidents of these celestial objects to disprove their being gods; instead he used the fact that they disappeared and were not permanent for this claim.43 So the story of Ibrahīm is closer to being an evidence against this Proof rather than being one in support of it.44
In Ibn Taymiyyah’s view, this is yet another example of a maxim that he frequently quotes: there is no textual evidence that the people of deviation (ahl al-bidʿa) use to try to justify their deviation except that that very text can be used against them rather than for them.45
The Fourth Point
Ibn Taymiyyah argues that this understanding of the verse has not been narrated from any of the pious predecessors, from the scholars of exegesis or from the scholars of the language. Rather, this is an innovated interpretation which earlier scholars clearly pointed out, such as ʿUthmān b. Saʿīd al-Dārimī (d. 289 A.H./901 C.E.).46
The Fifth Point
According to Ibn Taymiyyah, the people whom Ibrahīm was addressing already believed in a Supreme Lord. There was no need, therefore, to prove His existence. Unlike the people of Egypt at the time of Moses, who followed Pharaoh’s claim of being the Lord, the people of Ibrahīm were polytheists who worshipped celestial objects, but also acknowledged the One God to be Supreme. In fact, these people did not even believe these celestial objects to be the Creator, and that was why Ibrahīm pointed out to them that if the star, moon and Sun were not Lords (rabb), then why should they be worshiped? The people of Ibrahīm acknowledged God, and this is proven in the Qurʾān itself. Ibn Taymiyyah quotes 26: 75-77, when Ibrahīm says to his people: “Do you see that which you all worship? You and your forefathers of old? Then they are all hated to me, except for the Lord of the worlds.” And again in 43: 26-27, “I have dissociated with all whom you worship, except for the One who created me, for He will guide me.” In both these verses, Ibrahīm mentions that his people believed in the Supreme God and worshiped Him, hence he had to make an exception in his dissociation and hatred. And it was because of this that he said, at the conclusion of his conversation with his people in these very verses, “And I am not of those who associate partners (to God)” [6: 78]. Therefore, his people, like other pagan cultures, believed in God but worshiped objects besides Him, in this case celestial objects, building temples in their honor.47
So the point of the story, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, could not have been to prove the existence of God, but rather that only He was worthy of worship, and not these celestial objects.48
The Sixth Point
It is well-known, Ibn Taymiyyah argues, that not a single intelligent person in the history of mankind has every claimed that one star was exclusively responsible for the creation of all other stars, the Sun, moon and the rest of the creation.49 In fact, even the people of Ibrahīm did not state this, so how could this be assumed of Ibrahīm, the prophet of God?50
The Seventh Point
Ibrahīm only denied his love of the āfilīn, for he said after viewing these objects, ‘I do not love the āfilīn’ [6:76], and did not mention anything other than that.51 Therefore the elaborate conclusions that the mutakallimūn derive from this story are not explicit in it.
Conclusion
The story of Ibrahīm in 6:74-83 is seen by a certain group of the mutakallimūn as a solid Qurʾānic evidence for the proof of the existence of God from the createdness of accidents. Some of them, such as al-Bāqillānī, claimed that Ibrahīm was actually searching for God, and through this search rejected the stars, moon and Sun as gods due to the existence of an accident, in this case movement, within them. Others, such as al-Rāzī, understood from this incident that Ibrahīm was arguing with his people and trying to convince them of the existence of God by showing that celestial objects could not be divine because of their motion. In all cases, an underlying assumption was made of the validity of the dalīl al-ʾaʿrāḍ wa ḥudūth al-ajsām (‘Proof from Accidents and The Createdness of Bodies’), and that this story somehow validated this dalīl.
On the other hand, the scholars of the Ahl al-Ḥadīth did not agree with this dalīl in the first place, and therefore ipso facto rejected it as being proven by the story of Ibrahīm. Early Ahl al-Ḥadīth scholars such as al-Dārimī countered this understanding, but the Ahl al-Ḥadīth needed to wait for their most eloquent and famous spokesman and defender for a more complete and thorough refutation of the mutakallimūn in this regard, and it was thus Ibn Taymiyyah who provided them with that refutation.
It appears, however, that Ibn Taymiyyah was not aware of al-Rāzī’s specific interpretations of this incident, for although he addresses some of al-Rāzī’s points which are common to other mutakallimūn, he does not tackle the points that are unique to him. Had he read al-Rāzī’s tafsīr on this section, there is little doubt that he would have addressed al-Rāzī’s reading of this incident, as he did in numerous other cases.
Whatever the case might be, Ibn Taymiyyah tried to prove, using other Qurʾānic verses, the Arabic language, history and common sense, that Ibrahīm was not searching for God nor was he using accidents to prove His existence, but rather was merely showing his people the foolishness of worshiping created objects that appear and disappear, instead of worshipping God alone, who is Ever-Present.
[1] There are, of course, many other theological interpretations of this incident, including philosophical and Ṣufistic ones, the most prominent of these being that of Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 505 A.H./1111 C.E.) in his Mishkāt al-Anwār, ed. Abu al-ʿAlāʾ al-ʿAfīfī (Cairo: Dār al-Qawmiyyah, 1964) p. 67-68. However, these interpretations are beyond the scope of this article.
[2] Qaḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār b. Aḥmad, Sharḥ Uṣūl al-Khamsah, ed. ʿAbd al-Karīm ʿUthmān (Cairo: Maktabata Wahbah, 1996), p. 94.
[3] Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm b. Taymiyyah, Minhāj al-Sunnah ed. Muḥammad Rashād Sallām (Riyadh: Jāmiʿat al-Imām Muḥammad b. Saʿūd al-Islāmiyyah, 1986), v. 1, p. 310.
[4] See: Sharḥ Uṣūl al-Khamsah, p. 95.
[5] Abū al-Ḥasan Alī b. Ismāʿīl al-Ashʿarī, Kiāb al-Lumaʿ fī al-Radd ʿalā Ahl al-Zaygh wa al-Bidaʿ, ed. Hammūda Ghurābah (Cairo: Al-Maktabat al-Azhariyyah li al-Turāth, n.d.), p. 76. However, in another work of his, he severely criticised this dalīl and called it a product of the ‘philosophers and people of deviation’; see: Risālah ilā Ahl al-Thagr, ed. Muḥammad al-Julaynid (Riyadh: Dār al-Liwāʾ, 1410 A.H.), p. 52-55.
[6] Abū Bakr Aḥmad b. al-Hussayn al-Bayhaqī, al-Iʿtiqād wa al-Hidāyah ilā Sabīl al-Rashād, ed. Aḥmad Abu al-ʿAynayn (Riyadh: Dār al-Faḍīlat, 1999), p. 34.
[7] Abū Bakr b. al-Ṭayyib al-Bāqillānī, al-Tamhīd, ed Imād al-Dīn Ḥaydar (Beirut: Dār al-Thaqāfah, 1994), p. 37-43..
[8] ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī, Uṣūl al-Dīn, (Beirut: Dār al-Ṣādir, n.d., reprint of the Turkish edition of 1928.) p. 58
[9] ʿUthmān b. Saʿīd al-Dārimī, Naqḍ ʿUthmān b. Saʿīd ʿalā al-Mirrīsī al-Jahmī al-ʿAnīd fī mā aftara ʿalā Allah fī al-Tawḥīd, ed. Manṣūr b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Simārī (Riyadh: Maktaba Adwā al-Salaf, 1999), p. 164.
[10] ibid., p. 164.
[11] Kiāb al-Lumaʿ fī al-Radd ʿalā Ahl al-Zaygh wa al-Bidaʿ, p. 24.
[12] Abū Bakr b. al-Ṭayyib al-Bāqillānī, al-Inṣāf fī ma yajibu Iʿtiqāduhu wa lā yajūz al-Jahl bihī, ed. Imad al-Dīn Ḥaydar (Beirut: Alim al-Kutub, 1986), p. 44.
[13] al-Iʿtiqād wa al-Hidāyah ilā Sabīl al-Rashād, p. 34.
[14] Abū al-Maʿālī ʿAbd al-Malik b. Abdallah al-Juwaynī, al-Shāmil fī Uṣūl al-Dīn ed. ʿAlī Sāmī al-Nashshār (Alexadria, Munshiʾat al-Maʿārif, 1969), p. 246.
[15] Mishkāt al-Anwār, p. 67-68.
[16] Abū Al-Maʿīn Maymūn b. Muḥammad al-Nasafī, Baḥr al-Kalām (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Kurdī, 1911), p. 23-24.
[17] Maḥmūd b. ʿUmar al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, ed. Abd al-Razzāq al-Mahdī (Lebanon: DarIḥyā al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1997) v. 2, p. 39.
[18] ibid., v. 2, p. 39.
[19] Fakhr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Rāzī, Asās al-Taqdīs fī ʿIlm al-Kalām (Lebanon: Muʾassasat al-Kutub al-Thaqāfiyyah, 1995), p. 27-28.
[20] Fakhr al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr (Lebanon: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 2001), v. 5, p. 30-50.
[21] ibid., v. 5, p. 39-40.
[22] ibid., v. 5, p. 40.
[23] ibid., v. 5, p. 43.
[24] ibid., v. 5, p. 45.
[25] A derogatory term used to primarily describe the Ahl al-Ḥadīth, from ḥashā meaning ‘to gather everything’. The intention is to state that the Ahl al-Ḥadīth would merely gather every narration and text and jumble it all together, without examination or understanding of what they were gathering.
[26] ibid., v. 5, p. 50.
[27] Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, v. 16, p. 473. A more detailed discussion of Ibn Taymiyyah’s response to this dalīl is worthy of a separate dissertation in and of itself; for the purposes of this article only one aspect, that of the theological implications of the story of Ibrahīm , is being considered in great detail.
[28] See Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm b. Taymiyyah, Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʾAql wa al-naql, ed. Muḥammad Rashād Sallām (n.d.) v. 8, p. 90-91, 482.
[29] Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʾAql wa al-naql, v. 7, p. 219.
[30] See ibid., v. 3, p. 308-318, v. 8. p. 238-239.
[31] Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm b. Taymiyyah, Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyyah, ed. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Qāsim (Riyadh: Dār al-Maʿrifah, 1421 A.H.), v. 1, p. 255.
[32] Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad b. Qāsim and Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad (no publication details), v. 2, p. 22.
[33] As an example of this, Qaḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār writes, concerning the divine attribute of life (al-ḥayāt), “The essential point here is that if God were living with a ‘life’ (ḥayāt) – and ḥayāt cannot be recognized unless the place in which it resides is recognized – this would imply that the Eternal has a body (jism), and this is impossible. And the same applies to ‘power’ (qudrah), since ‘power’ cannot be acted with until the place in which it resides also participated in that act even if it be in a partial manner. So (if this were the case) it would be obligatory that God be a body (jism), allowing accidents to occur in Him, and this is not possible.”[33] See his Sharḥ Uṣūl al-Khamsah, p. 200-201.
[34] See, as examples: Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, v. 8, p. 149; Minhāj al-Sunnah v. 1, p. 311; Darʾ Taʿāruḍ al-ʾAql wa al-naql v. 6, p. 183; Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyyah v. 1, p. 131.
[35] Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, v. 6, p. 252.
[36] The division of these critiques into ‘points’ was done by the author to simplify the presentation of Ibn Taymiyyah’s thoughts, which, as typical, are scattered in numerous books and fatāwā. However, in more than one work, he states that this understanding can be refuted ‘…min wujūh: awwaluhā…’ and so forth. See for example, Darʾ al-Taʿāruḍ, v. 3, p. 313, in which he lists four of these seven points explicitly.
[37] As the quotes above show, this is not the belief of all the scholars of kalām, and in particular the Muʿtazilte scholars explicitly deny it.
[38] Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm b. Taymiyyah, Bughyat al-Murtād, ed. Mūsa b. Sulaymān al-Duwaysh (Madinah: Maktabat al-ʿUlūm wa al-Ḥikam, 2001), p. 359.
[39] Bughyat al-Murtād, p. 359, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, v. 6, p. 252, Darʾ al-Taʿāruḍ, v. 1, p. 313.
[40] Darʾ Taʿāruḍ, v. 1, p. 109.
[41] Bughyat al-Murtād, p. 360, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, v. 6, p. 253.
[42] Darʾ al-Taʿāruḍ, v. 1, p. 313.
[43] Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm b. Taymiyyah, Sharḥ al-Iṣbahāniyyah, unpublished doctoral dissertation edited by Muḥammad al-Ṣaʿwī (Riyadh: Imam Muḥammad b. Ṣaʿūd University, 1408 A.H.), p. 137.
[44] Darʾ al-Taʿāruḍ, v. 1, p. 111.
[45] Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, v. 6, p. 254.
[46] Darʾ al-Taʿāruḍ, v. 1, p. 314. For al-Dārimī’s quote, see above.
[47] Darʾ al-Taʿāruḍ, v. 1, p. 110, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, v. 6, p. 254.
[48] Sharḥ al-Iṣbahāniyyah, p. 137.
[49] Bughyat al-Murtād, p. 360.
[50] Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, v. 6, p. 254.
[51] Bughyat al-Murtād, p. 360.
107 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Yasir Qadhi on The Theological Implicati… « Talk Islam
- Yasir Qadhi on The Theological Implicati | Marriage Blog
- Theological discussion about the story of Ibrahim
Entries(RSS)
As-Sal?mu `Alaykum,
May this arrive at you in good health
Nice speech at MIST today, did u post this while at ILM summit?
Also is this one of the research papers you are currently working on for your doctorate ?
Ya Shaykh!!! JazakAllah khayr… kya khubsoorat article likha hai apnay… mashAllah.
Mazaa aata hai jub ibn Taymiyyah (rah) aur mutakallimun key baray mey likhtay hain aap. Mujhe lagta hai kay aapko bhi bohat mazaa aata hai jab aap aisay article ko likhtay hain
Dua kiyjiye kain Allah swt ek din hamari Arabi itni achi karday kain key hum bhi ibn Taymiyyah (rah) key kitaabay parhey.
(Yeah only for Arabic cos I know english already don’t worry LOOL).
JazakAllah khair again Shaykh
Aap ku be Allah tala jazai khayr de aap ke duao ke liya… awr umeed hai ki aap bhi, aik din, arbi phar – sakinga.
Awr hai, bahut durust bhat ki aapna ki maza aata hai in bhatu main – awy kya maza! Issi mahe ghanti ghanti guzar jatai hi!
Aap ka bhai,
Yasir
Very very deep .. masha Allah the brother must have deep knowledge of aqueedah to be working on something like this. I read the first 2 paragraghs then was lost!!!
As SSalam O Alaikum,
What implication does the above have, if any, for the argumentts by intelligent design?
assalamu alaykum shaykh qadhi,
Informative article mashallah. Just wondering about a few things, the mutakallimun only used elaborate proofs to defeat other people at their game (if you see the list of sects in sharastani’s or baghdadi’s book on sects you can see their points), you don’t need these proofs if you are already muslim.
A modern example of the same issue can be seen in our time when science is mounting challenges to religion in terms of their ‘language’, so it seems that we have to respond in their language – or one could at least say that, if we ‘can’ respond in their language, then why not? And if we are to respond in the scientific-philosophical language then why don’t we do it, and if we do it then surely it will be in the form that is similar to Kalam. Kalam *is* islamic philosophy, yes it took ideas from elsewhere but it islamised them, why not, that’s what muslims have been doing to all things they come across (removing the non-islamic elements and using the good stuff).
For most people, one would not need to use the kalam approach to prove God to them as they do not think like that, it is instead for those more philosophically/rationally inclined. In these days when atheistic views are rampant it is almost dangerous not to know some form of basic kalam-thinking (as embedded in simple ashari/maturidi texts like aqida sanussiya) simply because they will get the better of you with their dialectic, i don’t know about other brothers here but i’ve definitely felt weak when faced with arguments from the secular/scientististic/atheistic fronts. The the kalam way of thinking is proving to be essential in my thought. Of course, if i lived in a small village without a television or chatting to non-believing folk with their ’sophistic’ -scientistic dialogue then i would perhaps not have so much cloud in my head and the more simpler proofs as indicated by Sh. Ibn Taymiyyah would be perfect.
Also let me add that the christians are using kalam arguments in their debates with athiests (and winning i should add) – see william craig’s work
wa alaykum salam
Salam
Jazak Allah for your comment akhi – but I respectfully disagree. Please see my comments on this page, where all of these points are discussed:
http://muslimmatters.org/2008/04/09/the-role-of-atomism-on-groups-of-kalam/
The effectiveness, and even need, for the ‘kalam cosmological’ proof is completely blown out of proportion. There are no statistics, and for every one person you find who claims it was this proof that converted him, we can find a few thousand who had other, simpler reasons. If this proof contains many falsehoods (and it does), and if it leads to reinterpreting the Quran and Sunnah (and it does), instead of sticking to it, it makes Islamic sense to reject it and turn to the Quran and Sunnah instead.
Yasir
Shaykh, I love you f’illah.
Ma sha Allah! (Very)^99 intressting article…….. jazzakAllahu kheir for the light!
Ibn Taymiyya’s views on this issue (as many other) are certainly liberating. He certainly shows how the mutakalimin were hostage to their philosophical views to the extent that they would attempt to validate their thought by hyper-extending the story of Ibrahim (as). The dispostive proof seems to me the definition of afala, and again, Ibn Taymiyya hits the nail on the head. Once the proper meaning of the term is identified it is clear that this story really has nothing to do with proving the existence of the Creator, but rather clarifying who has the right to be worshipped.
Although I don’t think the fitra argument is sufficient and even viable, Ibn Taymiyya’s clarity on this issue was sorely needed. His acute rationality (especially as it relates to point #3) should force us to reconsider the label “ahl al-hadith” (as it is commonly understood). It is unfortunate, as Sh. Yasir alludes to in the conclusion, that his predecessors were unable to articulate these compelling views. What is more lamentable, is the lack of discerning intellect of many of those who claim to follow the Sh. in his posterity.
While it pains me to read this, I cannot help but agree with you.
InshAllah, I’d have to read it 5 times to make sense out of this soon…
Jazakallahukhair ya shaykhuna.
Jazakum allahu khayran, Shaykh, that was a very interesting discussion about this particular story from the Qur’an, and answered many of the questions I had about it actually (since I had heard several of these different interpretations about Ibraheem’s statement declaring the lordship of the sun, moon, and stars.)
I just have a few lingering questions and observations.
Recently I had an atheist visit my blog and try to debate the existence of God with me. (First of all, I tried hard to avoid the argument.) And I mentioned a few times to him that I believed in God to start with–i.e., before Islam. I didn’t start looking at Islam to find whether or not God existed, it was something I accepted beforehand. His argument was rather that human beings are taught about God in the first place from their parents and culture (just like how we as Muslims are taught that a child is born on fitrah but his parents teach him to be Christian, etc.)
The conversation came up because of a book by Robert Wright called The Evolution of God, after the author was interviewed on NPR. During the interview, he mentioned that the concept of God was just a delusion in the first place. What I struggled with was explaining what seems to be here the premise of Ibn Taymiyyah’s argument, that everyone is born inclined to believe in God. (Unless I misunderstand the concept of fitrah?)
Is there proof for that assertion? I.e., as stated here:
The statement of the Prophet (saws) is sufficient for me as a Muslim, but I wonder if there is any evidence on the subject that might convince someone who disbelieved in God anyway? Or is it even a hopeless case, I wonder, to engage in such discussions?
Another observation I have is from recalling what I think I remember Br. Nouman Ali Khan saying about this story: that, linguistically, the dialogue contains immense sarcasm from Ibraheem about worshiping the celestial bodies. If that were evident, would it not also support Ibn Taymiyyah’s view?
And one last question I have about the story in general is wonder at why Ibraheem was not successful in his da’wah to the people who worshiped celestial bodies? Weren’t they the ones who tried to kill him? Should it be an example for us in that case?
Assalamo’allaekum Sheikh,
It’s always great to read these, however, you have had some things on hold for too long and we have been waiting and waiting and waiting (salvific exclusivity?!?)
SubhanAllah, it is Shaykh ul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah’s (rh) such frequent application of this maxim that really made him shine as the true intellectual giant that he was. I am time and again awe struck when I see him apply this and use Ahl ul-Bid’ah’s own ‘proofs’ to turn their arguments upside down. May Allah allow us to learn from his methodology and continue to benefit from his scholarship. Amin.
Jazakallah Khair, Sheikh Yasir. It’s always a pleasure reading such works by you!
Zadak Allahu ‘ilman, ya shaykh.
I was curious about one relevant point. Are the mufassirun unanimous in their opinion that Ibrahim (‘alayhi salaam) was only referring to the star/sun/moon as his rabb in an effort to show the ridiculous nature of the beliefs of the polytheists of his time? Did any of the well-known mufassirin hold the opinion that Ibrahim (‘alayhi salaam) was actually going through an internal search for the truth? Or is Shaykh ul-Islam’s (rh) opinion unanimously agreed upon by the scholars of tafsir?
(Of course, I am implicitly excluding those tafasir referenced in your essay which sought to show that this story is a Quranic basis for the ‘dal?l al-?a?r?? wa ?ud?th al-ajs?m’ theory. I am assuming, and correct me if I am mistaken, that their authors were not considered ’scholars of tafsir,’ despite the fact that they produced tafasir.)
wa jazakumullahu khayran shaykh.
A few of points of clarification:
There is a distinction between the beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah and the mushabbihah. One, the Sunnis do not deny the Attributes of Allah. What they deny is tashbih. Some Verses/Hadiths have been misconstrued, and that has resulted in some falling into the trap of anthropomorphism or at least some type of resemblence (of Allah to the creations). The Sunnis understood these Verses/Hadiths in a non-literal fashion. Consequently, Ahlus-Sunnah does not claim that Allah is a vast illumination here on earth and in the Heavens, or that Allah is literally in or near our throats, or in the cave with the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) and Abu Bakr, or literally everywhere. Similarly, the Sunnis do not claim that Allah has a giant smiling face, out stretched hands, a tibia, fingers, and a foot (or two feet). This is the doctrine of some of the quasi-hanbalis of the past, and those who resucitated that belief in more recent times.
Another point is that the Sunnis do not claim that any of the Prophets committed kufr. The Prophets are protected from enormities, and minor sins that indicate baseness of character before and after they become Prophets. Kufr is the greatest enormity, so it cannot be attributed to the Prophets.
Regarding the argument from accidents, it is simple. Allah does not resemble anything–AT ALL. Consequently, the occupation of space, change, motion, stillness, etc. are inapplicable to Allah, as is weight, color, texture, and heat, for these are properties of bodies (accidents), and things dependent upon the space they occupy. Allah isn’t dependent upon anything. Allah was before space, distance, or direction, and Allah did not transform and materialize in space after creating the creations. Allah is Perfect. Allah does not change. Allah is as Allah was. Regarding Allah being “Exalted”–this does not refer to a literal distance or direction, for direction and distance apply to things which are bodies. Obviously, Allah isn’t a body. And furthermore Abu Ja`far At-Tahawi mentioned explicitly in his `Aqidah:
“None of the six directions contain Allah, as is the case with all the creations.”
Direction only applies to something with volume and displaces space. Before there was space/place there was a God. In summary, this is not merely a discussion about semantics, but whether or not one believes Allah is located in space or time (hence, similar to the created entites), or one believes Allah is Eternal, Free-of-Need, and Absolutely beyond comparison. May Allah guide us to the proper understanding of this fundamental matter of Doctrine.
Read any work of theology written in the first three hundred years of Islam (al-Tahawi’s creed was written 311 AH), in particular: the works of the famous muhadith al-Darimi, and the works of al-Bukhari (especially his Kitab al-Tawhid, which is the last book in his Sahih).
That will show which of the two understandings is more ‘orthodox’
May Allah reward you sheikh.
I personally doubt that anyone believes in God in the first place because of elaborate philosophical arguments, rather I think those who are intellectually inclined create these arguments to defend the intuitive and obvious belief in God – which is clear from His creation (itself a logical reason for belief, but an intuitive one easy to grasp by anyone).
When atheists ask the famous “if complexity warrants a designer, then who created the complex God”, the simple answer is the creation shows the necessary “first cause” at the root of the universe – which everyone must believe in or there would be nothing – is an “intelligent designer”, not random blind forces like you claim.
The Kalam argument with esoteric definitions of accidents, bodies, etc. has always struck me as intellectual gymnastics. I love Ibn Taymiyya because he is intellectual yet very honest to the texts.
salam
Salaam Shaykh,
I enjoyed this piece and found it very interesting similar to the piece you wrote on the Atomic Theory a while ago. may Allah reward you well for your efforts.
I do however has afew questions, the first is that it appears from your writing that one of more of the scholars of the Salaf held this opinion and therefore it would be a valid difference such as: Jahm b. ?afw?n (d. 124 A.H./ 741 C.E.) & Bishr al-Mirr?s? (d. 218 A.H./833 C.E.) although the latter may fall outside of the 3rd generation of the salaf.
The second comment is that it appears that the major scholars of the Arashi and Mu’tazila school do not appear to have held the opinion of Tafwid, which some today are spreading, namely Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller (sorry for naming individuals but i feel it may help you understand where I am coming from) why is that, and is the idea of Tafwid a new understanding or principle?
Also point 4 appears to contradict what is written at the start of the article, in that ibn Taymiyya himself said the first to hold the opinion of accidents and use the story of Ibrahim (as) was Jahm bin Safwan.
As a final point, it appears from your writing that no scholar from the time of the Salaf until ibn Taymiyyas time ever rejected this argument, which means that in principle it remained a general concensus for around 600 years, until Shaykh ul Islam came and refuted it (as he always does mashallah).
I would be greatful if you could shead some light on these comments.
P.S. the Shaykh i mentioned earlier wrote a piece against Ibn Taymiyya, which can be found here (http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq5.htm). Id just like to say im not here to cause fitnah but some issues need ironing out.
Jzk Shaykh
Assalamu alaikum,
I know you addressed the questions to the Shaykh brother but I thought I’d address a few of the points you made:
What you mentioned is not entirely correct; namely, al Jahm ibn Safwan was mostly followed by ‘awaam (laypersons) because of his zeal to refute atheists. Unfortunately his zeal made him go to such extremes that he described Allah as essentially a non-existent entity. He was not a scholar amongst scholars. The salaf (1st three generations) never held any of these beliefs about Allah and al Jahm ibn Safwan did not learn at any of their feet.
Secondly, the Jahmee ideology was refuted during its time and afterwards (he was even executed for his heresy as is well known). In some copies of Sahih al Bukhari, there was a chapter titled “refuting the Jahmees.” Shaykhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah was a master of refutation and thus his works seem to overshadow others. But it doesn’t mean they did not exist.
The Mu’tazilah, Ash’arees etc. were later off-shoots of the same school of logic that the Jahmiyyah founded (as it was the first of these deviant sects). Each one that progressively developed was a step closer to Ahlus Sunnah although none of them are included in the folds of Ahlus Sunnah. The Mu’tazilah originally formed to refute the Jahmees but they ended up being confined by the same (il)logical process and thus deviated in their ‘aqeedah. Same as Ash’arees and Matureedees. Tafweedh is an attempt to reconcile the fact that the verses and ahadith are clear but they could not get over their refusal to accept the verses as they are and not change the meaning. It is mostly the Matureedees who make tafweedh of the attributes today. So tafweedh and ta’weel (or collectively ta’teel) are not different animals essentially and are variants on the same original “logic” propagated by the Jahmees.
W’Allahu ‘alam. Someone can correct me please if I’m wrong in anything.
Under the pretext of wanting a sincere discourse, the Asharis and their fellow ideologues have cunningly attempted to malign shaykhul Islam time and again. Although most of their attempts have been successfully thawarted, they continue to show their disrespect and their intolerance for the Ahlul Hadeeth. Perhaps its due to latter’s growing influence upon today’s Islamic learnings :^)
Salaam sister UE
Id preffer if people would use pseudo names but anyway its the comments that count. Jahm ibn Safwan is with little doubt ne of the major scholars in theology in his time even though he differed with others, in one narration from him he praised Imam shafi’i saying that he had an amazing ability in constructing his speeches. so to say he was not a scholar amoung scholars is a statement id hesistate to follow.
No to say his theology in the whole was refuted during his time is unknown to me and id like it if the Shaykh can comment on that, but what is clear is that no-one refuted him on this issue, as it states in the article that it is only known that Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) refuted this position.
However from my study of Ta’weel it is more similar to Tafsir, where a statement is explained, or information is given to interpret what a particular statment means. However tafwid is to devoid a statment of any meaning and say that its meaning is unknown.
Shaykh Yasir if you could shed some light on the above comments it would be of benefit inshallah. Jazkallah Khayr ya ukhti for you comments.
assalamu alaykum
It seems that most people who are exposed to such articles are the laity who themselves do not have a strong grasp on our intellectual tradition and, therefore, cannot possibly be expected to understand or critically evaluate the arguments made above.
With that said, there are clear logical fallacies present in Shaykh Yasir’s piece, claims without proofs, and proofs that are in reality but circular. You cannot, for example, say that the the proof of whether “man is created” is the “createdness of man”. This is not a proof, but this is what one is trying to prove. Saying that “it is not in need of evidence” is merely trying to find a way out of proving one’s claims without actually providing any evidence to back up that claim. If the proof is so central and not in need of evidence why then did the Qur’an “address those who denied the existence of good”? Much more can be said about this specific point.
It also seems that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s primary reason behind the rejection of such a proof is the supposed implications it had regarding the Divine Attributes, as the author of the article himself points out. It returns to the rejection of those who deny Allah can “descend” or “rise”, and might I add the key phrase of “literally” as our brethren wish to so avidly insist in, which to some necessitates anthropomorphism. So, the crux of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya’s rejection of such a proof is his wanting to prove that Allah does move, change, rise, and descend, that he can be spatially confined, can be a body “unlike other bodies” and so forth.
In the end, it is interesting to note that Ibn Hajar Asqalani also presented, and from what I recall accepted, the “fitrah” argument, though his understanding of the Divine Attributes were in line with the Ash`ari school. It does not take the proof from accidents to conclude that Allah is not a body, is not confined to space, does not descend “literally”, and so forth.
wasalam
Maybe. Some of the words that you use are not found in our texts, so if you wish to refute those straw-words, that is your business. But the denial or reinterpretation of explicit verbs and nouns ascribed to Allah in the Quran and muttawatir Sunnah was almost exclusively based upon this argument.
Assalamu alaikum Brother Yasir,
Would it not be simpler, and fairer to those following your discussions, to openly say:
“I believe Allah is within space (like us humans) , literally above us (defined by direction like humans and the rest of his creation), and sits on a chair in the sky (like us humans do on earth). I believe that he goes up and down between the heavens (like humans do, going up and down through space in this world), I believe that he speaks using articulated sounds (something humans do with their mouths), I believe he literally has hands (something us humans have), he literally has shins (like us humans), he literally puts his hands over the hands of humans,”
(emphasis mine of course)
This is, in effect, the literalist aqidah that Ibn Taymiyya taught and what you proffess. The fact that you say all the above and tack on a “but not like we (humans) do” is ridiculous. You cant even say the word hand without mentally referencing what you know to be a hand – i.e the thing on the end of your arm with skin, muscles, bones, nails, hairs, etc . The comment “a hand not like our hand” is a gross illogicality and the proponents of this concept are only kidding themselves and confusing others.
The only thing the word hand means to you and any sane human is the thing we have on the end of our arms. You can try and imagine that Allah’s hand is not like our hand however – Remember Brother Yasir the words of Sayidduna Abu Bakr radiallahu anhu that realisation or understanding of Allah is realising that you cant understand him or picture him at all. This is the true tawfid of Imam Ahmad and the salaf and as Imam at-Tahawi says: No imagination can conceive of Him and no understanding can comprehend Him.
You cannot truely imagine or comprehend Allah having a “hand” thats ” not like our hand.” Your understanding does not comprehend him and your imagination doesnt concieve him and your understanding of what a hand is completely limited to your earthly existance as a creation of Allah, a created being, and a human on this earth. This is merely one reason why such beliefs are incorrect.
This is also why the salaf made complete tawfid and said “we affirm what allah said and whatever allah meant by that, no more no less” and simply attached no interpretation at all to the verse or they, mainly so the khalaf who followed them, gave the verse a figurative interpretation that corresponded to the style and usage of the arabic language and still maintained Allah ta’ala’s total transcendance and lack of similarty to his creation. This is why, traditionally, the vast majority of classical ulema of the ummah agreed that the tawfid of the salaf and the tawil (when necessary) of the khalaf was acceptable.
Whether you feel the tawil of the khalaf was necessary given the prolific work of the jahmis, qadariya, khawarij, mutazilites, anthropomorphists, is up to you. Given that you didnt live in their times and only understand their times through books, I’d safely put trust that the ulema of the past, the vast majority of which were ashari aqidah or maturidi, probably knew what was best for them and the awwam (vulgar masses).
One obvious reason of why the “but not like ours” aqidah is ridiculous is that the modern-day followers of the aqidah of Sheikh Ibn Taymiyya speak out against tawil (infavour of abject literalism) when the obvious need for tawil and use of it, was practiced not only by the Sahaba, the salaf, but the khalaf and even scholars within your own background.
A few examples would be the hadith where Allah ta’ala chastises a man saying “I was sick and you did not visit me” , – I suppose you would then say that Allah was “sick, but not like we are sick”. Or do you make ta’wil of this too because i’m sorry to say, the outward and obvious meaning one would take from the arabic is that Allah was sick. I’m hoping even you would agree that we cannot take this sentence literally and that anyone who did so is a Kafir.
What of the verse “The hand of Allah was over their hands” – According to your literalism appoach, Allah (transcendant and exalted is he) LITERALLY put his hands (which I presume you claim are hands but not like human hands) on the hands of the muslims. We commonly understand those who make a pledge place their hands over one another touching the other as they swear their oath. Do we champion literalism and forsake tawil here- Or do you make tawil of this verse too? Just about every reputable scholar in Islamic history has.
How about another obvious hadith:
A??aah, You are the First, so there is nothing before You, and You are the Last so there is nothing after You. You are Al-Thaahir so there is nothing above You. And You are Al-Baatin, so there is nothing below you. ” (Muslim)
If Tawil is so wrong and we must take the apparent meaning of this verse literally, then Allah cannot be literally above us, nor can we be literally below us. Unless of course you do interpret this hadith figuratively rather than literally?
Further, if we look into the writings of Hanbali scholars such as Ibn Jawzi (the codifier of the hanbali madhab) we see that the were against such kind of anthropomoprhic beliefs. His explanation of the issue of Idafa and whether or not one can read a phrase of the quran and infer an attribute of Allah from it is very much against the teachings of Ibn Taymiyya and his modern followers. If one was to follow the teachings of Ibn Jawzi regarding Idafa then one could not look at the verse that says “The hand of Allah….” and infer that Allah has an attribute of a hand. By this same logic, even if a War lord had no hands one would not attribute hands to him if someone said “the city fell into his hands”.
One of the many reasons why the great classical Ulema of all madhabs, yes even the hanbalis, didnt take such verses literally.
laysa kamithlihi shay. There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER like unto him.
Do you, like Sheikh ibn Taymiyya, believe that limits, bodies, parts, etc are not (by necessity) characteristics of created things? because I’ve got all of these characteristics and i’m certainly created. According to ibn Hajar al asqalani this was the excuse ibn taymiyya made when so many of his contemporaries asked him to recant his statements. See: [Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani's biography of Ibn Taymiyya in al-durar al-kaamina fi a`yaan al-mi'at al-thaamina [The Hidden Pearls Concerning the Famous People of the Eighth Century] Hyderabad: Daa’irat al-ma`aarif al-`uthmaaniyya, 1384 H, vol. 1:144-160.]
Imam Ahmad or any of the mujtahideen or scholars of aqa’id never made such statements.
Indeed:
The Imam and hadith master (hafiz) Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066) relates in his Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad [The memorable actions of Imam Ahmad], through his chain of narrators that
Imam Ahmad condemned those who said Allah was a “body,” saying, “The names of things are taken from the Sharia and the Arabic language. The languages possessors have used this word [body] for something that has height, breadth, thickness, construction, form, and composition, while Allah Most High is beyond all of that, and may not be termed a “body” because of being beyond any meaning of embodiedness. This has not been conveyed by the Sharia, and so is refuted” (Azzami, al-Barahin al-satia [Cairo: Najm al-Din al-Kurdi, 1366/1947], 164).
Aoodhubillah! Imam Ahmad and the hanbali madhhab truely is free from what you ascribe to him.
Since we’re on the topic of theology we wont go into the other issues which the scholars condemned Sheikh Ibn Taymiya and even jailed him for, such as his belief that visiting the prophet’s grave is blameworthy or his belief in one-talaq divorce in contravention of the ijma of the ummah. The irony is that for all his time spent harranguing people for speaking about aqidah or the science of kalam (like his attacks on Imam al Ghazzali etc), he spent more time induldging in it than just about anyone else [Cf. al-Bt., al-Salafiyya (p. 164-175). ], even so much so that his own student al Dhahabi wrote letters to him censuring him for his actions and his beliefs, which is verified by the students of al Dhahabi and verified with a Sahih isnad through Ibn Qadi Shuhba.
Please explain to us how Sheikh Ibn Taymiyya’s many statements likening Allah to his creations, saying he literally has a hand or he’s literally in a place etc, is in anyway comparable to the practice of the sahaba and salaf of affirming the word of Allah but completely neglecting to try and interpret it (either figuratively OR literally) [i.e the minhaj of the Salaf and Ulema such as Imam Ahmad] and how it conforms to the statements of those such as at-Tahawi who specifically says that Allah is not confined by the six directions “as all of creation are” and is not made up of limbs or parts etc.
Indeed the beliefs of Imam at-Tahawi vastly differ from the kinds of beliefs that Sheikh Ibn Tamiyya held and was tried and jailed for.
Speaking of such beliefs, and the gravity of them, the Hanbali scholar Najm al-Din Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Qawi al-Tufi said:
“They ascertained that he had blurted out certain words, concerning doctrine, which came out of his mouth in the context of his sermons and legal pronouncements, and they mentioned that he had cited the tradition of the descent of Allh (swt) (to the nearest heaven), then climbed down two steps from the minbar and said: “Just like this descent of mine” and so was categorized as an anthropomorphist.” This was mentioned in Ibn Hajar’s “al-Durar al-Kmina” (1:153-155).
I think I’ll finish with the following statement by ibn Hajar al Haythami the hadith master and shafi’i scholar in his Fatawa Hadithiya:
The Shfi faqh, Shaykh al-Islm al-Haytam was asked: “Was the belief of Imm Ahmad ibn Hanbal the same as [certain] present-day Hanbals claim?” – He replied:
Concerning the doctrine of the Imm of Ahl al-Sunna, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (ra) – may Allh (swt) grant him the loftiest of gardens as his resting-place and destination, bestow upon us and him His bounties, and grant him a dwelling in the loftiest firdaws: his doctrine was in absolute conformity with the belief of Ahl al-Sunna, and completely concordant. It included the belief that Allh (swt) is exalted beyond those matters that the oppressors and dissenters attribute to Him. That is, Allh (swt) is exalted from possessing direction, parts, corporeality, and so forth among the various Attributes of imperfection.
The truth of the matter is that Allh is free from all the Attributes that are not characterized by absolute perfection; and all those things that are being circulated and publicized among the ignoramuses as being said by this great mujtahid Imm are a slander. It is an outright lie that this Imm ever claimed direction or the like in describing the Attributes of Allh (swt). May Allh lead to perdition those who attribute such positions to the Imm who is entirely exonerated of having said such things.
All these matters have been explained by the hadth Master, Imm Ab al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawz, who belongs to his [Imm Ahmad's] school. He has cleared the Imm’s name of such foul slanders and has provided explicit proofs exposing the lies of the slanderers.
And beware of what Ibn Taymiyya, his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and others wrote; he [Ibn Taymiyya] is a man who took his lusts for his Lord, for which Allh led him astray despite his learning, sealed upon his hearing and heart, and put a veil upon his sight; and who can guide him after Allh let him be misguided? Why should He not, when these heretics have gone past the boundaries set by the Shar`a and trampled them? Yet they imagine that they are the guided ones, that they are guided by their Lord Almighty when the truth is that they are not. Rather, they are on the wrong path, the most heinous, misleading way and most abominable traits. They are afflicted by vices and have incurred a great loss. May Allh humble their followers and wipe the earth clean from their likes!
May Allah guide you to the truth that he is as Imam at-Tahawi says: He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are.
Wassalamu alaikum
Salmaan, Do you have anything to say related to the actual post itself, or were you more interested in dumping the standard cut and paste jobs?
I’d be more interested in particulars of what you find wrong in the text of this article, than what you find wrong with Yasir Qadhi in general. Because if we start going down the entire ashari vs athari argument, we won’t have enough space to cover it all.
Finally, what al-Jawzi said about IT isn’t Quran or hadith for us, neither is the vice-versa. So, let’s move past ad hominem nattacks into an objective, reasoned discussion of the SPECIFIC material presented here.
Did the Salaf practise ta’weel as some heretics claim today?
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=547§ion=indepth&subsection=Belief
Sister Huma, I follow the Athari aqeedah just like yourself. Yet, I really think that we should avoid using the loaded term “heretic” when referring to our Ashari brethren, since it leads to misunderstanding and does not differentiate between the extreme ones from amongst their leaders in dawah and the awwam in general.
Using such a term so freely will surely create hatred in the hearts between them and us. Most of us live in the West, and we should be united.
-J.Hashmi
Huma,
The Prophet made du`a for Ibn Abbas. He said:
Allahumma `allimhul-hikmamati wa TA’WEELal-Kitaab.”
O Allah, make him knowledgable in the hikmah (Sunnah) and the TA’WEEL of the Kitaab (Qur’an).”
—Related by Al-Bukhari
It is widely known that Ibn `Abbas made ta’weel. For instance, the verse:
Allahu Nurus-samaawaati wal-Ard.” (An-Nur, 35)
Ibn Abbas did NOT say that Allah is an illumination that fills up the Heavens and Earth. Afterall, Muslims are not light worshippers. Ibn `Abbas said that “An-Nur” means “Al-Haadi”–’the One Who Guides.” Similarly his student, Mujaahid, did NOT claim that the verse:
“Fa’aynamaa tuwalu fathamma wajhullah.” (Al-Baqarah, 115)
…means that “Wherever you turn is the front part of Allah’s (alleged) head from the normal hairline to the chin and from ear to ear.” Mujaahid made non-literal interpretation. He said the word “wajh” means the “qiblah” and that one may face in any direction when performing the optional prayers while riding on an animal.”
Similarly Al-Bukhari made ta’weel for Al-Qasas, 88. He did not say that the verse:
“Kullu shay’in haalikun illa wajhah.”
…means that “Everything will be annihilated except for the (alleged) front of Allah’s head.”
Even from the anthropomophists point of view, a literal interpretation would be absurd, for it would mean that Allah’s (alleged) fingers, tibia, organs of sight, etc. would be annihilated. Al-Bukhari, to the contrary, said that “Wajh” refers to Allah’s Dominion (from his section on the explanation of the Qur’an in his Sahih).
In summary the scholars of the Salaf did not employ ta’weel AS FREQUENTLY as the later scholars. The latter used ta’weel more frequently because of the increasing weakness in the Arabic language amongst the Muslims (consequently, many Muslims were not familiar with the breadth of meanings of the words and classical idiomatic usage in the Arabic language). The other reason was that whereas at the time of the Salaf, (most of) the people readily understood that “Laysa kamithlihi shay’” (There is absolutely nothing like Allah whatsoever.) means that Allah REALLY is not similar to the creations. Hence, Allah, the Creator of space, direction, and time, is not inside of, adjacent to, or literally located above His creation; Allah was before the creations (there was no direction, space or time until Allah created them). Allah does not change (for change has a start–Allah does not have a start). In the early years, the belief that Allah was a giant spatial entity with a size, organs, a smiling face, a tibia, etc. was not widespread. To protect the Muslims from confusion and worshipping a giant imaginary entity some might think dwells above their heads, the later scholars went into more details in their explanations, according the proper `Aqidah and the rules of the Arabic language.
I know there is a lot of misinformation and confusion on this topic, but it is not difficult to understand once one understands that Allah is ABSOLUTELY INCOMPARABLE; hence, the attributes of bodies (such as, color, texture, temperature, size, mass, dimensions, motion, location, etc.) are utterly inapplicable to Allah. Any verse that may (by its literal reading) give the appearance of ascribing to Allah bodily characteristics is not to be taken literally but is interpretted with a meaning that complies with the Arabic language AND complies with the creed of Tanzih (i.e., Allah is absolutely without need or comparison). I hope this clears things up a little.
With Allah is the success.
In-sha’ Allah, before the discussion gets too heated, let’s try to extract the essential differences between Ahlus-Sunnah and those who refer to themselves as “Atharis” and the likes. There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the terminology. We need to focus on what is meant by the terms more so than who one may think is associated with using the terminology. This is key to gaining clarity and understanding.
Simply put, the Sunnis understand that Allah is One, Eternal, Absolutely Free-of-Need, and Absoltely Incomparable. I don’t believe any one who calls himself a Sunni objects to that.
We say Allah is One (112: 1); it means that Allah Unique, has no associates, and is indivisible. Hence, Allah is not composed of pieces and parts and is not a body. When we say Allah is not a body, we are not talking merely of a flesh and blood entity, we are talking about any being that exists within the dimensions of space. Stones, trees, air, and light are all bodies. The jinn and Angels are bodies; albeit they exists (usually) in dimensions unseen to us. What we imagine in our minds are mental bodies. All of these things are bodies–for they occupy some kind of space.
We say Allah is Eternal, i.e., (uniquely) Beginningless (57: 4); it means that Allah existed before all the creations. Light, darkness, space, distance, direction, time, and place are all other than Allah. Allah was and they were not. Furthermore, since we know that Allah is Eternal, we know that Allah does not develop, tranform, or change, for change, transformation, and development all occur in time. You cannot have a transformation that did not start. The thing that has a start has a “before the start” and an “after the start.” Allah does not have a before or an after. Allah always was. Allah exists without time.
Allah is Absolutely Free-of-Need (29: 6). This should be immediately understood from the fact that Allah is Eternal. Allah was and the creations were not. Allah did not need the creations before bringing them into being. After creating the creations, Allah did not become in need of them. Allah is not dependent upon anything. As for ourselves, we all exists in space. As i currently am, i can not fit (entirely) inside a 1 liter container. Why? Because i am DEPENDENT upon a specific (and specified) amount of volume (space) for my existence. If i do not have enough space, then, i cannot exists. If Allah were in a location, then He would be dependent upon space, as all things in locations are dependent on space. Allah is the Lord and Creator of space. Allah is not a spatial entity. Allah is not dependent upon any of the creations.
Allah is Absolutely Incomparable (42: 11). Allah is Eternal–everything else is created. This means that the creations are UTTERLY unlike their Creator. The creations are either bodies (things that occupy space) or their bodily characteristics (such as, temperature, odor, mass, color, texture, location, size, age, motion, stillness, etc.). The bodily characteristics cannot exist independent of bodies (you can’t, for example, have motion but their isn’t a body that is moving); hence, the bodily characteristics themselves exists in space. Since the creations exists in space, and Allah absolutely does not resemble the creations, then we know that Allah does not exists in space. This is the creed of Ahlus-Sunnah. It is consistent internally. It is compliance with the Revelation. And it is a doctrine that is intellectually invisible.
GETTING LOST IN TRANSLATION
First, it should be evident that it is possible for a person to mistranslate Verses or Hadiths. The rational proofs however cannot be mistranslated. They are not up for “interpretation.” The basic rational proof regarding Allah being clear of a location and space looks like this:
1. Allah ABSOLUTLEY does not need the creations (3: 97).
2. Space and location are something other than Allah.
________________________________________________
Ergo, Allah ABSOLUTLEY is not in need of space and location.
That ain’t no “filosafee,” folks–that’s just some good ole basic common sense.
As for those who refer to themselves as “Atharis.” They run into several problems here. For one they are not internally consistent. They claim that the Verses of the Qur’an have to be taken at “face value” (which is itself an example of figurative usage), but they turn around and make “ta’weel” for numerous verses and Hadiths of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam). Some examples were mentioned above. For sure, the so-called Atharis do not believe that Allah is a giant illumination that is here on earth, or that Allah is between the person and the neck of his riding animal, or was in the cave with the Prophet and Abu Bakr during the Hijrah, or that Allah’s (alleged) appendages, organs, and limbs will be annihilated on the Judgment Day. Why don’t they believe the aforementioned–afterall, it has been mentioned (in the literal sense) in the Qur’an and the Hadiths? Because they do not take those Verses and Hadiths at “face value.” They understand such Verses and Hadiths should NOT be taken in their most literal sense. In other words they make non-literal interpretation–that is, they engage in “ta’weel.”
Secondly words have meanings. One cannot say that Allah has a LITERAL tibia (or shin) and then say that Allah’s LITERAL shin is not a bone in the lower leg. If one believes that Allah is composed of bone, then FOR SURE, he is a gross anthropomorphist who has resembled the Creator to His creation. If he claims that Allah has a LITERAL shin, but it is not a bone in the lower leg, then such a person does not know what the word “literal” means, nor does he know what the word “shin” means. The same can be said about the other organs, limbs, and appendages that the so-called Atharis ascribe to Allah. Either one takes such (alleged) attributes literally and claims Allah is a giant smiling faced entity with fingers, a foot that is small enough to fit into Hell, organs of sight, and a shinbone–and consequently falls into tashbih (resembling Allah to the created)–or he does not take them in their literal sense. One cannot have it both ways: one cannot claim to take such verses literally… but in a figurative sense.
A word about “aboveness.” The word “above” (`uloo, in Arabic) can have two (actually, many more, but two that are the point of contention here) different meanings. “Above” can be meant in a literal directional sense. Or it can mean in a sense of status. For instance, in the old days, the English kings were referred to (by their kaafir subjects) as their “Royal Highness.” They were not talking about the king being in the highlands somewhere–it was evident they meant status. Likewise, if some enemies of a man (“Zaid”) known for his piety claimed they saw him passed out drunk with crack pipe in his hand in front of the local liquor store, one might say: “This is slander–Zaid is ABOVE being in such a condition.” Obviously, once again, the “aboveness” refers to merit and status and not literal location. Similarly, the aboveness of Allah refers not to a direction where Allah (allegedly) dwells. Instead the “aboveness” of Allah refers to His Glory, Greatness, and Supremacy from being blemished by any of the attributes of created beings.
Also, more fundamental than simply a confusion about the meanings of words is one’s conviction about the Creator. Allah is not inferior to anything. The thing that exists within time, location, and direction is inferior to the One Who exists without time, location, and direction. Allah is not inferior to anything; hence, Allah does not exist in location, time, or direction. Also, as was mentioned, Allah ABSOLUTELY does not resemble the creations. Being of space and direction are properties of created beings. Allah REALLY is not similar to the creations. Allah is not in space or direction. Furthermore, if a person is praying to a huge imaginary spatial entity (i.e., a body) he believes hovers above his head, and that this being has a giant smiling face, a tibia, fingers, eyes, a pair of feet, stretched out hands, who nightly moves about through the Heavens, then this person is not worshipping the Creator of the Universe–he is worshipping merely a fanciful product of his imagination and the imaginations of those who have mistranslated and distorted Divine Verses and Prophetic Hadiths. We all need to be clear that Muslims worship the Lord, Creator, and Owner of space and time, and we do not pray to anything that exists within space or time. This is the creed of salvation. May Allah give us the tawfeeq to die upon it.
With Allah is the success.
Ahmad,
The problem is twofold if one insists on a literalist meaning. For one, a person cannot claim that Allah has two “literal hands”–and then negate that Allah has two “end parts of the human arm beyond the wrist including the fingers and thumb.” (Oxford Dictionary). Words, afterall, have meanings. To claim Allah has literal hands entail not merely resemblence, but outright anthropomorphism. The literal meaning of “hand” is known by every native speaker of the the English language. The word “hand” (literally)–by the “ijmaa`” of those who speak English– refers to a human body part. Consequently, it is absurd to say that Allah has “literal hands”–but these literal hands are not literal hands. Much the same can be said of what some have translated as “face,” “shin,” “smiling,” “sitting,” and ascribed them to Allah. If one claims these (alleged) attributes are “literal” he commits tashbih–if he does not take them literally, then he has rejected his intial claim (of insisting on literalism). Afterall, a person cannot claim that Allah has a pair of “end parts of the human arm beyond the wrist including the fingers and thumb,” but they are not like human’s. That’s clearly a contradiction. Either one is talking about a literal pair of hands–which are body parts and tashbih (comparing the Creator to the created)–or he is talking about something else. If he means something else, then he he’s not talking about “literal hands.”
The second problem is that if one claims that Allah has just a pair of hands–then one is claiming that Allah is limited–even from his point of view. Also, we know from some of the Hadith–according to the literalists–that the Earth will be Allah’s (alleged) handFULL. Given that the Earth is much smaller than the `Arsh, that would mean that Allah’s (alleged) hands are relatively small. Furthermore, at-Tahawi made it EXPLICITLY clear that Allah is clear not merely of boundaries and limits–but also of organs, limbs and devices. Allah does not have limited number of literal “hands.”
Another point is that folks are getting lost in translation AND distortion. For sure, folks are tampering with the sayings of the Salaf scholars. One example is the phrase used by the Salaf (and khalaf): “Bi-laa kayf,” which means: With NO how.” The scholars did not say: “Bi-laa SU’AALI kayf,” that is, “without ASKING how.” Allah has no “howness” (modality, manner of being) to ask about. Just as texture, color, size, moisture, dryness, weight, etc. are inapplicable to Allah, so is “howness”–for Allah really is not similar to the creations. This insertion of the term “asking” is a clear example of tampering in translation. Regarding the quotations from the Sunni scholars, i will produce statements from books that are contrary to your claims, such as mentioning that Imam Ali said Allah is not ascribed with organs and limbs nor is Allah ascribed with limits–nor is Allah located above the `Arsh. Similarly, i can say that Al-Bukhari made ta’weel, or the Prophet himself made du`a that Ibn `Abbas be learned in the ta’weel of the Qur’an. Similar can be said of statements from Abu Hanifah, Al-Bayhaqi, the Mufassirun, etc. I can also tell you that contrary to some of the quotes mentioned above, that some of the so-called Atharis do say that Allah “sits”–some even say “in person”–on the `Arsh. I know that there is “ikhtilaaf” on some cases among the corporealists, such as whether or not Allah has (an alleged) head to go along with His (alleged) face, or the number of fingers He (allegedly) has. I won’t trust your sources (for i’ve seen the lies and distortions therein)–i will say that either the books have been tampered with or misinterpretted. You will similarly claim that my sources are suspect.
With that said, i prefer to keep it very short and simple. A reasonably intelligent person can readily undestand that it is possible to misinterpret or distort another’s saying or a Verse or Hadith; a reasonably intelligent person however cannot misinterpret a rational proof. And a reasonably intelligent person is not going to reject the use of common sense–afterall, you can’t debate with someone whose objective is to persuade you not to be reasonable. We will both say that Allah is the One and Only Creator. Everything other than Allah is created by Him. Space and time are not Allah–Allah created both of them. Allah was and they were not. We will both say that there is nothing superior to Allah. I will then say that the thing that exists within space and time is necessarily inferior to the One Who exists without space and time. The opposite cannot possibly be true. The former being dependent, and the latter being absolutely Transcendent (as in Free-of-Need–not in altitude) makes the latter superior to the thing that exists within time and space. No one or thing is superior to the One Who exists without time or space. From this we know Allah exists without time or space, for nothing is superior to Him.
At some point, we have to acknowledge the use of common sense. Otherwise, we will be reduced to blindly following someone else’s misinterpretations. A doctrine that teaches that the Lord and Creator of the Universe lives above our heads with a giant smiling face, a limited number of comparatively small hands and feet, a real actual literal tibia, who travels about repeatedly in any given 24 hour period from the `Arsh down into the, relatively speaking, minuscule First Heaven has a belief that is inferior to the person who says: Allah is Eternal and Everlasting; Allah is the Lord, Owner, and Creator of time and space and all that exists therein. Allah is not dependent upon anything that exists in time or space, and Allah is not similar to anything that is within time or space. This is what the Sahabah understood when they said “Laa ilaaha illallah–wahdahu laa sharikalah.” They were not, afterall, base and crude anthropomophists, literalists, or corporealists.
With Allah is the tawfeeq. May Allah grant us the blessed endings.
Sister UE,
The Ash`aris are not “close” to Ahlus-Sunnah, they ARE Ahlus-Sunnah–along with the Maturidis. A grave slander and distortion of history is taking place today, for you have some claiming that the Ash`aris are not Sunnis. Look around the earth prior to the age of colonialism and see what it was that the Sunni Ummah was following. What happened, in summary is that the Ash`aris (and Maturidis) studied the arguments of various deviant factions and refuted them with the proofs from the Qur’an, from the Sunnah, from the sayings of the early scholars, and with the rational proofs that demonstrated the internal inconsistencies of their opponents.
You have some people, like the quasi-hanbalis, who attempt to defame the Ash`aris. The reason being is that the Ash`aris so thoroughly dismantled the anthropomorphic and corporeal doctrines of the quasi-hanbalis in the past. It’s not the case that the Ash`aris chose the intellect over Revelation–but they demonstrated that the correct belief in Allah is rationally consistent. Saying Allah Eternal and doesn’t need anything or resemble anything, but then claiming Allah is subject to time, has a size, location, organs and limbs is a contradiction. On the other hand, believing that Allah is the Creator of space and time, and that Allah does not resemble the things that exists within space and time–and is not dependent on space and time itself; hence He exists without space and time–is rationally consistent and in compliance with what Allah revealed.
As a convert who had been exposed to a lot of philosophy and other religious beliefs, i was looking for a way to know RATIONALLY who is correct. Afterall, anyone could come along with their “interpretation” of the Qur’an and tell me that they are right. At some point a person has to use his natural intelligence to distinguish between what would necessarily be valid to believe about Allah and what would be necessarily invalid to believe about Allah. The Ash`aris did that simply and succinctly:
Allah (alone) is Eternal. (Hence, refuting the claims of the philosophers.)
Allah is the Creator of everything. (Hence, refuting the claim of the Qadariyyah-Mu`tazilah.)
Allah does not need or resemble anything (Hence, defeating the claim of the anthropomorphists, the incarnationists, the pantheists, those who believe Allah is in time, direction, or space, etc.)
The Ash`aris proved their points with Qur’an and Sunnah–and they demonstrated that the belief is rationally sound. Because of the thoroughness by which the Ash`aris and Maturidis presented the tenets of the `Aqidah, this is why the Sunnis the world over adopted their methodology. I hope this makes things a little clearer.
With Allah is the success.
And what about the Atharis?
-J.Hashmi
Praise be to Allah
The Qur’an mentions there is nothing like Allah. From that I understand Allah is absoultely not like the creations. The creations exist in time. The creations have a beginning to their existence. Changes occur among the creations. None of this can be attributed to Allah. Because nothing is like Allah in any way. This is the belief of the Ash`aris.
The Ash`aris certainly do not deny any of Allah’s attributes. But we do not attribute non-befitting things to Allah.
The Ash’aris slander shaykhul Islam ibn Taymiyyah and accuse him of ANTHROPOMORPHISM. This is due to their ignorance of what shaykhul Islam was upon and their ta’weel of the athar.
Here is a glimpse:
http://www.islaam.net/main/display.php?category=27
Ibn Hajar believes that Allah speaks with sound, if He wishes, as he writes in his Fath.
Assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuhu,
“And what about the Atharis?”
A standard response from the innovators regarding this issue is that, in reality, there is no contradiction between a “true” athari aqidah and the kalamist mumbo – jumbo. One wonders why then innovators innovated their innovation, and why atharis continuously rejected kalam and condemned those who practiced it as innovators. All the theological discussions between ahlu-l-haqq and kalamists then really had no purpose; people seemed to have been just really really bored, to the point of frustration which resulted in fights and quarrels over things they really didn’t disagree about. Right. But don’t let sound logic, the use of which you pride yourself with (baseless pride, I’ll say), intrude into your fantasy world with no directions.
All those kalamists who say that their aqidah is not in contradiction with the aqidah of Imam Ahmad should just consider one simple fact: Ibn Kullab, a contemporary of Imam Ahmad, was far less problematic in terms of his innovations than Abul Hasan al Ashari, whom he preceded. Yet Imam Ahmad forbade people from visiting Ibn Kullab exactly because of his theological innovations. And I repeat, Ibn Kullab’s kalam is pure orthodoxy compared to what modern-day Asharis believe and propagate.
As far as the charges of antropomorphism are concerned, the blasphemy of the Asharis in this regards is beyond reproach, because they claim that to understand the attributes of Allah as the Prophet, s.a.w.s. and his companions understood it constitutes antropomorphism. How blasphemous is that?
I also find it interesting that even non-Muslims have more positive things to say about shaykhul-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah, r.a., than the kalamists. A few interesting bits from the article about ibn Taymiyyah by George Makdisi:
Ibn Taymiyah lived in a period between those of two notable propagandists of the rationalist Ashari movement in theology: Ibn Asakir (d. 1176) and Subki (d. 1370). The attempt of the Ashari movement to obtain legitimacy by infiltrating the Shafii madhhab (school) of law-an attempt that surfaced in the eleventh century-was still developing and had to face two implacable forces blocking its goal. The traditionalist movement was represented particularly by two madhhabs of law: the Hanbali and the Shafii. The former was the obvious obstructive force, while the latter included the Ashari faction, which was hard at work to gain the adherence of fellow Shafiis to Ashari thought, an effort destined to fail in the face of the alliance between the traditionalists of the two madhhabs.
Already in the days of Ibn Asakir the traditionalists had introduced an institution that was conceived to correct, among other things, the detrimental consequences of the exclusory principle in the madrasah, according to which only those students who chose to belong to the madhhab represented by the madrasah were admitted. This policy tended to be divisive, separating members of the traditionalist movement who belonged to all the Sunni madhhabs, while allowing the Ashariyah to stay within one madhhab, the ShafiI. The new institution that helped to correct the situation was the Dar al-Hadith, wherein the principal subject of instruction was hadith rather than law, and students of any of the four madhhabs could attend. Thus a Hanbali professor, such as Ibn Taymiyah, could have students belonging to the Shafii madhhab, such as al-Birzali, Mizzi, and al-Dhahabi. The first Dar al-Hadith was founded in Damascus by the Zengid ruler Nur al-Din (d. 1173).
To the philosophical theology of the Ashariyah, Ibn Taymiyah opposed his famous professions of faith (aqidah; pl., aqaid). His first full-length aqidah, written at the request of the people of Hama in the year 1299 and therefore known as Al-aqidah al-hamawiyah, was very hostile to the Ashariyah and their kalam-theology. According to Ibn Rajab, Ibn Taymiyah wrote this aqidah in one sitting. His other important profession of faith is the Aqidah wasitiyah, written for a group of religious intellectuals in Wasit (Iraq) before the arrival of the Mongols in Damascus. Both professions of faith were attacked by his enemies, and he was taxed with anthropomorphism. In a meeting in the house of the Shafii qadi Imam al-Din Umar ibn Abd al-Rahman alQazwini (d. 1299) the Aqidah hamawiyah was studied; Ibn Taymiyah was questioned regarding various points, and it was deemed to be satisfactory. Regarding the Wasitiyah, even the Ashari-Shafii Safi al-Din al-Hindi (d. 1315) found it to be in conformity with the Quran and sunnah. Nevertheless, his enemies tried hard to keep him in prison, even to have him executed, but failed on both counts.
Wassalaam.
Swarthmoor, I have read some of your previous writings and you seem to be a Habashi, a Sufi group which has been at the forefront in attacking Ibn Taymiyyah. So if you are so concerned about tashbeeh and tajseem, why is your group(the Ahbash) backed and allied by the Syrian regime which is led by the real mujassimah, the Nusayris(a Baatini sect which deifies Ali(RA) and has Baatini beliefs about him). Can you explain this hypocrisy? I also find it strange, that many of the contemporary Sufis and Ash’aris who love to attack Ibn Taymiyyah lionize the Baatini Sufi heretic, Ibn Arabi, and consider him to be “Sultan al-Awliya”, “Ash-Shaykh al-Akbar”, and “Muhyi ad-Deen”!
People’s comments on this page are a microcosm of what they really feel about the Ashari/Athari divide. Most are either for or against, there is very little ‘middle-ground’.
I HOPE BR. YASIR REALISES THE FUTILITY OF SIGNING THE “Pledge of Mutual Respect and Cooperation…” – This has simply given more momentum for these misguided sufi sects (and blatant liars) to attack the Ahlul Hadeeth.
Why would you sign a “unity pact” and then bring issues such as the subject matter on this page? Is it done in the name of a ‘academic debate’? Orientalists have been maligninging Islam and our Prophet Muhammad (Sallaho Alaihe Wassallam) in the most cunning and conniving manner, all in the name of academic discourse.
Read and understand the pledge before you naseeha all over this thread.
Brother Zaki, surely you don’t mean to use this as a proof against academic discourse overall? That would truly be a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water! What kind of backwards nation (ummah) would we be if we abandoned academic discourse.
I think brother Qas is referring to this part of the Sunni Unity Pledge:
So that is exactly what Ustadh Yasir Qadhi was doing. Of course, some of us laypersons do go to excess, and perhaps Ustadh Yasir should issue a reminder warning to us to refrain from that, insha-Allah. Having said that, I think we should trust that Ustadh Yasir knows what he is doing, as he has proven himself to be a capable leader.
-J.Hashmi
MM Associates, when I mentioned the orientalists, I should have specified that I meant ‘academic discourse’ in the context of “free thinking” rather than (as you rightly mention) academic discourse in its own right.
As for your quote from the pledge:
>> we do not deny the reality of legitimate differences and approaches nor the passionate advocacy of specific positions based on those differences.
My argument is that a difference is NOT legitimate where one party (namely the sufi asharis) throw blind accusations (read: blatant lies) and every kind of dirt on the honour of Athari scholars and Imam. You may not see them with a sanitised eye, but I have enough experience with these people to understand their real agenda. If you want me to name names, I am willing to do that, but this is neither the time or place to embark on this type of discussion.
>> Such issues should be rightfully discussed observing established rules of debate.
Can you see these established ‘rules of debate’ within the comment section? All I see is qeel wa qaal that results in the same thing which the pledge was supposed to disuade; namely “ill-will among many Muslims, while fostering a divisive, sectarian spirit”.
As for Qas’s assumption that I would speak of something without reading or understanding it, is funny to say the least. What I had in mind was the following section of the pledge:
>> …to leave off unproductive and divisive discussions of involved theological issues that are the proper domain of trained specialists,
If it is the “domain of trained specialists”, then after writing the above piece, sh. Yasir should not have left the comment section open for the discerning readership of this thread to air their divisive opinions. Does he think all those who read MM are trained specialists and thus allowed to partake in the debate? This again would be contarary to the pledge:
>> …and we especially discourage participation in those internet chat rooms, campus discussion groups, and other forums that only serve to create ill-will among many Muslims, while fostering a divisive, sectarian spirit;
I also note the following from the pledge:
>> However, we urge the above measures to help prevent those differences from destroying the historical unity and integrity of the Muslim community
Correct me if I am wrong, but I never knew there was a ‘historical unity’ between the Ahlul Hadeeth and the Ahlul Kalam? There may have been superficial or cosmetic ‘unity’, but certainly not a deep rooted and integral one.
My comments were general and the statement about the pledge was directed at sh. Yasir. I am sure it is his prerogative to respond, but I thank you and Qas for giving me the opportunity to clarify my brief overview.
Wassalaam,
Zaki.
Well the unity argument is quite straw man anyways. There cannot be unity on the batil. But there can always be cooperation on good. As muslims we should always cooperate on good and stay away/reject what is wrong.
Wa alaykum as-salam, brother Suhail.
I do not think that Ustadh Yasir Qadhi would have signed a pact entitled “Sunni Unity Pledge” if he did not think unity was possible. But I may be mistaken; perhaps Ustadh Yasir can clarify…although I’m sure he’s tired of this regurgitated debate.
-J.Hashmi
Wa alaykum as-salam, brother Zaki.
Thank you for your input. I agree that some of the users may have gone to excess.
-J.Hashmi
I think those who have a leaning towards asha’rite ideology did not manage to visit the site that sis Huma gave. Here I quote some telling evidence that proves the type of misinformation their leaders spread today:
* Examples that the Asharees give to “prove” that the salaf delved into ta’weel. *
As mentioned previously the Ash’arees not content to merely delve into ta’weel, ascribe it to the Salaf, may Allaah be pleased with them all, and quote narrations from them to do so.
A number of examples will be quoted below taken from the lectures of Nuh Haa Meem Keller, some of which can be found in the book of Kabbani.
Then while reading some of the refutations of the true traditional scholars to the footnotes of Hasan Saqqaaf to the work ‘Daf’ Shubah at-Tashbeeh’ I found that Keller had merely quoted from this work. For Saqqaaf brings a section in his introduction wherein he tries to prove that the Salaf practiced ta’weel. Needless to say, he filled this introduction with semi-quotes, misquotes, fabrications, and distortions. And we could go through each and every example he brings and prove them false as done by some scholars, but we will suffice with mentioning only a few to show that not content with merely slandering the great scholars of Ahlus Sunnah he has to go on and put lies into the mouth of our Righteous Salaf!
* Over the verse in which Allaah addresses the unbelievers on the Day of Judgement, “Today We forget them (nansaahum) as they have forgotten the meeting of this Day of theirs “[7:51]
Keller states, “which the early Muslims used to interpret figuratively as reported by a scholar who was himself an early Muslim – salafee – and indeed the shaykh of the early Muslims in Qur’aanic exegesis, the hadeeth master….Haafidh ibn Jareer at-Tabaree, who died 310 years after the Hijra and who explains the above verse, ‘today We forgotten them as they have forgotten this Day of theirs’, as meaning, “this Day, resurrection Day, we shall forget them, so as to say, we shall abandon them to their punishment” Now this is precisely ta’weel – or interpretation in other than the verses ostensive sense….” He goes on to say that this same ‘ta’weel’ was reported by ibn Abbaas and his student Mujaahid.
It is surprising, how a few eloquent words can fool the people, for in reality the meaning of the above words is empty. For all Keller does is betray his ignorance with regards to the Arabic Language for the word nansaakum, coming from the root verb nasiya, yansaa can mean, either to deliberately leave and abandon or to forget and fail to remember [See 'Lisaan al-Arab' for example]. Therefore the meaning of this verse is clear and that is ‘Today we abandon them as they have abandoned this Day of theirs’ and this is not taking the verse from it’s clear and literal meaning as Keller claims.
This is the tafseer that at-Tabaree gives following ibn Abbaas and Mujaahid,
“We will abandon them in the punishment which cuts them off, leaving them hungry and thirsty without any food or drink, just as they abandoned action for the Meeting on this Day, and they rejected preparation for it…. And we have explained clearly the meaning of His saying ‘nansaahum’ previously along with it’s witnesses, so their is no need to repeat it.”
Further the implication that Keller leaves is that the Salafees who take the verses literally must then believe that Allaah forgets, and this is evil and a lie against the Salafees, for no one has ever said this for the very reason mentioned above.
* Over the verse, ‘ And the sky with built bi Aydin, verily we outspread it ”
Keller assumes that ‘bi Aydin’ means ‘with Hands’ and then states, following Saqqaaf, “at-Tabaree ascribes the figurative explanation – ta’weel – of ‘with Hands’ as meaning, quote, ‘with Power’, through five chains of transmission to ibn Abbaas….”
Again the argument is empty for the word Alif Yaa Daal, which is the root of ‘bi Aydin’ means ‘Power’, and not hands as Keller thinks, and can be found in any Arabic dictionary. So how can there be ta’weel here?! Also this verse, even if taken to mean ‘with Hands’, does not link them to Allaah, i.e. as being the Hands of Allaah, so there is no proof in this verse for the ta’weel of the Ash’arees from any perspective! [See 'as-Sawaa'iq wa ash-Shuhab' of Shaykh Abu Wadaa'ah al-Atharee (pg. 40)]
So if one were to ask: but you Salafees take the Qur’aan upon it’s literal meaning, so how can you use the argument above? The reply is: that the founding principle is that we take the Qur’aan and Sunnah as it was understood by the Salaf, so what they took literally we take literally, and where they departed from the literal meaning, we too depart from the literal meaning. This is what is indicated in the previous sayings of the scholars that it is from the rights of the Words of Allaah that they be taken literally unless an evidence indicate otherwise e.g. the understanding of the Salaf. What has happened here, as is common, is that the Ash’arees have put arguments into the mouths of the Salafees that in reality do not exist and then go on to refute them so as to misguide the unaware listeners. Shaykh Yusuf Muhammad Siddique said, “and the ta’weel of one who says: ‘What is intended by Yad is power is not correct since it is not correct for the saying of Allaah: ‘….to one who I created with My Two Hands…’ to mean: ‘with My Power’ when Hand has been mentioned in the dual. And if that had been correct then Iblees would have said: ‘and You created me also with Your Power, so he (Adam) has no superiority over me in that.’ However, Iblees, along with his disbelief, is more knowledgeable of his Lord than the Jahmiyyah.” ['Daqaa'iq Aqueedah inda A'immatul Arba'ah' (pg. 11-12)]
Know also that the Mu’tazila used the very same verse above as a proof for ta’weel, saying, “‘the sky we built with Aydin’. Al-Aydee means power (quwwa), and hence it is necessary that the meaning of ‘My Two Hands’ be: My Two Powers”
Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’aree replied to this ta’weel saying,
“it is said to them that this ta’weel is wrong (faasid) from many perspectives the last of which is that ‘al-Aydee’ is not the plural of yad (hand) because the plural of yad which is used to mean ni’ma (favour) is ‘Ayaadee’ and all that Allaah said was ‘to the one who I created with My Two Hands (bi yaday)’ so it is false that the meaning of His saying, ‘with My Two Hands’ be the meaning of His saying, ‘we built it with Power’.” ['al-Ibaanah' (pg.134)]
And there are many verses in the Qur’aan, many Ahaadeeth and the consensus of the Salaf that Allaah has Two Hands without asking how and likening them to the hands of the creation. Reading any early work on Aqueedah will establish this.
* Over the hadeeth, “Allaah the Most High Laughs about two men, one of whom kills the other, but both will enter Paradise. The one who fights in the way of Allaah and is killed and afterwards Allaah forgives the killer, then he fights in the path of Allaah and is martyred.”
Keller claims, following Saqqaaf, “the hadeeth master al-Bayhaqee records that the scribe of Bukhaaree, Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Farabree, related that Imaam Bukhaaree said quote, “the meaning of Laughter is Mercy”. This statement of al-Bayhaqee occurs in his ‘Asmaa was Sifaat’ (pg. 470) but he quotes no chain of narration for it, and therefore it cannot be depended upon as indicated in the words of Abdullaah bin al-Mubaarak said,
“The isnaad is from the Deen, were it not for the isnaad, whosoever willed could say whatever he wished.”
Imaam Bukhaaree, may Allaah have Mercy upon him, was clearly upon the way of the Salaf, meaning he affirmed the Attributes of Allaah as they befitted Him, and this is seen in his work ‘Saheeh al-Bukhaaree’ and his work ‘Khalq Af’aal al-Ebaad.’ As for the above hadeeth, Bukhaaree mentions it in two places in his ‘Saheeh’:
1) Book of the merits of the Ansaar, chpt. 10
2) Book of Tafseer, chpt. 6
And nowhere does he mention the aforementioned ta’weel. In fact ibn Hajr says, after quoting the words of al-Bayhaqee, “I have not seen this in any of the manuscripts that we have come across.”['al-Fath' (8/631)]
Adh-Dhahabee quotes from Abu Ubaid al-Qaasim bin Sallaam (d.224) that he said, while talking about the Laughter of Allaah,
“These are authentic ahaadeeth, the Ashaabul Hadeeth and the Legal jurists have conveyed them, some from others, and they are the truth in which there is no doubt according to us. But if it was said, “how does He Laugh?” We say: we do not explain this, and we have not heard anyone explain it.”
['Siyar' (10/505). The statement of Abu Ubaid is also mentioned by ibn Abdul Barr in 'at-Tamheed' (7/149). Abu Ubaid is the faqeeh, linguist, and muhaddith. He studied under a group of the taabi'een like Sufyaan bin Uyaynah and Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdee. Imaam Ahmad said about him, "Abu Ubaid is a teacher, every day he increases in good." And Yahya bin Ma'een said, "the people should ask Abu Ubaid".]
And adh-Dhahabee adds to this saying,
“and the scholars of the Salaf explained the important and unimportant words (occurring in the Qur’aan and Sunnah)… and as for the verses and the ahaadeeth of the Attributes they never subjected them to ta’weel, and they are the most important in the religion, so if ta’weel was permissible than they would have undertaken it. So know with certainty that reciting them, and leaving them as they came is the truth, and there is no explanation for them other than this, so we believe in this, and we are silent following the Salaf, believing that they are the Attributes of Allaah…and that they do not resemble the attributes of creation”
So again the way of the Salaf was to take the Attribute of the Laughter of Allaah as it came without asking how, and likening it to creation. And the meaning of ‘reciting them’ is that the clear meaning is sufficient for us, and there is no need to delve into ta’weel, as has preceded.
[Refer to 'As-Sawwa'iq wa ash-Shuhab' (pg. 44+), 'Rudood wat Ta'qubaat' (pg.131+), 'Ittihaaf Ahl al-Fadl' (pg. 1/82+)]
Over the verse, ” And your Lord shall come ” ( wa jaa’a rubbuk)
Keller states, “the hadeeth master Haafidh ibn Katheer reports in his ‘Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ that Imaam Bayhaqee related from al-Haakim: from Abu Umar ibn Samaaq: from Hanbal (ibn Ishaaq), the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that quote, ‘Ahmad bin Hanbal figuratively interpreted the words of Allaah, Most High, “And your Lord shall come”, as meaning: His recompense shall come.” Al-Bayhaqee said, “this chain of narration has absolutely nothing wrong with it.”"
This taken from Hasan Saqqaaf from his introduction (no.4) who also mentions two further examples wherein Imaam Ahmad is supposed to have made ta’weel (no’s 5,7) all from the narrations of Hanbal bin Ishaaq, who is alone in reporting these narrations – and the scholars have discussed that it is common to find that what Hanbal is alone in narrating contradicts the famous and well-known stances of Imaam Ahmad, and therefore some of the Hanbalee scholars like al-Khallaal and others did not depend upon these type of narrations from him.
Imaam ibn al-Qayyim says, “indeed these narrations are erroneously attributed to Imaam Ahmad, for indeed Hanbal is alone in narrating them from him, and he has many narrations which he alone reports that contradict the famous stances in his madhab, so when he is alone in transmitting that which contradicts a famous stance of his (i.e. Ahmad) then al-Khallaal and his companion Abd al-Azeez do not consider these narrations to be established while Abu Abd Allaah bin Haamid and others considered these to be established.
And what is correct is that these narrations are irregular/odd (shaadh) contradicting the mainstream/essence of his madhhab.”['Mukhtasar Sawaa'iq al-Mursilah' (2/452) of ibn al-Qayyim]
And this statement of ibn al-Qayyim is supported by what Qaadee Abu Ya’laa reports from Abu Ishaaq bin Shaaqalaa after mentioning this narration from Imaam Ahmad, “…’there is no doubt that this is an error from Hanbal’, and Abu Ishaaq meant that his (Ahmad’s) madhhab was to take the verse upon it’s clear and literal meaning i.e. the Coming of the Person (of Allaah), this is what is obvious from his words, and Allaah knows best.” ['Ibtaal at-Ta'welaat' (1/132) of Abu Ya'laa]
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “and there is no doubt that mutawaatir narrations from Imaam Ahmad contradict this narration, and it becomes clear that he did not say: indeed the Lords’ Command comes or descends, rather he rebuked the one who said this.”['al-Fataawaa (5/401)]
And what is authentically related from Imaam Ahmad is what Qaadee Abu Ya’laa narrates, “Hanbal said: I asked Abu Abdullaah: ‘Allaah the Mighty and Magnificent – Descends to the lowest heaven?’ He said, ‘yes.’ I said, ‘is His Descent by His Knowledge or what?’ Then he said to me, ‘be silent about this,’ and he became very angry and said, ‘leave the hadeeth as it came.’ ['Ikhtilaaf ar-Riwaayatain' (1/250) of Abu Ya'laa and also 'Mukhtasar as-Sawaa'iq' (pg. 386)]
This narration is supported by what Imaam Abdullaah bin Ahmad reports in his book ‘as-Sunnah’, “I asked my father, ‘Allaah Descends to the lowest heaven. How is His Descending, is it His Knowledge or what? He said, ‘be quiet or severe punishment shall afflict you, leave the hadeeth as they come.”
So as Jareer at-Tabaree says: Coming (Majee and al-Ityaan) are Attributes of the Lord, and it is not permissible for anyone to go beyond bounds in discussing this except with a narration from Allaah or from a Messenger who is sent. ['Tafseer ibn Jareer' (2/191)]
Imaam Abul Hasan al-Ash’aree said, “We say: That indeed Allaah, Azza wa Jall, will Come on the Day of Judgement as He said, ‘ and your Lord shall Come, and His angels – rank upon rank’.”['al-Ibaanah' (pg.61), see also 'Tabyeen al-Kadhib al-Muftaree' of ibn Asaakir.]
In the same category falls the narration that Keller quotes from Imaam Ahmad, “we believe in them and consider them true without how and without meaning” for it is also singularly narrated by Hanbal bin Ishaaq. And even if it were authentic then Shaykh Saalih al-Uthaymeen said, “the meaning that Imaam Ahmad negates in his words is the meaning that was initiated by the Mu’attila from the Jahmiyyah and others, by which they changed the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah from their literal meanings to meanings that contradicted them. And the fact that he negated the kayfiyyah and meaning, so that his words are taken to refute both parties: the Mu’attila and Mushabbiha, indicates (the truth of) what we have mentioned.”[ Talkhees al-Hamawiyyah' (pg. 63) of ibn Uthaimeen. And the truth of his words can be seen in what has preceded, that if the meaning of the Attributes is negated then their would be no conceivable need to negate the kayfiyyah also.] [ See 'as-Sawaa'iq wa ash-Shuhab' (pg. 42-44, 51+), 'Rudood wat-Ta'qubaat' (185+), 'Ittihaaf Ahl al-Fadl' (1/32+)]
So from what has preceded it becomes clear that Imaam Bayhaqee’s, may Allaah have mercy upon him, authentication of the narration is erroneous, and this along with the earlier example lends weight to the truth of Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan’s statement, “and mentioning al-Bayhaqee for this is not to be depended upon, because al-Bayhaqee, may Allaah have mercy upon him, had something of ta’weel of the Attributes. So his reporting of this subject is not to be trusted, because maybe he was lenient in his reporting.”['at-Ta'qeebaat alaa Kitaab as-Salafiyyah laysat madhaban' (pg. 33) of Saalih al-Fawzaan, his refutation of the book by al-Bootee.]
Likewise Shaykh Abdul Azeez bin Baaz said, “as for what occurs in the words of al-Bayhaqee, may Allaah have mercy upon him, in his book ‘al-I’tiqaad’ with regards to such things – then this is from what entered upon him from the speech of the Mutakallimeen and their false additions. This was passed to him and he believed in the correctness of this, whereas the truth is that it is from the words of the People of Innovation, not from the words of the People of the Sunnah.” ['Tanbeehaat Haamah alaa maa katabahu ash-Shaykh Muhammad Alee as-Saaboonee fee Sifaat Allaah - Azza wa Jall' (pg.23)]
The truth of the above words can be ascertained when we come to know that from the teachers of al-Bayhaqee was Abu Bakr ibn Fawraq. Adh-Dhahabee described him as “the Shaykh of the Mutakallimeen” and also, “he was Ash’aree, a head of the field of kalaam” and, “I say: he was taken in chains to Sheeraz for his beliefs. And Abdul Waleed related that the Sultaan Mahmood asked him about Allaah’s Messenger (SAW) so he said: ‘He was Allaah’s Messenger, but as for us today then no,’ so he ordered that he be killed with poison. Ibn Hazm said, ‘he used to say that the soul of Allaah’s Messenger has expired and passed away – and is not in Paradise.’” End of quote from adh-Dhahabee. ['as-Siyar' (17/214-216)]
Not only this but the isnaad of that al-Bayhaqee mentions includes Abu Amr ibn Samaak who is not known as stated by adh-Dhahabee in his ‘Talkhees’ (1/539) so it is not possible to be an isnaad having nothing wrong with it! So in conclusion, ‘Coming’ (Majee’) is an Attribute of Allaah and as such is to be taken without asking how or likening to creation. And as for those that claim that taking this Attribute literally necessitates that we believe Allaah to move from one place to another etc.
Then the reply to this is: only a person who resembles Allaah to His creation would believe this, and we do not, rather we say that it is an Attribute, which like all of His Attributes is to be taken without tashbeeh or takyeef. And in fact your accusation in and of itself betrays the fact that it is you who liken Allaah to His creation, for this is what you have to do to accuse us in the first place! I.e. you and your likes only understand the Attributes as they would befit the creation, not as they befit Allaah as the Salaf did! Not only this but you have fallen into that which the Ummah is agreed upon is forbidden – you have started to discuss the kayfiyyah of the Attributes!
* Over the hadeeth of Nuzool (Allaah’s Descending to the Lowest Heaven at the last third of the night)
Saqqaaf states in his ta’leeq to ‘Daf’ Shubah at-Tashbeeh’, “ta’weel of Imaam Maalik, may Allaah the Exalted have mercy upon him: al-Haafidh ibn Abdul Barr reports in ‘at-Tamheed’ (7/143), and al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee mentioned in ‘Siyar A’laam an-Nubulaa’ (8/105) that Imaam Maalik, may Allaah the Exalted have mercy upon him, made ta’weel of the Nuzool (of Allaah) which occurs in the hadeeth to descent of His Command. And this is the text from ‘Siyar’,
‘ibn Adee said: Muhammad bin Haroon bin Hissaan narrated to us from Saalih bin Ayyub from Habeeb bin Abu Habeeb that Maalik narrated to me: “Allaah the Exalted sends down His Command, as for He then He is Everlasting , still (Laa yazool).” Saalih said, “I mentioned this to Yahya bin Bakeer and he said, ‘good by Allaah although I have not heard this from Maalik”‘
I (Saqqaaf) say: the narration of ibn Abdul Barr is via another route so be aware, and we have mentioned this from Imaam Maalik in the ta’leeq number 129.”
This is what he said in number 129: “and from those that made ta’weel of the hadeeth of Nuzool by the descent of His Mercy was Imaam Maalik and he was from the Imaams of the salaf as is narrated….” And he mentioned what is in ‘as-Siyar’.
In this book this person has blackened it’s pages by abusing the Imaams of the past and by quoting phrases that betray only his lack of investigation and enmity and jealousy to the true scholars of Ahlus Sunnah, past and present, and showing a sectarianism that is blind to the truth.
For in the above quote he narrates only a portion of the statement of adh-Dhahabee, for adh-Dhahabee follows on by saying, “I say: I do not know Saalih, and Habeeb is mashhur (famous)!! And what is preserved from Imaam Maalik, may Allaah have mercy upon him, is the narration of Waleed bin Muslim that he asked him about the ahaadeeth to do with the Attributes of Allaah and he replied, ‘we take them as they are, without explanation (tafseer).’ So the Imaam would have two sayings on this if the narration of Habeeb is authentic.”
The narration of Habeeb is not authentic, adh-Dhahabee says about him, “Ahmad said: he is not trustworthy. Ibn Ma’een said: he used to read to Maalik…(?)…and I was asked about him in Egypt and I replied, ‘he is nothing’. Abu Dawood said: he is the most lying from amongst the people. Abu Haatim said: he narrated fabricated ahaadeeth from the son of the brother of az-Zuhree. Ibn Adee said: all of his ahaadeeth are fabrications. Ibn Hibbaan said: …(?)…and he narrated fabrications from trustworthy narrators. He used to include in their ahaadeeth what they did not narrate.” ['al-Meezaan' (1/452)]
Ibn Adee said about him, “the scribe of Maalik, he fabricated ahaadeeth…and the ahaadeeth of this Habeeb are all fabricated, from Maalik and from other than him…. And frequently the hadeeth of Habeeb from Maalik are hadeeth that he fabricated against him…” ['al-Kaamil' (2/818)]
So this is the state of Habeeb, and when we also consider that the isnaad also contains an unknown narrator then know that it is impossible to depend upon this chain of narration from any perspective! So how is it that this Saqqaaf overlooks all of this? Truly it is as is said: the innovators take what is for them and ‘forget’ what is against them. As for what is narrated by ibn Abdul Barr then he said, “and Muhammad bin Alee al-Jiblee – who was one of the trustworthy Muslims of Qayrawaan – said that Jaami bin Sawaadah in Egypt narrated to us from Matraf from Maalik bin Anas that he was asked about the hadeeth, “indeed Allaah descends to the lowest heaven” so Maalik replied, ‘He sends down His Command.’ ['at-Tamheed' (7/143)]
Then this isnaad is also da’eef for Jaami’ was declared weak by ad-Daaruqutnee and he reported it in ‘Gharaa’ib al-Maalik’ with three other narrators between him and Maalik. And so it becomes clear that this ta’weel is not from Imaam Maalik and in fact what is affirmed from him contradicts this as has preceded.
And it is seems clear that this ta’weel is from Habeeb himself as quoted from him in ‘at-Tamheed’ of ibn Abdul Barr (7/143), and the condition of Habeeb has preceded.
This is what scholarly research free from sectarianism dictates. And it is the madhhab of the Righteous Salaf that they took the Attribute of Nuzool as it befitted the Majesty of Allaah without takyeef, tashbeeh and ta’weel. [This discussion is taken from 'Rudood wat-Ta'qubaat' (pg. 93+) and 'as-Sawaa'iq was Shuhub' (pg. 45+). For a similar discussion see 'Mukhtasar as-Sawaa'iq' of ibn al-Qayyim.]
* Over the verse, ” the Day when the Saaq (Shin) will be exposed.”
Keller states, following Saqqaaf, “at-Tabaree says a number of exegetes of the Companions – and their students – held that, ‘A Day when the Shin shall be exposed’ means that, quote, “a dire matter shall be disclosed”…..This was apparently lost upon later anthropomorphists who said that the verse proved, quote, “Allaah has a Shin,” or according to others, “two Shins” as one would be unbecoming. At-Tabaree also relates from Muhamamd ibn Ubayd al-Muharabee who relates from ibn al-Mubaarak from Usama ibn Zayd, meaning al-Lythee, from Ikrimah, from ibn Abbaas, that the Shin in the above verse means, quote, “A Day of war and direness” all these narrators are those of the saheeh – except Usama ibn Zaid whose hadeeth are hasan.”
This claim includes a number of misconceptions, unfounded allegations and distortions.
Firstly: the narrations that at-Tabaree reports from ibn Abbaas via a number of routes, regarding these Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaali says, “Summarising what has been reported from ibn Abbaas on this issue: with this you will know, O beloved (reader) – may you learn the good – that the chains of narration that are reported from ibn Abbaas to do with his explanation of His saying, “the Day when the Shin will be exposed” cannot be used to establish a proof, because they are all da’eef.
So if it is said: can they be considered under the definition of hasan li ghayrihi (i.e. hasan due supporting each other) I say (in reply): indeed the weakness of them is such that they cannot support one another…
Some of them are severely weak and cannot be used to support rather they make the matter worse. For example: the route of Usama bin Zayd from Ikrimah from him (ibn Abbaas), and it is no. 1
the route of the Uofiyyeen and it is no. 2
the ‘masaa’il’ of Naafi bin al-Azraq, and it is no. 8
Some of them have a single deficiency, and that is inqitaa (missing links in the chain), so when this is the case then they do not support or strengthen others, and they are:
the route of Alee bin Abee Talha from him and it is no.3
the route of Ibraaheem an-Nakha’i from him and it is no.6
the route of Dahhaak bin Mazaahim al-Hilaalee and it is no.7
Some of them cannot support others because they do not have the same meaning:
So in some of them he says, “distress and severity”
in some of them he says, “the matter will be exposed and the actions will be shown”
in some he says, “a severe matter”
in some he says, “the Day of Judgement and the Hour due to it’s severity.”
… And due to this we are certain that the narration is not authentic to ibn Abbaas (RA).” ['al-Manhal ar-Raqraaq' (pg. 30) of Shaykh Saleem]
Secondly: We assume that the narration is authentic and accept that there are other authentic narrations from the Taabi’een that mention this explanation. In this case the interpretation of ibn Abbaas still cannot be considered to be a case of ta’weel of one of Allaahs attributes, for, as ibn Taymiyyah and others [For example the Shaafi'ee Imaam, ibn Mandah in his 'Radd alaa al-Jahmiyyah' (pg. 37)] point out, the salaf had two understandings of this verse:
1) Those who say that it was not a verse relating to an Attribute of Allaah, but rather a description of the Day of Judgement, since ALLAAH DOES NOT MENTION IT AS ONE OF HIS ATTRIBUTES IN THE ABOVE VERSE and therefore it can be used according to the Arabic Language to mean severity and distress, as reported by ibn Abbaas who explained this verse according to the Language. This is not therefore the case of the Ash’arees who make ta’weel of the Attributes of Allaah and therefore they have no proof in this verse.
2) Those that say that this verse does refer to an Attribute as was the opinion of Abu Sa’eed al-Khudree and others, this due to the hadeeth that he narrates,
“So Our Lord will uncover His shin, and every believing male and female will prostrate to Him, and only those will remain standing who prostrated in the world for show and repute.” [Bukhaaree and in the hadeeth of Abu Hurayra the Prophet then recited the verse in question.]
So it is possible that this hadeeth did not reach ibn Abbaas just as the ruling that grandmothers inherit did not reach Abu Bakr (RA) and so on. And if it had reached him then he would have explained the Verse according to it. ['al-Fataawaa' (6/394)]
Likewise Qaadee Abu Ya’laa said, “as for what is narrated from ibn Abbaas concerning the ta’weel of the Shin then ibn Mas’ud contradicted him and he understood the Shin as an Attribute of Allaah, and it is possible that the saying of ibn Abbaas be understood in the light of the linguistic definition of Shin: i.e. severity…” ['Ibtaal at-Ta'weelaat' (1/58)]
And he likewise mentions that of the opinion of ibn Mas’ud were Abu Hurayra and Abu Sa’eed. [Ibid. (1/160)]
Thirdly: Consider another narration from ibn Mas’ud narrated from him by ibn Mandah that ibn Mas’ud recited the above verse ” as His Two Shins ” ‘Radd alaa al-Jahmiyyah’ (pg. 37)] so if this narration is authentic then the aforementioned tafseer of ibn Abbaas and others is seen to be incorrect because, the language only allows Shin to be interpreted as severity when used in the singular. Also the fallacy of what Keller states becomes clear, “or according to others ‘Two Shins’ as one would be unbecoming.”
So in conclusion, the Shin is an Attribute of Allaah which is to be taken without takyeef and ta’weel and tashbeeh. And the attempts of the Ash’arees to show that the explanation of ibn Abbaas is ta’weel of Allaahs Attribute is seen to be false.
And Allaah the Most High Knows best, and He is the One who guides to attaining the truth.
“Whoever supposes that faith is realized through speculative theology, abstract proofs, or academic divisions is an innovator. On the contrary, faith is a light that God, the Sublime and Exalted, casts into the hearts of His servants with bounty and grace from His presence. Sometimes faith is evidenced internally and is impossible to express; sometimes, through a vision while asleep; other times, by witnessing the state of a pious man and receiving the emanation of his light as a result of his companionship and presence; and then there are times when faith comes by the concurrence of circumstance. Indeed, a Bedouin came to the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? denying and disavowing him. But when his eyes fell upon his radiant aspect may God increase its dignity and nobility he saw in it the light of prophethood and exclaimed, “By God! This is not the face of a liar!” He then implored the Prophet ??? ???? ???? ???? to explain Islam to him and immediately embraced it.”
- Ab? H?mid al-Ghaz?l?
?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????, ????? ???? ?????
?? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???????. ????? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ?? ??????…???? ?? ????….?????? :
??? ???????: “???? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ? ???????? ???? ??????…”
???? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????????
????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????
– ???? ?? ???? ???? ??????
[edit - please use appropriate language -moderator]
Reading 4-5 pages I could see the theme (mentioned above). No body denies rationality to come to conclusion that Quran is word of Allah, Muhammad PBUH is His messenger and Islam is the right religion, and then that rationality dictates the person to submit to Quran and Sunnah as you have already determined them to be divine.
Striving to make Quran comply to “scientific facts” and greek logic would only end up person messed up as eventually he would reach a point where his human logic would end and then he would start denying what he can not comprehend.
?????? ????? ?? ??? ????
??? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ????
???? ?? ?????? ?? ??????????? ???? ????????
??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????????
?????
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com ???? ????? ???? ????
?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????
?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????…?????? ??? ?????! ????? ????? ?????? ????.
– ????
It still makes me cringe that a large section of these jahil and bone-idle people continue to level the allegations of a “anthropomorphist” upon the Ahlul Hadeeth. Do they not know that if they accuse them of this, they are also directly accusing the Sahabah of the same evil?
Imran, good article on the reality ta’weel, but don’t expect these Asharis to understand its content; because one needs an intellect to understand such simple and clear proofs :^)
Questions to Mr. Qadhi – (not blind followers and admirers)
1) How is the “common sense” that Ibn Taymiya supposedly used, different to the rational thinking and rational logic that we Ahlus Sunnah use, that you people frown at and consider it such a kabeerah to use the human brain.
2) You mention the foolishness of worshiping “created objects”.
2-a) Now what, according to you, would be an uncreated object?
2-b) If there is no such thing as an uncreated object, then why the need to mention “created” alongside “objects“?
2-c) For the purpose of this article, please define what you mean by “object“.
‘Sunni Muslim’, firstly, the Ahlul Hadeeth are the Ahlus Sunnah. Calling oneself “sunni” is irrelevant when his/her belief and approach differs from those of the Sahabah and those who followed them in truth and righteousness.
Of the 4 branches of philosophy, Imam Ghazali included theology, which is discussion of the essence and attributes of Allaah, which also comes under the heading of ilm al-kalaam. The philosophers did not have any other kind of knowledge that was unique to them, rather they had some views and ideas which were unique to them, some of which constitute shirk, kufr and bidah.
For its supporters, philosophy is, as Dr. Tawfeeq al-Taweel described it: Rational examination, free from any restrictions and authority imposed on it from outside, and with the ability to go all the way on the basis of logic, propagating his view regardless of the difference between these (philosophical) views and what is customarily known, religious beliefs and the dictates of tradition, without being confronted or resisted or punished by any authority. In Aristotles view, the philosopher is of a higher status than a prophet, because the prophet understands things by means of imagination whereas the philosopher understands things by means of reason and contemplation. In their view, imagination is of a lower status than contemplation. Al-Faraabi agreed with Aristotle in viewing the philosopher as being of higher status than a prophet!!
Imam al-Shaafai said: The people did not become ignorant and begin to differ until they abandoned Arabic terminology and adopted the terminology of Aristotle. Even though philosophy existed in the ancient civilizations of Egypt, India and Persia, it became most famous in Greece and became synonymous with that land, the reason being that the Greek philosophers were interested in transmitting it from the legacy of idolatrous peoples and the remnants of the divinely-revealed religions, benefiting from the scriptures of Ibraaheem and Moosa (peace be upon them) after the Greek victory over the Hebrews after the captivity in Babylon, and benefiting from the religion of Luqmaan the Wise. So there was a mixture of views that confirmed the divinity and Lordship of the Creator that was contaminated with idolatry. Therefore the Greek philosophy was in some ways a revival more than an innovation.
Ibn Abil-Izz, the commentator on al-Tahhaawiyyah, summed up the schools of philosophical thought about the five basic principles of religion in their view, as follows:
That God does exist but He has no reality or essence, and He does not know the details of His creation, but He does know about its general terms, thus they denied that He creates the deeds of His slaves. They also did not believe in His Books, as in their view God does not speak or talk, and the Quraan is just something that shines from active reasons into purified human hearts. Exalted be Allaah far above what they ascribe to Him. There is no separate entity that ascends or descends, rather in their view it is all ideas in the mind that do not exist in reality. The philosophers are the one who most deny the Last Day and its events. In their view Paradise and Hell are no more than parables for the masses to understand, but they have no reality beyond peoples minds.
The Greek philosophers still have an impact on all western philosophies and ideologies, ancient and modern. Indeed, most of the Islamic kalaami groups were influenced by them. The terminology of Islamic philosophy did not emerge as a branch of knowledge that is taught in the curriculum of Islamic studies until it was introduced by Shaykh Mustafa Abd al-Razzaaq the Shaykh of al-Azhar as a reaction to western attacks on Islam based on the idea that Islam has no philosophy. But the fact of the matter is that philosophy is an alien entity in the body of Islam. There is no philosophy in Islam and there are no philosophers among Muslims in this deviant sense. Rather in Islam there is certain knowledge and prominent scholars who examine matters.
The Ash’aira have been inherently effected by such kalaam. Here’s an overview by sh. Yasir:
http://www.islaam.net/main/display.php?id=290&category=30
-Edited. Pls refrain from personal remarks
… and that’s what we attribute to you people too + Calling oneself “Ahlul Hadeeth” is irrelevant when his/her belief and approach differs from those of the Sahabah and those who followed them in truth and righteousness.
“Calling oneself Ahlul Hadeeth is irrelevant when his/her belief and approach differs from those of the Sahabah and those who followed them in truth and righteousness.”
The problem is, you can never provide any evidence that ashari beliefs, when they diverge from Ahlu-l-sunnah, are supported by what Sahaba believed. On the contrary.
lol… the classic age old argument
no one diverges from anything… you people can’t understand ayahs and ahadith that contain metaphor and can’t interpret them in conjunction with and in light of other ayahs and ahadith … the matter is simple as that
What a moot discussion.
The testimony to the realities of true islamic aqidah is that the vast majority of scholars in islamic history have either followed the ashari or maturidi schools of aqidah and one of the 4 madhabs of fiqh – unlike the miniscule minority of present day follows of ibn taymiyyah and his pseudo-hanbalis. Many of whom these days will tell you that madhabs themselves are a bidah, if we look at wahhabi madinah-uni graduates like Sheikh Feiz Muhammad and others.
The irony is that you all spend so much time trying trying to prove scholars long dead recanted everything that is necessarily known of them to strengthen the fact that you and your beliefs are still a minority in this day and age – sorry but the ummah of muhammad didnt make ijma on batil then, nor have they now.
thanks for joining our moot discussion. Awfully busy conversation for being moot??
By the way, Salmaan, I am still waiting for you to talk to the topic. Once you are done grandstanding, it will be great to hear your specific comments and refutations to the material presented here.
Never mind. Comment deleted.
-J.Hashmi
“the fact that you and your beliefs are still a minority in this day and age sorry but the ummah of muhammad didnt make ijma on batil then, nor have they now.”
So an Ijma was reached even though there’s a large chunk of people who disagree? Right.
the disagree’ers are those who are out of the jama’ah and from the 72 misguided sects.
You’re always welcome to join the majority jama’ah of the Ahlus Sunnah.
“the disagree’ers are those who are out of the jama’ah and from the 72 misguided sects.
You’re always welcome to join the majority jama’ah of the Ahlus Sunnah.”
A classical case or circular reasoning. You went from “ummah of Muhammad” to “jama’ah”, by which you mean ahlu-l-sunnah wal jama’ah, because, even though you perhaps would prefer to, you cannot exclude Ahlu-l-hadeeth from the ummah of Muhammad; but that creates a problem, since Ahlu-l-hadeeth consider you to be innovators, so there’s no Ijma. You can, however, exclude them from you definition of “jama’ah”, but, by following your logic, that again means nothing since there is no consensus of the Ummah of Muhammad on that definition. The problem is that you prefer quantity over quality, numbers over facts. Al-Khatib al-Bagdadi recorded that Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “The jama’ah is the the Quran and the Sunnah even if you are all alone.” In another narration: “The jama’ah refers to those who hold on to the truth even if you are all alone.”.
-Comment removed. Pls refrain from personal attacks & insults. Let your questions stand for themselves -Editor
Huma, you are correct. The majority of fuqaha have stated that it is haraam to study philosophy. Among their comments on that are the following:
1 Ibn Nujaym (Hanafi) said in al-Ashbaah wal-Nazaaim: Acquiring knowledge may be an individual obligation, which is as much as one needs for religious commitment to be sound; or it may be a communal obligation, which is in addition to the previous and is done for the benefit of others; or it may be recommended, which is studying fiqh and ilm al-qalb (purification of the heart) in depth; or it may be haraam, which is learning philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology, geomancy, natural science and witchcraft. End quote from al-Ashbaah wal-Nazaair maa Sharhiha: Ghamaz Ayoon al-Basaair by al-Hamawi (4/125).
2 al-Dardeer (Maaliki) said in al-Sharh al-Kabeer, discussing the kind of knowledge which is a communal obligation: Such as studying shareeah, which is not an individual obligation, and which includes fiqh, tafseer, hadeeth and aqeedah, and things that help with that such as (Arabic) grammar and literature, tafseer, mathematics and usool al-fiqh not philosophy, astrology or ilm al-kalaam, according to the most sound opinion.
Al-Dasooqi said in his Haashiyah (2/174): His phrase according to the most sound opinion means that it is forbidden to read the books of al-Baaji, Ibn al-Arabi and Iyaad, unlike the one who says that it is essential to learn it in order to understand aqeedah and basic religious issues. But al-Ghazaali said that the one who has knowledge of ilm al-kalaam knows nothing of religious beliefs except the beliefs that the common people share, but they are distinguished by their ability to argue and debate.
3 Zakariya al-Ansaari (Shaafai) said in Asna al-Mataalib (4/182): As for learning philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology, geomancy, natural science and witchcraft, it is haraam. End quote.
4 al-Bahooti (Hanbali) said in Kashshaaf al-Qinaa (3/34): The opposite of shari knowledge is knowledge that is haraam or makrooh. Haraam knowledge is like ilm al-kalaam in which they argue on the basis of pure reason or speak in a manner that contradicts sound, unambiguous reports. If they speak on the basis of reports only or on the basis of texts and rational thought that is in accordance with them, then this is the basis of religion and the way of ahl al-sunnah. This is what is meant by the words of Shaykh Taqiy al-Deen. In his commentary he explains that even better. [Haraam knowledge also includes] philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology and geomancy, as well as alchemy and natural sciences. End quote.
Individuals like Salmaan would expect us to believe that shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah was an exception to the rule for refuting the ash’ari ideology. The truth is that the vast majority of the a’imah and the Imams from the time of the companions and tabi’een. These so-called kalam apologists disparage and slander the Imams like Ahmad ibn Hanbal and usually exclude the Hanabilah (for whome they have a particular disliking) from their own perverted interpretations of the shari’ah. This alone is enough to see through their facade.
Sunni Muslim, I caught a glipse of your post before it was removed due to your lack of manners and replaying the age old broken record of the British-originated ‘wahabi’ term.
Its funny how the asharis (in their search for a sense of belonging) like to associate themselves with the great scholars of the past and claim them to be on the ashari ‘madhab’. Now you are claiming Imam Nawawi was an asha’ri. This has got to be the funniest thing I heard in weeks!
Imam Nawawi’s innocently falling into ta’weel does NOT make him ashari because he disagreed with a great deal of their other principles.
Why did an-Nawawee fall into ta’weel? The reasons why a scholar makes errors are many, and the scholars have discussed these in depth. Amongst these reasons (which will be discussed later insha’allaah) are: if a scholar has studied under only one group of scholars, and has complete confidence in them as the case is likely to be, then he will follow the stances of this group. So in the case of an-Nawawee who studied under the scholars inclined to ta’weel, because at his time especially, such scholars had become many, it is only natural that he to would incline to it.
The truth of what we say can be seen in the case of his student ibn al-Attaar. Ibn al-Attaar was one of the most beloved of people to Imaam an-Nawawee and vice-verse, so much so that ibn al-Attaar became known as ‘Mukhtasar an-Nawawee’ (the Summarised Nawawee), and it was to him that an-Nawawee entrusted the completion of his ‘Sharh al-Muhadhdhab’ were he to die before he himself was able to complete it. But despite this closeness to an-Nawawee, ibn Attar went on to contradict his shaykh in subject of the Names and Attributes of Allaah, this because he came across a totally different group of scholars from those that he had previously studied under (the students of ibn Taymiyyah like adh-Dhahabee and others). So we quote extracts from his work on belief,
“It is obligatory to believe that what Allaah has affirmed in His Book and upon the tongue of His Messenger (SAW) is the truth….” (pg.22)
This should suffice for any sincere and fair-minded Muslim, but there are plenty of more historical facts and evidences to show that ashari ideology, far from being the norm, was a fringe ideology that was rejected by a great number of scholars before the time of Ibn Taymiyyah and after him (rahimahullah ta’ala).
The supposed lack of manners wasn’t mine. I only responded to the lack of manners from one of your sisters in misguidance. Its funny how some people always cry foul when they are treated the way they treat others.
lol… now we are the ones (I’m a Maturidi by the way, but that’s irrelevant as Ash’aris and Maturidis are brothers in Ahlus Sunnah) seeking a sense of belonging? we are the fringe group? you need to see Muslim scholarship of the 4 madhabs from across the globe and across the centuries and then see who is the fringe group.
Thats two of us laughing at the funniest thing we heard in weeks.
As I said in the deleted comment – the truth will be clear to us, be it above the earth or inside it.
The only favor we can all do our selves is to objectively seek the truth without any blind following and without defending any group-ego (regardless of what side you’re on). Egos and groupie-ism won’t save any one on the day of judgment, only the correct beliefs of Islam as taught by the Prophet.
So many interesting discussions could have been made about this blog entry, but, in my opinion, it has just fallen into such a state of fatuity. I wrote my comments above in Arabic so most people would refrain from starting an argument from them…..only for someone to follow up with a completely irrelevant comment using the word “Bullsh–”. Then his side actually accused the other side of “name calling”. Now I have little hope my questions will even get addressed.
Whether the blog had been about Ibn Taymiyyah’s theology, or about Ibn Taymiyyah’s favorite foods, the comments section would have looked exactly the same in either case.
My suggestion: In the future, when such high level blogs are posted, please close the comments section and let people ask their questions via email. Most on the “blogosphere” simply are not responsible enough, nor, quite frankly, intellectually capable enough to discuss these matters.
w-Allahu A`lam wa-l Musta`an.
interesting thought.
Or let only awsome intellectual persons post comments.
Well said bro!
So Salmaan, can you name me some Ash’ari Hanabilah?
Hmmm, interesting to read on this board that many major scholars have equated philosophy with magic and witch-craft which are from the kaba’ir.
Anyway, here is the COMPLETE set of work by shaykhul Islam entitled -:
“Bayan Talbees al Jahmiyah fi Ta’sees Bad’ahum al Kalamiyah”:
http://www.archive.org/details/talbiseljahmia
Complete whitewash of the fitnah of ahlul kalam!
Just thought I’d add my input to the discussion… In his ‘Taqdimah’, Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327) called for increased reliance on hadeeth. For him the world intellectual world was divided into two camps on the basis of their approach to the sources of religious docrine. On the one hand, there were the Ahlul Hadeeth or Ashab al Hadeeth who demanded Hadeeth to be given priority in derivation of belief.
On the other hand, there were the Ahlul Ra’y and the Ahlul Kalam who maintained prominance be given to human reason in formulating belief. The latter group were also called ‘Kufans’ in reference to the supposed birth-place of their docrines. Whereas the Ahlul Hadeeth were refered to as ‘Hijazians’.
The Mu’tazili was the main non-sunni group that was given the label of Ahlul Kalam and the rest they say, is history. It baffles me to find that those who promote the Ahlul Kalam approach can have the audacity to claim sole representation of the ‘original teachings’ of Islam and a wanton disregard for the vast majority of the scholars and Imams from the first generations who were vehemently against the use of logic or philosophy in defining tertiary aspects of Islam, let alone primary and secondary matters.
Around the time of Ibn Abi Hatim’s death, speculative theology had already found a firm foot hold in parts of the Muslim world (Abul Hasan al Ash’ari also died around the same period). This period was possibly the most intense between these two camps and clearly remains so til today.
You will also find that during this period, there was very little ‘middle-ground’ as both sides became strictly guarded and protective of their view-points. Temperatures boiled with one accusing the other of heresy; yet my question remains: How can the accusation of heresy be pinned on the Ahlul Hadeeth whose ‘methodology’ remained intact from the time of the tabi’een and beyond?
I am very hard pressed to find Ash’ari ideology prevelant during the first 150 years of hijrah.
A couple of points:
1. The Ash`ari methodology developed because of the increasing weakness (and resulting confusion) of the Muslims in the Arabic language–both among the Arabs themselves and the growing number of non-native speaking Arabs who were entering the Deen. It is like us today attempting to read Othello without the footnotes. We will understand from the play things UTTERLY unintended by Shakespeare or understood by the Elizabethans. We just ain’t got it goin’ on like that in the English language.
Points of doctrine had to be clarified and explained in detail, for many of the people in the subsequent generations of Muslims could not grasp the depth and profundity of saying Allah is One–that is, whereas, the Sahabah understood from that simple statement, that Allah is not a body; Allah is does not have a size; Allah is not composed of parts; Allah is not ascribed with dimensions, that Allah is Absolutely Incomparable, Beginningless, Absolutely Free-of Need, Omniscient, Omnipotent; Allah is the One and Only Creator, etc., the later generations of Muslims needed books explaining the implications of “La ilaha illallah.”
2. Various deviants groups began to appear–who had an sophisticated and intellectual approach to their heresies and disbelief. These people were not like the simple minded date-idol worshippers of Arabia at the time of the Prophet. The Sunni scholars examined these deviant beliefs and not only demonstrated that they contradicted the Qur’an and Sunnah, but that their opponents were also internally inconsistent. In order to demonstrate your opponents are internally inconsistent, you do, afterall, have to understand what your opponents say.
3. Okay, let me make it three points. The last point on this Sunni vs. so-called Athari discussion boils down to either believing:
A. Allah is One, Perfect, Absolutely without need or similarity
B.–OR–believing that Allah has a giant smiling face, a tibia, a pair of relatively small feet, organs of sight, fingers, etc.
Or to make it even simpler: it boils down to praying to the Lord, Owner, and Creator of space and time and all that exists therein—OR—praying to something that is within space and time and dependent thereupon. In other words–it is a choice between worshipping the Creator or the creations.
Swarth Moor, I do not want to be dragged into the finer points of the argument. I simply stated one of many historical facts. As for me personally, I hold Ashari ideology in contempt, not because of an emotional dislike, but because of my desire to see the beliefs and practises and methods of the thirst 3 generation of Muslims prevail over all other isms and schisms. I am certainly not alone in understanding the Asha’ira’s apparent contradictions in the usool of the Deen that go against the docrines and methodology held by the Sahabah and the ‘orthodox’ Imams after them. The Ash`ari ideology as I see it, does not complement the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah before them; rather it seems to be vying to be an alternative. The issue of ta’weel is merely a drop in the ocean as to the distortions which the people of post-Abul Hasan al Ashari period initiated.
Points of doctrines need to be clarified by the athar of the Qur’an and Sunnah and the Ijma’ of the Sahabah first and foremost. The Ahlul Kalam in their very nature hold these sources of shari’ah as equal to the human intellect; theorising and philosophising over established norms is akin to initiating a new religion.
If a ’sunni’ is one who follows the sunnah than being athari is synonymous with that. The irony of your post may have been lost on you.
This will be my last post on this board.
Wassalaam all.
Salam Swarth, why is it that centuries of Ahlul Hadeeth clarifications continue to fall of deaf ears? The Asharis I believe have falled into the classic trap of trying to identify God with the attributes of humans, which none amongst the Ahlul Hadeeth hold or ever held! Why can’t the Asharis simply follow the example of the early Muslims and accept the attributes of God as they are, without tahreef; takyeef, tashbeeh and tamtheel?
Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘If it is said: Why do you deny His statement, “Do you not see that We have created for them what our Own Hands have created.” [Sûrah Yâ Sîn 36:71] And His statement: “Whom I have created with My Own Hands.” [Sûrah Sâd 38:75] are majâz (methaphorical)? To him it is said: The ruling concerning the Speech of Allâh – the Mighty and Majestic – is that it is taken upon its dhâhir (apparent) and haqîqah (real) meaning. Nothing is moved from its dhâhir meaning to a majâz (metaphorical) one, except with a proof…Likewise, the statement of Allâh – the Mighty and Majestic, ‘‘Whom I have created with My Own Hands,’’ its dhâhir and haqîqah meaning is affirming the Yadayn (two Hands of Allâh).
So it is not permissible to alter it from the dhâhir meaning of Yadayn to that which our opponents claim, except with a proof…Consequently, about His statement, ‘‘Whom I have created with My Own Hands.’’ It is obligatory to affirm two hands for Allâh – the Most High – in its haqîqah (real) meaning, not with the meaning of ni’matayn (two bounties of Allâh).’’ [al-Ibânah ’an Usûlid-Diyânah (p. 133). The ascription of this book to Abûl-Hasan al-Ash’arî, and that it was his final book concerning ’aqîdah (creed) - has been testified to by a number of Scholars, and from them: al-Hâfidh Ibn ’Asâkir in Tabyînul-Kadhibul-Muftarî (p. 152), al-Bayhaqî in al-I’tiqâd (p. 31), Imâm adh-Dhahabî in al-’Uluww (no. 276) and Ibnul-’Imâd in Shadharâtudh-Dhahab (p. 303)]
Here are some more unequivical saying from the Salaf concerning Allâh’s Attributes and their Ijmâ’ (consensus) concerning the Falsehood of Ta‘wîl:
[1] Al-Awzâ’î (d. 157H) rahimahullâh – said: “I asked az-Zuhrî and Makhûl about the âyât pertaining to the Sifât (Attributes of Allâh), so they said: leave them as they are.”
[2] Al-Walîd ibn Muslim (d.194H) – rahimahullâh – said: “I asked Mâlik, al-Awzâ’î, Layth ibn Sa’d and Sufyân ath-Thawrî – rahimahumullâh – concerning the reports related about the Attributes, so they all said: Leave them as they are, without asking how.”
[3] Imâm Ahmad (d.241H) – rahimahullâh – said: “These ahadîth should be left as they are … We affirm them and we do not make any similitude for them. This is what has been agreed upon by the Scholars.”
[4] Nu’aym ibn Hammâd (d.228H) – rahimahullâh – said: “Whosoever makes tashbîh (resemblance) of Allâh to His creation has committed kufr (disbelief), and whosoever denies what Allâh has described Himself with has also committed kufr. Indeed, all that Allâh has described Himself with, or what His Messenger has described Him with, then there is no tashbîh in it at all.”
[5] Imâm at-Tirmidhî (d.279H) – rahimahullâh – said: “It has been stated by more than one person from the People of knowledge about such ahadîth, that there is no tashbîh (resemblance) to the Attributes of Allâh, and our Lord – the Blessed, the Most High – Descends to the lowest heaven every night, So they say: Affirm these narrations, have îmân (faith) in them, do not deny them, nor ask how. The likes of this has been related from Mâlik ibn Anas, Sufyân ath-Thawrî, Ibn ’Uyaynah and ’Abdullâh ibn al-Mubârak, who all said about such ahadîth: “Leave them as they are, without asking how.” Such is the saying of the People of Knowledge from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamâ’ah.
However, the Jahmiyyah oppose these narrations and say: This is tashbîh! However, Allâh – the Most High – has mentioned in various places in His Book, the Attribute of al-Yad (Hand), as-Sama’ (Hearing) and al-Basr (Seeing) – but the Jahmiyyah make ta‘wîl of these Âyât, explaining it in a way, other than how it is explained by the People of Knowledge. They say: Indeed, Allâh did not create Âdam with His own Hand -they say that Hand means the Power of Allâh.”
[6] Al-Khattâbî (d.388H) – rahimahullâh – said: “The madbhab of the Salaf (the Pious Predecessors) with regard to the Sifât (Attributes of Allâh) is to affirm them as they are ’alâ dhâhir (with their apparent meaning), negating any tashbîh (resemblance) to them, nor takyîf (asking how they are).” [6]
[7] Imâm as-Sâbûnî (d.448H) – rahimahullâh – said: “Indeed, Ashâbul-Hadîth (the Scholars of Hadîth), [those who hold fast to the Book and the Sunnah] – may Allâh protect their lives and shower mercy upon those that have died – bear witness to the Tawhîd of Allâh and to the Messengership and Prophethood of His Messenger sallallâhu ’alayhi wa âlihi wa sallam. They know their Lord – the Mighty and Majestic – by the Attributes which He has spoken of in His Revelation, and by what He has sent down, or testified to, by His Messenger sallallâhu ’alayhi wa sallam … They affirm for Allâh – the Mighty and Magnificient – what He affirms for Himself in His Book, or upon the tongue of His Messenger sallallâhu ’alayhi wa sallam. They do not believe in tashbîh (resemblance) to His Attributes from the attributes of the creation They say: Indeed, He created Âdam with His own Hands, as He – the Most Perfect – textually stated: “O Iblîs! What prevents you from prostrating to one whom I have created with My Own Hands.” [Sûrah Sâd 38:75] So they do not distort the words from their context, by carrying the meaning of Yadain (the two Hands of Allâh) to mean ni’matain (two bounties) or quwwatain (two powers) – which is the tahrîf (distortion) of the Mu’tazilah and the Jahmiyyah – may Allâh destroy them. They do not ask how the Attributes are, nor do they resemble them to His creation … Allâh – the Most High -protected Ahlus-Sunnah from such tahrîf; takyîf and tashbîh, and favoured them with knowledge and understanding.”
[8] Qâdî Abû Ya’lâ (d.458H) – rahimahullâh – said: “The proof for the futility of ta‘wîl is that the Sahâbah, and those who followed them from the Tâbi’în, understood them (the Attributes) ’alâ dhâhir (upon their literal meaning), and they did not take recourse to taw‘îl, nor did they move away from the dhâhir meaning. If ta‘wîl were permissible, then they would have preceded us in it … ”
[9] Ibn ’Abdul-Barr (d.463H) – rahimahullâh – said: “Ahlus-Sunnah are agreed in affirming all the Sifât (Attributes) which are related in the Qur‘ân and the Sunnah, having îmân (faith) in them and understanding them ’alal-haqîqah (in a real sense), not ’alal-majâz (metaphorically). How they are is not to be asked. However, the Jahmiwah, the Mu’tazilah and the Khawârij all deny them and do not carry them ’alal-haqîqah; claiming that whosoever affirms them has made tashbîh (resemblance), and they claim that whosoever recites them (as they are) is a mushabbih (a person doing tashbîh).” [9]
[10] Ibn Qudâmah (d.620H) – rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘The way of the Salaf is to have îmân (faith) in the Names and Attributes of Allâh that He has described Himself with in His Revelation, or upon the tongue of His Messenger sallallâhu ’alayhi wa sallam – without increasing, nor decreasing upon it, nor exceeding the limits, nor explaining them (i.e. like the Mu’tazilah), nor making a ta‘wîl of them in a way that opposes the dhâhir meaning.’’
[11] Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H) – rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘From îmân (faith) in Allâh is: Îmân in what He described Himself with and with what His Messenger Muhammad sallallâhu ’alayhi wa sallam described Himself; without tahrîf and ta‘wîl, and without takyîf and tamthîl … ’’
** Affirming the Sifât with their Apparent and Real Meanings and a Reputation that the Way of the Salaf of the Salaf was Allegedly Tafwîdh:
[1] Rabî’atur-Ra’î (d.136H) – rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘Al-Istiwâ (Allâh’s Ascension) is not unknown, and how (it occurs) is not comprehendible, and from Allâh is the Message, upon the Messenger is to convey, and upon us is to affirm.’’
[2] Imâm Mâlik Ibn Anas (d.179H) – rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘Al-Istawâ is known, and how is unknown, and to have îmân (faith) in it is obligatory, and to question it is an innovation.’’ Then he said to the questioner, ‘‘I do not think, except that you are an evil man.’’ So he ordered him to be expelled. [14]
[3] Imâm al-Bukhârî (d.256H) – rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘Mujâhid (d.104H) said about Istawâ: Rising over the throne.’’ [15]
[4] Ibn Jarîr at-Tabarî (d.310H) said concerning the statement of Allâh – the Most High: “The Most Merciful made Istawâ over the Throne.” Meaning, Rising above and ascending.’’
[5] al-Khattâbî (d.388H) – rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘The madhhab (way) of the Salaf (Pious Predecessors) with regards to the Sifât (Attributes of Allâh) is to affirm them as they are ’alâ dhâhir (with their apparent meaning), negating any tashbîh (resemblance) to them, nor takyîf (asking how they are).’’
[6] Imâm at-Talamankî (d.429H) – rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘There is ijmâ’ (consensus) from Ahlus-Sunnah that Allâh ascended over His Throne bi-Dhâtihi (by His Self)… There is ijmâ’ (consensus) from Ahlus-Sunnah that Allâh ascended over His Throne ’alâ haqîqah (in a real sense), not ’alal-majâz (metaphorically).’’
[7] al-Qâdî Abû Ya’lâ (d.458H) – rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘It is not permissible to repel these narrations – as is the way of a group from amongst the Mu’tazilah. Nor to become pre-occupied with ta‘wîl – as is the way of the Ash’ariyyah. It is obligatory to carry them upon their dhâhir meaning; and that the Attributes of Allâh do not resemble anyone from His creation, nor do we have an ’aqîdah (belief) that there is any tashbîh (resemblance) to them. Rather, [we believe] in what has been reported from our Shaykh and our Imâm, Abû ’Abdullâh Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Hanbal, and other Scholars of Ashâbul-Hadîth.’’
[8] al-Khatîb al-Baghdâdî (d.463H) – rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘As for Speech about the Attributes, that which is authentically related about them in the Sunnah, then the Salaf – may Allâh be pleased with them all – was to affirm them all as they are, ’alâ dhâhir (upon their apparent meaning); negating any tashbîh (resemblance) to Allâh, and not asking how they are. We do not say that al-Yad (the Hand of Allâh) means His Power, nor that as-Sama’ (Allâh’s Hearing) and al-Basr (Allâh’s Sight) meaning His Knowledge, nor do we say that He has jawârih (limbs).’’
[9] Ibn ’Abdul-Barr (d.463H) – rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘Ahlus-Sunnah are agreed in affirming all the Sifât (Attributes) which are related in the Qur‘ân and the Sunnah, having îmân (faith) in them and understanding them ’alal-haqîqah (upon their real meaning), not ’alal-majâz (metaphorically).’’
[10] Shaykh ’Abdul-Qâdir al-Jîlânî (d.561H) – rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘It is essential to carry the Attribute of al-Istiwâ (Allâh’s Ascending) by His Dhât (Essence) over the Throne. Istiwâ does not mean sitting and touching – as the Mujassimah and Karrâmiyyah say; nor does it mean ’uluww (grandeur and highness) – as the Ash’ariyyah say; nor does it mean istîlâ (conquering or dominating over) – as the Mu’tazilah say. None of this is related in the Sharî’ah. Neither has this been related from any of the Salafus-Sâlih, from the Companions and the Tâbi’în, nor from the Ashâbul-Hadîth (Scholars of Hadîth). Rather, it is related from them that they carried al-Istiwâ with its apparent meaning.’’
[11] Imâm al-Qurtubî (d.671H) – rahimahullâh said: ‘‘Not a single person from the Salafus-Sâlih denied Istawâ (Allâh’s Ascending) over the Throne to be haqîqah (in a real sense) … The reality of its kayfiyyah (how He ascends) is not known. Imâm Mâlik said that al-Istawâ is known, how is not known, and to ask questions concerning it is an innovation.’’
[12] Shaykhul-Islâm Ibn Taymiyyah (d.728H) – rahimahullâh – said: ‘‘The Sifât (Attributes) are just like His Dhât (Self). Thus, just as the Dhât of Allâh is established haqîqah (in a real sense) – without considering it to be like that of His creation, then likewise His Sifât are also established haqîqah – without considering them to be like that of the creation.’’
I really pray that these points of belief are accepted and not philosophised over as someone mentioned. Having yaqeen in the apparent Sifaat of Allaah without tahreef; takyeef, tashbeeh and tamtheel is the way of the Sahabah and all those who followed their footsteps.
Kalam brings Kalamity
That was just gay.
@Ibn Talha
could not say it in better words…masha-Allah! very true indeed !!
This is not hard to understand. Rather it is very simple. Allah existed before the creations. Allah was before all of the creations. He existed and there was no space, time, direction, light, darkness, or arsh. And as we know Allah the Lord of the worlds does not change. Allah is as he was. Those who believe that Allah is literally above the arsh are ascribing change to Allah whether they know it or not. Allah existed before space, direction, and the arsh. So the ones who say Allah is literally above the arsh are saying that Allah went from not being in a direction to being located in a space above the arsh. This is change. If this were the case, then it would have had to be a point in time where this alleged literally rising above the arsh took place. By this they are applying time to Allah. But this does not work because Allah created the universe and Willed for the existence of time. And Allah is as HE was, existing without being in a direction.
It was affirmed about Imam Malik Ibn Anas, may Allah reward his deeds, in what al-Bayhaqiyy related with a sound chain from the route of ^Abdullah Ibn Wahb, that <<We were at Malik's when a man entered and said, <> Malik looked down dismayed and he lifted his head and said <> Hence, the saying of Imam Malik, <> means that His istiwa’ over the ^Arsh is without a how, i.e., it is not with a body, place, shape, or form like sitting, touching, suspending above, and the like.
Hence, there is no basis for the saying of those who liken Allah to the creation, which they falsely attribute to Imam Malik, that istiwa’ is known and the how of it is unknown. This saying of theirs is invalid, because sitting, no matter how it is, will be by organs and body parts that fold. Moreover, the statement claiming that Imam Malik attributed a <> to Allah is a fabrication.
Idris 8291, I believe you did it again! Have you not managed to read the above referenced posts? Can we all please stop using our own opinions and understandings and saying “I think…” and “I understand…” – Do you know better or did the Sahabah know better upon whom the revelation came through the Messenger (SAW)?
Again, why is it hard for the ahlul kalam to simply accept the Sifat of Allah as they are without plunging into and destructively philosophising over it? Why is it so hard for them to simply accept the Sifat of Allah without tahreef; takyeef, tashbeeh and tamtheel which was the way of the guided Salaf? Are the asharis putting their understanding above the understanding of Abu Bakr and Umar and all the Sahabah and those Imams who came after them, following the same beliefs?
Ajeeb wallahi ajeeb to see Muslims who have the audacity to interpret the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah according to their nafs. The Messenger (SAW) said: “Whoever interprets the Qur’an based on (mere) opinion, then let them prepare their seat in the fire.” [Tirmidhi and Ahmad; classed hasan] and there are others with similar wordings.
May Allah protect the ummah from the fitnah of the kalamiya, Ameen.
Ya Ikhwan…..please…..lets keep the unseen and unconcievable knowledge to Allah without discussion, and worry about our relationship with Him instead, ie working on:
-Our treatment of our parents, wives, husbands, and other familial relations
-Our patience with calamities and gratitude for blessings
-Our guarding and vigilance of our tongues and limbs (ghiba, slander, lying ect)
-Controlling our anger (do you have control of your anger?)
-The remembrance of Allah flowing through our hearts
-Our striving in perfecting that which Allah has made mandatory (of which these types of discussions are not included) ie, salat, siyam, hajj, our daily monetary transaction etc.
-Our promptness and spiritual presence in salat, and through out the rest of our day
-Our exemplification of Prophetic conduct and manners (especially with people of la ilaha illa Allah).
-The examples we leave for non-muslims
With so much to work on, who has the time to discuss such issues? I feel horrible even sitting here wasting time typing this, because it should be obvious that there are so many other things that we could be doing! On yawm al qiyama, will we be asked about the list of things I mentioned above, or whether or not we won a blog debate?
Remember the Prophet salla Allahu alyhi wasalam forgave the the murderers of his uncle Hamza R.A. Can’t we forgive each other for our shortcomings?
Lastly, The Prophet salla Allahu alyhi wasalam said: “If one person calls another a kafir, one of the two is a kafir”!!
WHO ON EARTH WOULD EVEN WANT TO BE PART OF THIS 50/50 CHANCE?!
PLEASE CONSIDER…..WASALAM!!!!
Salam Abu Muhammad, your concerns are well placed and understood. However the issue here is not a personal or a private one; it is a fundamental issue that affects many Muslims and delves deep in the heart of Islamic aqeedah. The ulema have clarified it numerous times in the past, yet there are those who are bent on resurrecting it and trying to corrupt, manipulate and re-interpret it.
When it comes to the Asma wa Sifat of Allah SWT, then it become an obligation upon the learned Muslims to educate and bring the matter back to Allah and His Messenger and the ijma of the Salaf.
For the issue suject in question, I think what the Asharis are doing in reality is second-guessing Allah. Because their minds cannot comprehend the words of Allah Ta’ala and His Messenger (SAW) regarding His attributes, they explain them away in fear of being disrespectful etc. What I think is even more disrespectful and dangerous is when they change the meaning of a word spoken by Allah or His Messenger where there is no evidence for this change. The Sifat of Allah are part of His Dhat and when Allah says ‘‘…whom I have created with My Own Hands.” then we acknowledge that He SWT has hands without asking how and without likening it to the creation. If He (SWT) wanted to say ‘‘…whom I have created with My Bounty (or Bounties).” or ‘‘…whom I have created with My Power.” – Then He (SWT) would have done so.
As Muslims, we need to be afraid of being amongst those whom Allah (SWT) says: “By it (the Qur’an), He misleads many, and many He guides thereby. And He misleads thereby only those who are Al-Fasiqoon (the rebellious, disobedient to Allah).”
I certainly do not want to be amongst the fasiqoon, even unintentionally. On the subject of ‘Al-Istiwa (Allah’s Ascension), one of the salaf remarked beautifully: “‘Al-Istiwâ is not unknown, and how (it occurs) is not comprehensible, and from Allah is the Message, upon the Messenger is to convey, and upon us is to affirm.’’ There is ‘ijma on such matters of creed and no individual or group can come years after the Hijrah and try to change this.
Forget the Ahlul Kalam and Ahlul Hadeeth divide, if anyone is unwilling to affirm what Allah Himself and His Messenger (SAW) affirmed, then it equates to rejecting to submit one’s will to that of Allah (lit. Muslim); therefore it then become a matter of being a Muslim or opposite to that.
This is unbelievable. YOU are the one using circular reasoning here. In case you didn’t know, the “ummah of Muhammad” (alaihis salam) will be divided into 73 sects and the one on the right path will be the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah, of which you so-called ahlul hadeeth are not a part of.
When we Sunnis talk about “ijma” we only talk about ijma of the ummah WITHIN the Ahlus Sunnah. The ahlul bid3ah like you do not enjoy the perks of being a part of the ijma the same way the rafidis do not enjoy the perk of being a part of the ijma. When we talk about ijma, it does not include the wahabis and shias and so on.
You can consider us to be anything. The fact of the matter is that the Ahlus Sunnah consider you wahabis (who try to hide their misguidance by fanciful titles like ahlul hadith and salafi) to be the innovators.
Secondly, mentioning quantity is a straw man, but thats expected of a wahabi. I did not mention any numbers anywhere. Indeed the jama3ah is the Quran and Sunnah, but sadly you lack baseerah in both of these.
It’s of course, a totally separate matter that Allah has blessed the Ahlus Sunnah with the numbers too against the wahabis.
You are severely deluded. It is the so called salafis you see here who find it agonising to accept the sifaat of Allah without tahreef and takyeef and tashbeeh and tamtheel. Just have a look at the aqidah section of any wahabi website like Islamqa or this one and you will see all your elders indulging in all of this that you just mentioned.
They are working day and night to somehow propagate the belief that Allah is something like a man that sits on a chair in heaven and comes down every night. If that is not tamtheel and tashbeeh and takyeef, then please enlighten the world what IS tamtheel and tashbeeh and takyeef?
You are right about the sins of those who interpret the Quran based on the nafs. Did you also know that THE BEST tafseer of the Quran is that which is done in light of other verses of the Quran? Yet you people fail to interpret certain mutashabihaat in light of laysa kamithlihi shayi and walam yakunlahu kufuwan ahad – and you have the audacity to say we are the one’s who engage in tamtheel and tashbeeh!! Utterly unbelievable!
This is preposterous. No one is talking about Allah’s sifaat based on whims. No one is saying he knows better than the sahaba. On the contrary we say that ours is the belief propagated BY the sahaba as they learnt from the Prophet.
What the likes of you fail to see is that “sitting” MEANS being in a location. It means being “above” something, having a lower limit. A direction or BEING ABOVE MEANS having a limit. If you are above something, it MEANS definitely that something is below you. It definitely MEANS that you have a lower limit.
It is NOT us using our “opinions” and “i think” and “I understand”… this IS the meanings words convey when taken literally. We negate such literal meanings because they involve tashbih and tajsim and we know that Allah is free of similitude to His creation as He has said in the Quran itself and as His Messenger has taught us.
May Allah protect Sunnis from the fitnah of the mujassimah and mushabbiha.
ameen
thumma ameen
May Allah keep us on the path balanced, in the middle… al-wasat (and i don’t mean the qabilah from chicago
)
P.S. Btw, the finger-pointing isn’t helping anyone’s case.
You fail to see that no one from the Ahlus Sunnah negates what Allah and His Messenger have said.
What is negated is similitude to creation based on literalism.
You mentioned two verses.
What about the verse of the “rope of Allah”?
What about the verse of turning anywhere and seeing the “wajh” of Allah.?
What about the verse where it says everything shall be destroyed except His “wajh”?
What about the verse where it says that Allah is the “noor” of the heavens and the earth?
What about the verse regarding where ever you shall turn, you shall see the “wajh” of Allah?
What about the Hadith Qudsi which says that Allah “becomes” the hands and feet and eyes of the pious slave?
Why don’t you wahabis affirm these verses and such ahadith also literally? What’s you excuse for not taking THESE verses and ahadith literally, like you are so insistent on taking some of the other verses literally?
Doesn’t creation have parts?
Didn’t you just talk about negating tamtheel and tashbeeh?
Who is talking about “parts” of Allah here?
What other “parts” do you attribute to Him?
laa hawla walaa quwwata illa billaah!
and you say WE engage in tashbeeh and tamtheel and tajseem.
see the filth of your aqaid and your words!
and you wonder why the wahabis are dejected in the duniya and the akhirah! you people are just like the christians who believe that God is a “big fella sitting up there”
yu3izzu man’yashaa wa yudhillu man’yashaa
>> What about the verse of the “rope of Allah”?
This verse has been explained in the ahadeeth of the Prophet saaw and explained in detail by the mufasireen. I am not responsible if you have not done your homework into this matter before trying to justify the ta’weel i aspects of the attributes of Allah (p.s. the “rope” of allah is NOT one of His attributes).
“And hold fast, all together to the rope of Allah and do not separate” (Aal’ Imraan:103)
Ibn Katheer has a no. of verified interpretations, amongst which is “(to the Rope of Allah) refers to Allah’s covenant”
The ‘rope of Allah’ was described by Ibn Masoo’d to be the ‘Jama’ah’ [Tafseer of TABARI]
And there are others amongst these. The point if that the “rope of Allah” HAS been explained and defined whereas the saifat of Allah have not and therefore we can not make ta’weel of them when the Prophet or his compantions did not! This is what being “sunni” means…
Ummat Muhammad, please be objective and polite in your debates. And keep in perspective that you are talking about specialized obscure issues that 99% of Muslims have not even heard of before you call anyone a deviant.
Understand the other position and don’t use straw man arguments. Nobody here believes Allah is a “big fella up there”, and nobody is purposefully second guessing what Allah said.
Subhanallah it is one of the traps of shaitan that the most knowledgeable of the Umma get caught up talking to themselves about esoteric issues, without adab, bordering on takfeer, while the masses don’t even pray properly and are indulged in all sorts of sins – and the Umma is under severe attack.
wake up!
And honestly, calling other people’s ideas “filth” and being condescending does not help anyone’s case – I say this as one who is still largely undecided on these issues, but looking for the truth inshaAllah
As far as history is concerned, Ahlul Hadeeth (people of the Prophet’s narrations) go back before Hijrah and they remain the only maslaq/jama’ah that walk the ’sunni’ talk and adhere in letter and spirit to the beliefs and ways of the earliest Muslims. No one diverted from this original path except they become misguided.
The fitnah of the Mu’tazilah occured in a manner which the asharis of today would like us to accept. The Mu’tazili kufr resulted from their refusal to accept the established athar in regards to aqeedah. They put their aql over the athar and became stubborn in that.
I know of NO sunni grouping (amongst whom the ahlul hadeeth are the foremost) who are mujjasimah or promote anthropomorphism. This is simply not true and it has been clearly proven these charges are simply designs of the enemies of the Sunnah against those who are a thorn on their sides. And history bears witness to this!
Just because the asharis are not competent to understand this aspect of sunni doctrine does not justify them to change and re-interpet it. No wonder so many accuse them of fundamental deviation and it is not hard to see why: http://www.asharis.com/creed
If the asharis want to monopolise sunni aqeedah, then they need to bring definitive and clear evidence from the Quran and Sunnah and Ijma of the Salaf to prove their creedal viewpoints. Al Hamdulillah, the Ahlul Hadeeth have surpassed them in knowledge and strict adherence to all three.
Interesting site Zaki.
I was surprised to see that someone who claims to provide “sunnianswers”, i.e. Abu Adam Naruiji makes open takfeer of Ibn Taymiyyah rh… I thought that only deviant ahbaash, were so bold and reckless to attack shaykh ul islaam. Or is this person a hidden implant of the ahbaash too?
I hope that this sort of takfeeri attitude is sufficient for most sunnis to stay away from him. I have full faith that people who genuinely adhere to moderate ashari beliefs like Hamza Yusuf, Zaid Shakir, etc. will never accept such extremists in their midst. These “pdf refuters” and haters need to be cleaned “out”, just like the clean-house that occurred (and continues to be occurring) among those who claim to the fold of ahl-hadith. The more they are given importance, the more they will poison the discourse.
Assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuhu,
Well said Zaki, may Allah s.w.t reward you and guide us all to the truth and that which is best for us, ameen.
Wassalaam.
Since you pretty much ignored to comment on the rest of my post, I will assume you are one of those asharis who endorse intellectual theology and philosophy (like your heroes that you mentioned), yet fail to hold a direct dialogue concerning the issues in question.
If you are goading me into a personality sling-match by mentioning your ‘respected’ personalities then I will do no such thing as the duo you mentioned have already been judged on their own brand of sufi/ashari philosophy.
The bottom line is that you are bankrupt to even quote a single ‘concensualised’ statement from the salaf of the first 300 years who hold the wicked and mutazili like beliefs of the contemporary asharis re: the correct understanding of Allah’s Attributes. Read through my post again carefully and if you feel up to the challenge, I will be waiting for your response. Otherwise, I sincerely advise you to get on top of your research and spend time in things that will benefit you (i.e. rectifying your aqeedah); as Imam Malik said: “nothing will rectify the latter part of this ummah, except that which rectified it at the beginning – This clearly also includes aqeedah first and foremost.
Zaki, who are you replying to?
IF you are replying to me (and your comment wasn’t misplaced in the thread), then careful reread my comment again. It seems that you are new on MM… get to “know” people before jumping at them.
lol
Amad, zaki will huff and puff and bllllloooooowwwww your house down.
since the man spread his misguided heresies, there always have been scholars who have made takfeer of him, its not just the modern day ahbash … the SUNNI opinions on him (not counting any contemporaries, specially the ahbash), throughout history have ranged from:
1) he was a misguided mubtadi who dissented from the ways of the Ahlus Sunnah (including his supposedly professed madhab of Imam Ahmad rahimahullah) on both usul and furoo3
2) he was a kafir
3) he was intellectually challenged to comprehend knowledge (Imam Subki’s quote: his knowledge exceeded his intelligence)
4) one/more of the above, but repented and became a Sunni before he died.
What the man actually was at the time of his death, is just history. He has died and Allah knows the state of his death best.
The important thing is that the concepts espoused in his books that we have in our midst, are pure and absolute misguidances. There is no ikhtilaf of the Ahlus Sunnah on this bit.
Most Sunnis don’t call him “sheikhul islam” regardless even if they do not consider him a kafir, because of the heresies contained in his books. The only Sunni people who call him “sheikhul islam” are those who either believe that he repented and became a Sunni or politicians who are sold out and do not have integrity. For what its worth, the latter are neither Sunnis nor wahabis nor shia.
May Allah return the unjustified takfeer to every “scholar” who made it, and keep Shaykh ul Islam free of all the lies spread by his enemies. These enemies and liars are only raising the Shaykh’s rank and level in Jannah.
It is one thing to not accept his title of shaykh ul Islam due to theological differences, it is quite another to make takfeer. I only know of ahbaash and the extreme among the sufi asharis who do this, & that is sufficient for the layman to know and avoid such extreme personalities.
Btw, you can keep calling yourself “sunni muslim”, implying exclusion of others from ahlsunnah, but words and names don’t really mean anything, so enough of grandstanding.
Signs of Allah’s Existence.
“O mankind! Worship your Lord (Allah), Who created you and those who were before you so that you may acquire taqwa (piety).
Who has made the earth a resting place for you, and the sky as a canopy, and sent down water (rain) from the sky and brought forth therewith fruits as a provision for you. Then do not set up rivals unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He alone has the right to be worshipped.” Qur’an, 2:21-22
Several scholars of Tafsir, like Ar-Razi and others, used this Ayat (verse) as an argument for the existence of the Creator, and it is a most worthy method of argument. Indeed, whoever ponders over the things that exist, the higher and lower creatures, their various shapes, colors, behavior, benefits and ecological roles, then he will realize the ability, wisdom, knowledge, perfection and majesty of the Creator. Once a Bedouin was asked about the evidence to Allah’s existence, he responded: “All praise is due to Allah! The camel’s dung testifies to the existence of the camel, and the track testifies to the fact that someone was walking. A sky that holds the giant stars, a land that has fairways and a sea that has waves, does not all of this testify that the Most Kind, Most Knowledgeable exists?” [Ar-Razi 2:91]
Hence, whoever gazes at the sky in its immensity, its expanse, and the various kinds of planets in it, some of which appear stationary in the sky – whoever gazes at the seas that surround the land from all sides, and the mountains that were placed on the earth to stabilize it, so that whoever lives on land, whatever their shape and color, are able to live and thrive – whoever reads Allah’s statement:
“And among the mountains are streaks white and red, of varying colours and (others) very black. And likewise, men and ad-Dawwabb (moving, living creatures, beasts) and cattle are of various colours. It is only those who have knowledge among His servants that fear Allah.” (35:27-28)
Whoever thinks about the running rivers that travel from area to area bringing benefit, whoever ponders over what Allah has created on earth; various animals and plants of different tastes, scents, shapes and colors that are a result of unity between land and water, whoever thinks about all of this then he will realize that these facts testify to the existence of the Creator, His perfect ability, wisdom, mercy, kindness, generosity and His overall compassion for His creation. There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, nor is there a Lord besides Him, upon Him we rely and to Him we turn in repentance. There are numerous Ayat in the Qur’an on this subject.
On the issue of sifat, a lot has already been said and some excellent quotes and links given. On a sidenote, please read the excellent book of Imam Muwaffiq Ibn Qudamah ‘Lum’atul I’tiqaad Haadi Ilas Sabilar Rashaad’ (now translated) and can be found at: tinyurl.com/mam68p
Pages 5-8 are relevant to that discussion.
The Ash’airah are the followers of Abul-Hasan ‘Alee bin Ismaa’eel Al-Ash’aree. At first, he inclined towards the views of the Mu’tazilah sect, until he reached forty years of age. Then he openly announced his repentance from that to the public and exposed the falsehood of the Mu’tazilah. So he took hold of the methodology of the Ahl-us-Sunnah, may Allaah have mercy on him.
As for those who attribute themselves to him, they remained upon a specific methodology (like the Saalimah sect whose views consist of tashbeeh), which is known as the Ash’ariyyah sect. They do not confirm any of Allaah’s attributes, except seven, which they believe are proven by intellect. And they distort the meaning of the rest of them. The seven (they affirm) are the ones mentioned in this verse: “He is Living, Knowing, Able and has Speech Desire, and likewise Hearing and Seeing” – They also commit other innovations with regard to the meaning of Speech, Al-Qadar and other than that.
The Creed of Abu Hasan al-Ash’aree in the Latter Part of His Life: http://tinyurl.com/l847ab
Here’s the comprehensive website again: http://www.asharis.com
It clearly stands on its own merit and all references are fully provided for one’s own pursual.