Sharh al-Aqeedatu-Tahaawiyya

The posts about Ta'wil were split and moved into a new thread found here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...hat-tawil.html

And indeed, the truth is clear Alhamdullilah

format_quote Originally Posted by Musalmaan

with due respect, Lets stick to Aqeedatu-Tahaawiyya and no bombardment of "quotes & quotes" in this thread and this not a topic for us to debate on.

The points mentioned in Aqeedatu-Tahaawiyya are quiet clear and distinguish Truth from falsehood, like pt. 38 did so.

may Allah forgive us and guide us all to the way of His true believers.

Yes, the truth does stand out clear form error.

since you said lets stick to the tahawiyyah then here is a present from at-tahawee

51. He encompasses everything and is above it, and what He has created is incapable of encompassing Him.

Point 38 must be locked in with the understanding that is brought in point 51.

And the best sharh of the aqeedah of tahawiyyah is none other than the Imaam of the hanafees, the one who brought the best sharh on at-tahawi unmatched since his time, Haafidh Ibn Abil-Izz al-Hanafee, who explains point 38 quite nicely

قوله وتعالى عن الحدود والغايات والأركان والاعضاء والادوات لا تحويه الجهات الست كسائر المبتدعات

ش أذكر بين يدي الكلام على عبارة الشيخ رحمه الله مقدمة وهي أن الناس في إطلاق مثل هذه الألفاظ ثلاثة أقوال فطائفة تنفيها وطائفة تثبتها وطائفة تفصل وهم المتبعون للسلف فلا يطلقون نفيها ولا إثباتها الا اذا تبين ما أثبت بها فهو ثابت وما نفي بها فهو منفي لأن المتأخرين قد صارت هذه الألفاظ في اصطلاحهم فيها إجمال وابهام كغيرها من الألفاظ الاصطلاحية فليس كلهم يستعملها في نفس معناها اللغوي ولهذا كان النفاة ينفون بها حقا وباطلا ويذكرون عن مثبتها ما لا يقولون به وبعض المثبتين لها يدخل لها معنى باطلا مخالفا لقول السلف ولما دل عليه الكتاب والميزان ولم يرد نص من الكتاب ولا من السنة بنفيها ولا إثباتها وليس لنا أن نصف الله تعالى بما لم يصف به نفسه ولا وصفه به رسوله نفيا ولا إثباتا وانما نحن متبعون لا مبتدعون

فالواجب أن ينظر في هذا الباب أعني باب الصفات فما أثبته الله ورسوله أثبتناه وما نفاه الله ورسوله نفيناه والألفاظ التي ورد بها النص يعتصم بها في الإثبات والنفي فنثبت ما أثبته الله ورسوله من الألفاظ والمعاني وننفي ما نفته نصوصهما من الألفاظ والمعاني وأما الالفاظ التي لم يرد نفيها ولا اثباتها فلا تطلق حتى ينظر في مقصود قائلها فإن كان معنى صحيحا قبل لكن ينبغي التعبير عنه بألفاظ النصوص دون الألفاظ المجملة إلا عند الحاجة مع قرائن تبين المراد والحاجة مثل أن يكون الخطاب مع من لا يتم المقصود معه ان لم يخاطب بها ونحو ذلك

والشيخ رحمه الله اراد الرد بهذا الكلام على المشبهة كداود الجواربي وأمثاله القائلين إن الله جسم وانه جثة واعضاء وغير ذلك تعالى الله عما يقولون علوا كبيرا فالمعنى الذي أراده الشيخ رحمه الله من النفي الذي ذكره هنا حق لكن حدث بعده من أدخل في عموم نفيه حقا وباطلا فيحتاج الى بيان ذلك وهو أن السلف متفقون على أن البشر لا يعلمون لله حدا وانهم لا يحدون شيئا من صفاته قال ابو داود الطيالسي كان سفيان وشعبة وحماد بن زيد وحماد بن سلمة وشريك وابو عوانة لا يحدون ولا يشبهون ولا يمثلون يروون الحديث ولا يقولون كيف وإذا سئلوا قالوا بالأثر وسيأتي في كلام الشيخ وقد أعجز خلقه عن الإحاطة به فعلم ان مراده أن الله يتعالى عن أن يحيط أحد بحده لأن المعنى أنه متميز عن خلقه منفصل عنهم مباين لهم سئل عبد الله بن المبارك بم نعرف ربنا قال بأنه على العرش بائن من خلقه قيل بحد قال بحد انتهى ومن المعلوم أن الحد يقال على ما ينفصل به الشيء ويتميز به عن غيره والله تعالى غير حال في خلقه ولا قائم بهم بل هو القيوم القائم بنفسه المقيم لما سواه فالحد بهذا المعنى لا يجوز أن يكون فيه منازعة في نفس الأمر أصلا فإنه ليس وراء نفيه إلا نفي وجود الرب ونفي حقيقته وأما الحد بمعنى العلم والقول وهو أن يحده العباد فهذا منتف بلا منازعة بين أهل السنة قال أبو القاسم القشيري في رسالته سمعت الشيخ أبا عبد الرحمن السلمي سمعت أبا منصور بن عبد الله سمعت أبا الحسن العنبري سمعت سهل بن عبد الله التستري يقول وقد سئل عن ذات الله فقال ذات الله موصوفة بالعلم غير مدركة بالإحاطة ولا مرئية بالأبصار في دار الدنيا وهي موجودة بحقائق الإيمان من غير حد ولا إحاطة ولا حلول وتراه العيون في العقبى ظاهرا في ملكه وقدرته وقد حجب الخلق عن معرفة كنه ذاته ودلهم عليه بآياته فالقلوب تعرفه والعيون لا تدركه ينظر إليه المؤمن بالأبصار من غير إحاطة ولا ادراك نهاية

وأما لفظ الأركان والأعضاء والأدوات فيستدل بها النفاة على نفي بعض الصفات الثابتة بالأدلة القطعية كاليد والوجه قال أبو حنيفة رضي الله عنه في الفقه الأكبر له يد ووجه ونفس كما ذكر تعالى في القرآن من ذكر اليد والوجه والنفس فهو له صفة بلا كيف ولا يقال أن يده قدرته ونعمته لأن فيه إبطال الصفة انتهى وهذا الذي
قاله الإمام رضي الله عنه ثابت بالأدلة القاطعة قال تعالى ) ما منعك أن تسجد لما خلقت بيدي ( ) والأرض جميعا قبضته يوم القيامة والسماوات مطويات بيمينه ( وقال تعالى ) كل شيء هالك إلا وجهه ( ) ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والإكرام ( وقال تعالى ) تعلم ما في نفسي ولا أعلم ما في نفسك ( وقال تعالى ) كتب ربكم على نفسه الرحمة ( وقال تعالى ) واصطنعتك لنفسي ( وقال تعالى ) ويحذركم الله نفسه ( وقال e في حديث الشفاعة لما يأتي الناس آدم فيقولون له خلقك الله بيده وأسجد لك ملائكته وعلمك أسماء كل شيء الحديث ولا يصح تأويل من قال إن المراد باليد بالقدرة فإن قوله ) لما خلقت بيدي ( لا يصح أن يكون معناه بقدرتي مع تثنية اليد ولو صح ذلك لقال إبليس وأنا أيضا خلقتني بقدرتك فلا فضل له علي بذلك فإبليس مع كفره كان أعرف بربه من الجهمية ولا دليل لهم في قوله تعالى ) أو لم يروا أنا خلقنا لهم مما عملت أيدينا أنعاما فهم لها مالكون ( لأنه تعالى جمع الأيدي لما اضافها إلى ضمير الجمع ليتناسب الجمعان فاللفظان للدلالة على الملك والعظمة ولم يقل أيدي مضافا إلى ضمير المفرد ولا يدينا بتثنية اليد مضافا الى ضمير الجمع فلم يكن قوله ) مما عملت أيدينا ( نظير قوله ) لما خلقت بيدي ( وقال النبي e عن ربه عز وجل حجابه النور ولو كشفه لأحرقت سبحات وجهه ما انتهى إليه بصره من خلقه ولكن لا يقال لهذه الصفات إنها أعضاء أو جوارح او أدوات أو أركان لأن الركن جزء الماهية والله تعالى هو الأحد الصمد لا يتجزأ سبحانه وتعالى والأعضاء فيها معنى التفريق والتعضيه تعالى الله عن ذلك ومن هذا المعنى قوله تعالى ) الذين جعلوا القرآن عضين ( والجوارح فيها معنى الاكتساب والانتفاع وكذلك الأدوات هي الآلات التي ينتفع بها في جلب المنفعة ودفع المضرة وكل هذه المعاني منتفية عن الله تعالى ولهذا لم يرد ذكرها في صفات الله تعالى فالألفاظ الشرعية صحيحة المعاني سالمة من الاحتمالات الفاسدة فكذلك يجب أن لا يعدل عن الألفاظ الشرعية نفيا ولا إثباتا لئلا يثبت معنى فاسد أو ينفي معنى صحيح وكل هذه الالفاظ المجملة عرضة للمحق والمبطل

وأما لفظ الجهة فقد يراد به ما هو موجود وقد يراد به ما هو معدوم ومن المعلوم أنه لا موجود إلا الخالق والمخلوق فإذا أريد بالجهة أمر موجود غير الله تعالى كان مخلوقا والله تعالى لا يحصره شيء ولا يحيط به شيء من المخلوقات تعالى الله عن ذلك وإن أريد بالجهة امر عدمي وهو ما فوق العالم فليس هناك إلا الله وحده فإذا قيل إنه في جهة بهذا الاعتبار فهو صحيح ومعناه أنه فوق العالم حيث انتهت المخلوقات فهو فوق الجميع عال عليه ونقاه لفظ الجهة الذين يريدون بذلك نفي العلو يذكرون من أدلتهم أن الجهات كلها مخلوقة وانه كان قبل الجهات وأن من قال إنه في جهة يلزمه القول بقدم شيء من العالم وأنه كان مستغنيا عن الجهة ثم صار فيها وهذه الألفاظ ونحوها إنما تدل على أنه ليس في شيء من المخلوقات وسواء سمي جهة او لم يسم وهذا حق ولكن الجهة ليست أمرا وجوديا بل أمر إعتباري ولا شك أن الجهات لا نهاية لها وما لا يوجد فيما لا نهاية له فليس بموجود

وقول الشيخ رحمه الله لا تحويه الجهات الست كسائر المبتدعات هو حق باعتبار أنه لا يحيط به شيء من مخلوقاته بل هو محيد بكل شيء وفوقه وهذا المعنى هو الذي أراده الشيخ رحمه الله لما يأتي في كلامه أنه تعالى محيط بكل شيء وفوقه فإذا جمع بين كلاميه وهو قوله لا تحويه الجهات الست كسائر المبتدعات وقوله محيط بكل شيء وفوقه علم أن مراده أن الله تعالى لا يحويه شيء ولا يحيط به شيء كما يكون لغيره من المخلوقات وأنه تعالى هو المحيط بكل شيء العالي عن كل شيء

لكن بقي في كلامه شيئان

أحدهما أن إطلاق مثل هذا اللفظ مع ما فيه من الإجمال والإحتمال كان تركه أولى وإلا تسلط عليه وألزم بالتناقض في اثبات الإحاطة والفوقية ونفي جهة العلو وإن أجيب عنه بما تقدم من أنه انما نفى أن يحويه شيء من مخلوقاته فالاعتصام بالالفاظ الشرعية اولى

الثاني أن قوله كسائر المبتدعات يفهم منه أنه ما من مبتدع إلا وهو محوي وفي هذا نظر فإنه ان أراد أنه محوي بأمر وجودي فممنوع فان العالم ليس في عالم آخر وإلا لزم التسلسل وان أراد أمرا عدميا فليس كل مبتدع في العدم بل منها ما هو داخل في غيره كالسموات والأرض في الكرسي ونحو ذلك ومنها ما هو منتهى المخلوقات كالعرش فسطح العالم ليس في
غيره من المخلوقات قطعا للتسلسل كما تقدم ويمكن أن يجاب عن هذا الإشكال بأن سائر بمعنى البقية لا بمعنى الجميع هذا اصل معناها ومنه السؤر وهو ما يبقيه الشارب في الإناء فيكون مراده غالب المخلوقات لا جميعها إذ السائر على الغالب أدل منه على الجميع فيكون المعنى أن الله تعالى غير محوي كما يكون أكثر المخلوقات محويا بل هو غير محوي بشيء تعالى الله عن ذلك ولا نظن بالشيخ رحمه الله انه ممن يقول إن الله تعالى ليس داخل العالم ولا خارجه بنفي التعيينين كما ظنه بعض الشارحين بل مراده أن الله تعالى منزه عن أن يحيط به شيء من مخلوقاته وأن يكون مفتقرا إلى شيء منها العرش او غيره
وفي ثبوت هذا الكلام عن الإمام أبي حنيفة رضي الله عنه نظر فإن أضداده قد شنعوا عليه بأشياء أهون منه فلو سمعوا مثل هذا الكلام لشاع عنهم تشنيعهم عليه به وقد نقل أبو مطيع البلخي عنه إثبات العلو كما سيأتي ذكره ان شاء الله تعالى وظاهر هذا الكلام يقتضي نفيه ولم يرد بمثله كتاب ولا سنة فلذلك قلت إن في ثبوته عن الإمام نظرا وان الأولى التوقف في إطلاقه فإن الكلام بمثله خطر بخلاف الكلام بما ورد عن الشارع كالاستواء والنزول ونحو ذلك ومن ظن من الجهال أنه اذا نزل الى سماء الدنيا كما أخبر الصادق e يكون العرش فوقه ويكون محصورا بين طبقتين من العالم فقوله مخالف لإجماع السلف مخالف للكتاب والسنة وقال شيخ الإسلام أبو عثمان إسماعيل بن عبد الرحمن الصابوني سمعت الأستاذ أبا منصور بن حماد بعد روايته حديث النزول يقول سئل ابو حنيفة رضي الله عنه عنه فقال ينزل بلا كيف انتهى

وإنما توقف من توقف في نفي ذلك لضعف علمه بمعاني الكتاب والسنة وأقوال السلف لذلك ينكر بعضهم أن يكون فوق العرش بل يقول لا مباين ولا مجانب لا داخل العالم ولا خارجه فيصفونه بصفة العدم والممتنع ولا يصفونه بما وصف به نفسه من العلو والاستواء على العرش ويقول بعضهم بحلوله في كل موجود أو يقول هو وجود كل موجود ونحو ذلك تعالى الله عما يقول الظالمون والجاحدون علوا كبيرا وسيأتي لإثبات صفة العلو لله تعالى زيادة بيان عند الكلام على قول الشيخ رحمه الله محيط بكل شيء وفوقه إن شاء الله تعالى

the basic gists of it, he says exactly what i said, that while it is necessary to purify the creator from having direction LIKE how the creation is bound by direction, it is not taken or understood by us that we should purify the Creator from what the Creator affirmed for Himself i.e. that He Rose above the Throne. He also mentions that three sayings emerged from it one totally denying it, one totally accepting it blindly at face value (which is what the deniers that Alllah Rose Over His Thrown are upon), and the other only being reserved as to refraining from doing the two until inquiring what is meant (which is what we sunnis are upon). And that our duty is to look into the morphology of it and that it is neither intended to mean one or the other until one compares it with the sayings of quran and hadeeth texts

had you any knowledge as to why false interpretors used this point in their favor in a way at-Tahawi did not intend is because to these deniers of the highness of Allah (al-Uloow) opined two reasons for their denialment

1. they reasoned or actually they denied al-haraka (movement) from Allah. They viewed that movement to be something created.
Now lets contrast this beleif with what the salaf beleived

Harb al-Kirmaanee mentioned that this (meaning the following statement) is the saying of those whom he met from the Imaams of Sunnah, such as Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ishaaq Ibn Rahaweih, Abdullah Ibn Zubair al-Humaidee, Sa'eed ibn Mansoor. The wording bellow is the wording of Sa'eed ibn Mansoor, and others stated similar

"Certainly, al-haraka is one of the requisites of life, for every living thing moves and they (the salaf) treated the denial of this (al-haraka) as one of the sayings of the jahmiyyah"

So while "SOME" of the salaf denied using the TERM (the actual pronounced term called haraka) they are all agreed to the meaning and implication of what it was used for i.e. His Coming (majee), His Arriving (Ityaan), and His Descent (Yanzil), His Rising (istiwaa). So those who denied the usage of the word only denied the usage of the word and not the aqeedah implied behind it

2. the second matter that lead to the denialment of the original negators of the Attributes was the kalaami argument whcih was that "direction" has no aspect of "above" to it. So to them, direction MEANT BY DEFAULT (due to their narrow-minded aristolian philosophizing) that it was "bound" and therefore has a limit and encompassed.

While the two groups agree (meaning the affirmers of the Attributes i.e. the orthodox sunnis and the negators of the attributes i.e. the heretical people of kalaam) that Allah is not "BOUND" or encompassed or that He is limited, where they differed is that the second heretical group understood the multiplicity of quranic proofs and the hadeethi proofs of Allah's being "above the arsh' and looked at it from the aristolian definition of what "direction" meant. On that basis they denied the Ayaah of Allah where He affirms what He Affirms.

That is why I state what the Shafi'i erudite scholar adh-Dhahabee once again where he says that in reality, we i.e. the sunnis, do not look or view what is above the throne as being encompessed and having limit, to the contrary we view that whatever is below the throne is what is encompassed and having limits and direction.

of course this is one fundamental the negators always seem to gaze over, that they are the ones who make tashbeeh of Allah, they are the ones who liken Allah to the creation. WHY?

because we seperate Allah from the creation and we beleive that the quraan IS ABSOLUTELY FREE OF THE KUFR OF TAJSEEM AND TASHBEEH. With that being said when they read the quraan, anthropomorphism lerks in their minds, and they know that as a fundamental, tajseem is kufr. So therefore they began the innovation, as adh-dhahabee the historian remarks, of t'awil.

They are the ones who invented t'awil for themselves because to them, the quran is blasphemous and add to that the prophetic traditions as well.

asalamu alaikum

Salam, why did the sharh stop at al-Miraj, please bro... finish the job

actually thats alll i have that was translated by a brother I beleive his name is ABu Rhayyim and was a sharh from Abdur-Rahman al-KHumayyis.

I don't think my arabic is good enough begin where he left off translating Ibn Abi'l Izz's sharh.

asalamu alaikum

sorry people, i dont mean to rain on your parade, but i was reading this fatwa today. its quite long, so i have just posted the relevant part.

Despite what we have referred to of the good features of this ‘Aqeedah and its commentary by Ibn Abi’l-‘Izz, it also contains a number of issues which were criticized, because they go against what the salaf believed, such as his saying, when defining faith: “Faith is affirming with the tongue and believing in the heart,” because limiting it to that is the view of the Murji’i fuqaha’ who excluded physical actions from the definition of faith. The same applies to what he said after that, “Faith is one and the same, and believers are equal with regard to the foundation of faith.”

It also includes some general phrases that may be understood incorrectly, and are most often used by innovators to mean things that are contrary to the beliefs of the righteous salaf, such as his saying, “exalted be He above limits and boundaries” and “exalted be He above having faculties and parts” and “He is not subject to directions and dimensions which are attributes of created beings.” Such phrases are used by those who misinterpret the attributes of Allaah (al-mu’attilah) to deny what is affirmed in the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger of the sublime attributes of Allaah that befit His perfection, may He be glorified and exalted, such as His Countenance, hands and eyes. They call them faculties and parts, and deny that Allaah possesses them.

Another example is His being above His creation, and His rising above His Throne in His heaven. They call this “directions and location” and deny that it applies to Allaah, may He be exalted.

Because of that, it is important for the seeker of knowledge to pay attention to learning this ‘Aqeedah from a scholar of Ahl al-Sunnah who can explain it, such as Ibn Abi’l-‘Izz among classical scholars and from contemporary scholars who have written brief commentaries on it, as we have referred to above.

There are many audio commentaries on this book, such as the commentary by Shaykh Saalih Aal al-Shaykh, and the commentary by Shaykh Yoosuf al-Ghufays, and others.

Shaykh Safar al-Hawaali (may Allaah preserve him) has commented at length on the commentary of Ibn Abi’l-‘Izz; you may refer to it on his website.

read the whole fatwa here inshallah.

that is true, the hanafi fuqaha haad irj'aa in their faith.

but that does not mean we turn around and go the other extrme as Safar al-Hawalee did by virtually labeling the orthodox beliefs as that of irj'aa.

So yes, it is incumbant upon us to not refer to, or take guidance form the murjis in all of their manifestations, and along with that, we do not take or refer to people upon khariji beliefs regarding emaan either. Ahlu-sunnah are hte middle people between the two extremes

asalamu alaikum

And this is why scholars say this book is named 'Aqeedatu-Tahaawiyya and not Aqeedatu-Salafiyyah or its likes.

salaam

This creed is menat to be the creed that all (sunni) muslims agree upon - I'm going to get the creed translated by Hamza Yusuf soon.

peace

Hamza Yusif is not sunni in creed

he is ash'ari in creed

if one wants the full sharh of Imaam at-Tahwaee, another brother just posted its links in the next sticky thread on the commentary of tahawiyyah

asalamu alaikum

format_quote Originally Posted by al-Izaaree

Hamza Yusif is not sunni in creed

he is ash'ari in creed

if one wants the full sharh of Imaam at-Tahwaee, another brother just posted its links in the next sticky thread on the commentary of tahawiyyah

asalamu alaikum

salaam

He made a translation of Imam Thawi's book and talks about it in an inverview on Islam channel (which you can view on Youtube) - the Asharis, Ataris and Matrudi are the 3 groups that he talks about - its the main basic Sunni aqeada accpeted by all sunnis including himself.

peace

Im confused. what aayah/hadith has the imam, rahimahullah used to come to the conclusion that

38. And The Most High is far from having limits or restrictions, supporting parts or limbs and He is not confined to the six directions (right, left, front, back, above and below) like the rest of created things.

doesn't that negate that he is above the heavens (as stated in the hadith) they just seem to very opposite and contradicting things
i have read the explanation given, but it doesn't really make much sense...

^ Go here: Sharh Aqeedah al-Tahawiyyah - Ibn Abil al-'Izz al-Hanafi

In Part 2, read from page 156 onwards of the actual book (page 87 on the file) where Ibn Abi al-’Izz al-Hanafi gives an explanation of this point. If that still isn't enough, I suggest asking a scholar or on the Multaqa forums.

Sheikh Allaamah Muhammad Aamaan ibn Ali Al Jaami did a beautiful explaination for that and it is in arabic. i'll paste the link later on insha Allah

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran

salaam

He made a translation of Imam Thawi's book and talks about it in an inverview on Islam channel (which you can view on Youtube) - the Asharis, Ataris and Matrudi are the 3 groups that he talks about - its the main basic Sunni aqeada accpeted by all sunnis including himself.

peace

Yeah, Im aware of this new phenomenon that came as a tidal wave to the ummah.

The liars among the Ash'aris claimed that this was the claim of Imaam as-Safareenee

One of the greatest deceptions utilized by our ash'ari bretheren is the statement, 'The saved sect (meaning, Ahl al-Hadeeth), are the Atharis, the Ash’aris and the Maturidis'

Here is the actual rendering of his words

Some scholars said: (the saved sect) meaning, Ahl al-Hadeeth, i.e. the Atharis, the Ash’aris and the Maturidis

From what I have encountered, no scholar in Islamic history before or during as-safarini's time has made this statement, ever. Nevertheless the fact that he says “some scholars said” is apparently something he heard that may have been going around or something he came across. Whatever the case, it is apparent that it is not something he agrees with. In fact his very “sharh” of this statement proves this.
He states
I say: The wording of the Hadeeth, i.e. The Prophet's statement: ‘except one sect’, contradicts the idea of multiplicity, and thus I said:
This text (about the saved sect) cannot be applied to any sect Save the Ahl al-Athar’ (1/76)

Thus, according to the very Imaam whom the Asharis and maturidis used his words to imply upon us that he accepted them as part of ahlu-sunnah, is himself negating them to be so based upon the understanding of the salaf of which bases its understanding of “those who are saved” on being none other than “what the companions were upon” which has been dealt with above.

However if we, the Muslims, were ever sane enough to accept such a notion from our unwanted opponents, then based on their own premise, where did they ever exert this half hearted asl upon the “atharis” at any point in history. Ibnul-Qudamah is the champion of the athari aqeedah and is defamed by some of the ash’ari’s own predecessors. Ibn Taymiyyah is more so the chmpion of athari aqeedah since the time of Ahmad as is merely understood by all atharis.

Another claim was invented by Abdur-Rahman as-Sondalaanee in which he stated that ahlu-sunnah have three differing aqeedahs and only 2 in kalaam.

But I love when such people make these claims because it reveals how much fools they are because I know no Muslim will buy this. If anyone asks any Zayd or Amr on the street "ahlu-sunnah as three different aqeedahs that are acceptbale as ahlu-sunnah" he might thing your a munafiq. So I implore that people who allowed themselves to be scammed by this idea to continue spreading it.

asalamu alaikum

format_quote Originally Posted by Umm ul-Shaheed

Im confused. what aayah/hadith has the imam, rahimahullah used to come to the conclusion that


doesn't that negate that he is above the heavens (as stated in the hadith) they just seem to very opposite and contradicting things
i have read the explanation given, but it doesn't really make much sense...

The words are self explanatory in and of themselves.

what the Imaam is saying is that Allah is not "ENCOMPASSED" by the six directions. In other words He is not quarantined to up or down as it He is encompassed by that direction or the opposite directions.

So there is nothing wrong wit hthe Imaams words rather there is everything wrong with heretics that are mutakalimoon who try to interpret an athari text book on creed. This is what happens when people of kalaam try to explain the words of a muthbit athari al-Imaam at-Tahawee.

What the heretics would do is to interpret this to MEAN that Allah is not in the direction of 'Uloow" and is therefore NOT over the Throne as He said He is. So whenever they come across this statement from Tahawee, they are stupid enough to trick themselves into thinking that this athari is negating that Allah is over the Throne which He affirms in other points in his aqeedah, one of them being point number 51

the heretics among the ash;aris like to rape this single point as if the other point at-Tahawee made was never mentioned which was point 51

51. He encompasses everything and is above it, and what He has created is incapable of encompassing Him.

If Allah is "above" then that entails "direction" that is noted in point 38.

This is why we can;t depend on heretics to explain an athari text book, since Imaam at-Tahawee was a fully fledged Athari in Aqeedah.

Here is the sharh for point 38

The Explanation:

Allah, The Glorified and Exalted is Exalted and removed from any restrictions or limitations. There are no restrictions for Allah, restricting and confining Him, and there are no limitations for Him. Of course this means that Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, does not permeate His creation and is not united with His creation. Indeed, He is The Glorified and Exalted is far from being on the level of His creation. And indeed He negates for Himself any supporting parts or limbs for these are tools of the servants, that which helps them benefit themselves and well as repel harm, and Allah, The Exalted, is far above this.
This is what we know from what is mentioned in the Qur’an of Allah’s Names and Attributes, but we say: Indeed the meanings of them (i.e., Allah’s Names and Attributes) in truth is what is based on clear evidence and we understand this meaning and we affirm it for Allah upon what was intended. We do not, however, try to delve into the kaifiyyah, for indeed it the knowledge of it belongs exclusively to Allah. And similarly, He (Allah) Glorified and Exalted is not limited to the six directions like the rest of created things. Of course, we do not understand this to mean that this is a total negation of direction. Indeed He, The Glorified and Exalted is in the Most Exalted and uppermost direction but what was intended by the statement is that He, Glorified and Exalted in not bound or restricted by directions nor overtaken by them like His creation.
Synopsis:
Indeed, Allah, Most High will be seen on the Day of Rising with clear vision and the seeing of Him by the believers is true even though their vision of Him does not and can not encompass Him and this is inherent in the texts of this chapter. And it is an obligation upon the Muslim to refrain from attempting to interpret (these affairs) and to refrain from the speech of the people who negate (these affairs) and to know that Allah, The Blessed and Most High is far removed from being similar to His creatures.


Now, if you wish to understand more in depth as to why the mutakalimoon suffered from chronic illogic syndrome fueled by kalaam, then their illogic and reason bereft of any benefit was best explained by Imaam al-Qurtubee

Now, originally, Qurtubee was commenting on the philosophers, but ideologically, the people he is addressing are his contemporaries among the ash'aris because they used the exact same absurd arguments as the philosophers even though their conclusions were diametrically opposed.

he says
in his Asnaa

"Many of the past and contemporary philosophers said, ‘When it is necessary to purify the Creator (al-Baaree) - whose Magnificence is great - from having direction (jihah) and demarcation (tamayyuz), then from the requirements and necessary consequences of this, in the view of most of the past scholars and their leading contemporaries, is to purify the Creator (al-Baaree) from having direction (jihah). In their view, direction does not have the aspect of ‘above’ to it. This is because to them, when Allaah is designated with direction, this would necessitate that He is restricted to a place (makaan) and a confine (hayyiz). (Subsequently), a place and a confine necessitate (for Him) (such) movement and stillness that is related to distinction (tamayyuz), transformation (taghayyur) and new occurrences (hudooth) . This is the saying of the philosophers. "

The Shafi'ee jurist adh-Dhahabee has a beautiful comment on al-Qurtubee's words above and highlighting where the ash'aris fit in all of this mess and how they negated Him from existence.

I hope this was more than sufficient to explain how our view of this point is actually the meaning of his claim and the awkward claims of the ash'aris fail to explain this point in its correct light, especially by contrasting this point with other points that denote Allah being over the Throne.

asalamu alaikum

^ i also agree that there aren't 3 as a shiekh once mentioned (along the lines of), "how can something contradictory be unified."

but i think there maybe a genuine misunderstanding on both parties as (im not sure about abu mansoor al-Maturidi) but abul hasan asl-Ashari, rahimahullah, WAS a mu3tazili, but later accepted the proper belief and died upon it. and i think that's where the confusion may arise for some people, as they know him to be on the acceptable creed, but may take his work from when he was a mu3tazli. im not 100% sure, but just my 2 thinking out aloud cents...

format_quote Originally Posted by Ali_slave of Allah

Sheikh Allaamah Muhammad Aamaan ibn Ali Al Jaami did a beautiful explaination for that and it is in arabic. i'll paste the link later on insha Allah

could you please post this inshallah.