sorry
Printable View
sorry
:sl: :sl:
i saw more than halfve the first video but i kinda found the reason of what he is talking but can someone clear that up if i am wrong because what i think the video is trying to say is that Allah is in heaven or he is in us(his creations) well i think he is just watching us do everything
:wasalamexQuote:
Originally Posted by Yanal
No akhee. It is saying that Allah is above the Heavens, separate from His creation. Perhaps it's worth watching the whole thing? That may make things easier to understand.
:wasalamexQuote:
Originally Posted by wasup
It's also worth reading this:
http://www.islamicboard.com/807361-post22.html
akhee that dua is a silly statement. No one, even those who profess what we profess that ALlah is literally above the Throne as He says He did, do not even say this. Till now I never heard anyoone refer in a dua "Glory to Allah in His place". So if someone says it, the matter is looked into, it is not just outright denied. The asl for ahlu-sunnah regarding the attributes isQuote:
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
1. affirming what the texts verbatimly affirms
2. deny what the texts verbatimly denies
3. and to remain silent where the texts have remained silent and the matter is looked into
firstly, I think the point number is 38, but it could be different publicationsQuote:
number 47 : He (Allah) is transcendent beyond limits, ends, supports, components, or instruments. The six directions do not contain Him as they do created things.
here is it
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.The
here is its sharh from Alamaah al-Khumayyis
I have clarified this elsewhere. I will bring it here. The best and foremost commentator on the tahawiyyah, Haafidh Ibn Abil-Izz al-Hanafee says about point 38Quote:
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.
Discussion:
1. What is the correct understanding of the ru’yaa of Allah, The Most High on The Day of Resurrection?
2. What is obligatory upon the Muslim concerning the texts (Qur’an and Sunnah) that mention the Attributes of Allah?
3. Explain the intention behind the statement that Allah, Most High, is not restricted to the six directions.
the basic gists of it, he says exactly what i have said in the past, 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 textsQuote:
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
Maybe you should seek to learn as to why false interpretors used this point in their favor in a way at-Tahawi did not intend. You will find 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. Their reasoning was not based on any textual sources, it was based on their creedal mentor and role model Aristotle. Their reasoning was that all movement means that it is muhhaath (a new occurance) and a new occurance is free from the eternal, which Allah is, therefore Allah does not do "actions" since "actions" constitute hudooth
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.
of course because we make tafweedh of the nature thereof, not the actual meaning inherent in the apparent understanding of the texts.Quote:
but the deleted post of wnb showed that even imam malik read the ayyat confirming that ALlah has risen above his throne, but he rahimahullah then added "but we dont know in what manner"
this was the claim of the jahmiyyah, it may be that I should post Ahmad's radd alal jahmiyyah in order to show that this beleif started with the jahmiyyahQuote:
There are a lot of scholars from the indian sub continent who claim that Allah is everywhere!!!!
This is backed up by their interpretation of "Allah is closer to you than your jugular vein" ayat found in the quran.
They claim that Allah is present amongst his creation........but not with his knowledge!!!!Very bold statement to make...what do you think brothers and sisters on the forum???
There are a lot of scholars from the indian sub continent who claim that Allah is everywhere!!!!--wasup
Well then those "scholars" are definitly suffiyah only sufis say Allah is everywhere such the kafir Ibn Arabi not the Abu Bakr ibn Arabi. Ibn Taymia made takfir on him for being too extreme.Of course these kinda stuff affect one's aqeeda. Allah is above the heavens over his throne just as he said and just as the scholars have clarified.
:wasalamex
Did you ask these scholars what they meant by Allaah is everywhere? It is actually correct that Allaah is everywhere (in his ilm) and those 'sufis' who state this do not mean that Allaah is literally everywhere, Allaah must3aan. Perhaps people would benefit if they listened more rather than try to dwelve in matters that does not concern them. I'm not referring to you specifically sister, just generally to everyone.
Let complex matters of Aqeedah be for the ulamah and making takfeer on everyone that does not agree with one's ideology is the most funniest and ignorant thing that has cultivated in our society.
Let the scholars speak. For lately it is only the ignorant voices we hear that 'defend' Islaam.
I think this thread should be deleted, it causes more harm than benefit. These matters are for the scholars, not us.
:salamext:
Agreed!!!Quote:
I think this thread should be deleted, it causes more harm than benefit.
no, this thread shouldn ot be deleted becuase quite frankly nothing has happened. So far everything was of significance up and until this rant you displayed here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Pearl
now I understand your concern and it is well received.
however, no one here was not undertaking aqeedah in their own hands. Please find one place from me or anyone else who have expounded on aqeedah from THEMSELVE.
secondly, whether one likes it or not or agrees with it or not, incorrect beleif is of two categories
1. general bida
2. bida al-mukafara i.e. a bida that negates Islam. the sister merely pointed to an ALIM who made takfeer of someone else.she herself wasn ot the innitiator of it. But at any rate, this is not the issue. Thje primal issue of your post is
Allah is everywhere.
this is one of the major problems many of the esoterical or otherwise mystical groups seem to overlook. statements are of differing categories, they are
1. sarih
2. dhaahir
3. muhkaam
4. mutashabih and other clases.
the statement "Allah is everywhere" is a statement that is sarih. There isno dhaahir in it at all, meaning it does not have 2 or 3 or more possibilities, it only has one.
Thus if they beleive or mean something different than their saying "Allah is everywhere", then that means they used the incorect usage or phrase to describe what they beleive. This directly opposes the asl found in Islam, that we, as muslims, are to be precise, and to the point and that the manhaj of a muslims is not to be ambigious. But many people among such groups fail to live up to the command of their own prophet, half of whom they worship, just so that they can fit in with metaphysical kalaam that sounds like esoterical mythology.
Those sufis, in modern times, accord to the ash'ari understanding unfortunately. That means, they do not view Allah is everywhere in His Ilm, rather they have no conception of God at all except for his being al-Hayy (Alive), Hearing, Seeing, Ability, al-Ghanee (Self Sustaining), and the other two Attributes. They reduce Him to a mere figment of the imagination as is easily stressed implicitly in their works, with no real reality to Him. So it is not that He is either everywhere literally or just by His Ilm, it is more like there is no reality to Him at all.
:sl:
:salamext:
This is what sis SIlver Pearl meant. It is better for us to listen to scholars rather than interpret things ourselves! :-\
:sl:
May Allaah grant us insaaf.
The scholars have spoken :) Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafiee, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and those before them and their contemporaries have spoken, and so have those who followed their way from amongst those who came after. Allaah is above the Throne as the very first generation are unanimously agreed upon and as the imaams after them have quoted from them. They said this in refutation of the Jahmiyyah, those who said that He is in every place seeking as a proof His saying, ‘And He is with you…’. So these two sayings were the very two sayings which were present in the time of the Taabi’een and their successors who came after them. They have made clear the aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah, so whoever wishes to follow a path, then let him follow theirs.
:sl: I watched this video yesterday, and alhamdulilah, I gained so much knowledge from it. Jazakallahu khairan yaa ukhti Faizah. :)
you missed my point, I asked where is the refence that anything on this very thread came from us. the implication of her posts hinted to us that some of us or one of us (we don't know who so it is kept general) were speaking from themselves. yet upon review of every single accusation, there is not only one, but a multiplicity of Imaams who has already stated everything here, thus we are merely restating things that have already been ruled upon. The methodology that we hold is primarily what Ahmad enjoined thep eople of the usnnah upon, beware of saying something that you do not have a predecessor in. Thus everything that was stated here follows that guideline, thus for everything that is stated, there is proof for, from the reliable and established Imaams of ahlu-sunnah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muj4h1d4
:sl:
:wasalamexQuote:
Originally Posted by Muj4h1d4
Ibnul-Qayyim (rahimahullaah) composed some beautiful lines of poetry where he stated:
"Knowledge is: (what) Allah said, (what) His Messenger said,
(and what) the Companions said. This is not something false.
Knowledge is not that we rush into disagreements foolishlyNay, and we do not deny and negate the Attibutes (of Allaah)
between the Messenger and between the opinion of a Faqeeh (scholar).
just out of fear of failing into tashbeeh and tamtheel."
In many places in the Qur'an Allah Ta'ala affirms Istiwaa 'alal 'Arsh, for Himself. It is authentically reported from Allah's Messenger sallAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, and from his companions (radhiyAllaahu 'anhum). This is knowledge. Refer to this post:
http://www.islamicboard.com/811428-post25.html
And as 'Ubaydullaah rightly stated, this is also what the four imaams were upon and the Salaf in general. None of us are interpretting anything. We are only affirming what Allah and His Messenger, the companions, the four imaams of fiqh and the rest of the Salaf have stated.
Shaykh al-Akfar (the most disbelieving shaykh - i.e. Ibn 'Arabi) has been ruled as a disbeliever by MANY 'Ullamaa. Amongst them are Al 'Izz ibn Abdus-Salaam (d660 AH), Shaikhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d 728 AH), as-Subki (d 756 AH), al Haafidh ibn Katheer (d 774 AH), Al Haafidh adh-Dhaahaabee (d 748), Al haafidh ibn Hajr (d 852 AH) to name a few. Please refer to Tanbih al-Ghabi ila takfir ibn 'Arabi wa tahdhir al-'Ibad min ahl al-'Inad (Warning to the ignorant person concerning the declaration of ibn 'Arabis kufr, and cautioning the servants of Allah against stubborn people) by Imam Burhan al-Din al-Biqaa'ee (d 885 AH).Quote:
Let complex matters of Aqeedah be for the ulamah and making takfeer on everyone that does not agree with one's ideology is the most funniest and ignorant thing that has cultivated in our society.
حدّثنا شيخنا شيخ الإسلام حافظ العصر، قاضي القضاة، أبو الفضل شهاب الدين أحمد بن علي بن حجر الكناني،العسقلاني الأصل، المصري الشافعي. ثمّ رأيتها منقولة عن كتاب الحافظ تقي الدين الفاسي في تكفير ابن عربي
Read the rest here...Quote:
Allamah Burhaanud-Deen Al-Biqaa'ee narrated:
Our Shaykh, Shaykul-Islam, the Haafidh of his era, chief justice, Abul-Fadal Shihaabud-Deen Ahmed bin `Ali bin Hajar Al-Kanaanee, Al-Asqalanee, As-Shafee, from Egypt, narrated to us:
I also saw this incident transcribed and transmitted from Al-Haafidh Taqiud-Deen Al-Faasee [in his book] which our Shaykh Ibn Hajar Asqalanee himself amended - with his own handwriting – as part of the subject of declaring Ibn `Arabi a disbeliever [Takfeer of Ibn `Arabi].
[QUOTE]
Ibn Hajr also said:
Some confusing words of Ibn ‘Arabi were mentioned to our master Shaykh al-Islam Siraaj al-Deen al-Balqeeni, and he was asked about Ibn ‘Arabi. Our Shaykh al-Balqeeni said: he is a kaafir.
[‘Aqeedah Ibn ‘Arabi wa Hayaatuhu by Taqiy al-Deen al-Faasi]
Ibn Taymiyyah stated in Al-Furqan bayna awliya ar-Rahman wa awliya ash-shaytaan:
Whoever wishes to know more, may read this thread:Quote:
"Ibn Araby rejected this statement of Al-Junaid and said, addressing Al-Junaid in a conversation conjured up in his satanic imagination: "O, Junaid can anyone distinguish between things brought about and that which is without beginning except one who is neither of them?" He viewed Al-Junaid as being in error in saying "distinguishing what is without beginning from that which is brought about", because his statement is that the existence of the things brought about is the very same existence of that which is without beginning, as he said in his book:
"One of the names of Allah is the High (Al-Aliy) - higher than whom? There is nothing there except Him. Higher than what? It is nothing but Him. His highness is in and of Himself, and He is the very same existing things. Those things which are called things brought about are what are high in and of themselves, and they are none other than Him... He is that which is hidden and He is that which is apparent. There is no one there to see Him other than Him, and no one to speak for Him other than Him. He is the one indicated by the name Abu Said Al-Kharraz, and other made-up names."
It is said to this deviant: It is not a condition of distinguishing between two things in knowledge and statement that the distinguisher be other than the two things being distinguished. Every person is able to distinguish between himself and other people, though he is not a third party. The slave of Allah knows that he is a slave, and distinguishes between himself and his Creator and the Great and Glorious Creator distinguishes between Himself and His creations and knows that He is their Lord and they are His slaves. Allah has stated this in the Qur'an in many places, and the Qur'an is the final source of evidence among the believers who believe in it openly and in secret, internally and externally.
These deviants, on the other hand, believe about the Qur'an as At-Talmasaani believed. He was one of them, and among the most well-versed of them in their perverse theory of the unity of the creation and the Creator. "Essences of Wisdom" of Ibn Araby was read to him and it was said to him: "This book of yours goes against the Qur'an." To which he replied: "The whole Qur'an is associationism (shirk), tauhid is only found in our writings." Then, it was said to him: "If all existence is only one, why is a wife halal to a man while his sister is haram? He said: "Both of them, to us, are halal, but he who is veiled says: haram!, and so we say: haram for you."
This person, aside from his blatant disbelief (kufr), has also contradicted himself! If all existence is one, who is the veiled one and who is the one who veils? Thus, one of their shaikhs said to one of his followers: "Whoever tells you that there is anything other than Allah in the universe has lied." The student then asked him: "Who, then is the one who lied?" They said to another student: "These are nothing but appearances." He said to them: "Are these appearances other than what they appear to be, or exactly that? If they are other than that, you have introduced a relativity (no more unity of existence!), and if they are the same, then it is as I said."
I have dealt at length with the exposing of the secrets of these people elsewhere, analyzing the implications of the position of each of them. The author of "The Essences of Wisdom" says: "That which is not there is a thing, and the existence of the Truth (Al-Haqq i.e. Allah) inundates it." Here, he distinguishes between "existence" and "being there"."
http://www.islamicboard.com/sects-di...ibn-arabi.html
I believe that is what we have done, we only reiterrate the words of the 'Ullamaa.Quote:
Let the scholars speak. For lately it is only the ignorant voices we hear that 'defend' Islaam.
No, it won't be deleted. But I am going to close it, as I believe that which has been posted is sufficient.Quote:
I think this thread should be deleted, it causes more harm than benefit. These matters are for the scholars, not us.