Where're at the "good" deeds as you basically denied what Allah swt told us about himself??
Which schools of Aqeedah do you subscribe too?
- Thread starter Garaad Awal
- Start date
You've called me many names dude you accused me of deviance and kufr. Now if someone makes that accusation and they're wrong, it goes back to them!
How am I wrong when I got my views and creed from the Salaf ??
There's no need for compromises you just follow what the prophet said and Allah said
reer
VIP
so you can do tabdiic on asharis and call them jahmi remnants and then study from abu ishaq al shirazi? are you serious?
Your beliefs are what YOU BELIEVE they said not what they said. I am only continuing because there are people who are curious there is nothing more to be said you rejected the Qur'an and the hadith provided.
You are part of a TINY MINORITY with no relevance or presence in the Ummah's 1453 year history. In more than a millenium you barely have maybe 10 figures let alone ones of any significance. Your ideology is so rare and unknown your leaders were forced to pretend that normative Sunni scholars were somehow 'Salafi' and not Sunni following one of the Sunni schools of aqeedah.
The Ummah does not concur upon era and Ahlus Sunnah is the Ash'ari, Maturidi and Athari schools.
Imam Ash`ari and Imam Maturidi were from the Salaf
Both Imam Abu’l Hasan al-Ash`ari and Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi were from the Salaf (the age of the early Muslims, generally defined as those of the righteous who lived in the first three centuries after the Prophetic age). Both of these Imams simply defended and upheld the transmitted beliefs of the Qur’an and Sunna, as understood by mainstream Sunni Islam in each generation before them, from the extremes of excessive literalism and excessive rationalism.
Their teachings and methodology were accepted as the standard of mainstream Sunni Islam by clear general consensus of the scholarly community in their own times and in every generation since–a sign of Divine acceptance by clear promise of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ (Allah bless him and give him peace), for it is a Divine promise that the teachings of His final revelation will be preserved and a Prophetic promise that his Umma will not agree on error.
The Divine Attributes and the way of Consigning (tafwid) the meaning to Allah
When it comes to understanding those Divine Attributes that may appear to indicate some similitude between the Creator and creation, the preferred position of both the Ash`aris and Maturidis is:
[1] Affirming what Allah has affirmed, such as istiwa’ or His Hand or Eyes, not more and not less.
[2] Negating what Allah has decisively negated, which is any similitude whatsoever between the Creator and creation–a negation that the sound intellect readily discerns, and which was affirmed by Allah’s words, “There is absolutely nothing like unto Him.” [Qur’an]
[3] Consigning (tafwid) the specific meaning and details of such matters to Allah Most High.
[Bajuri, Tuhfat al-Murid `ala Jawharat al-Tawhid; Nablusi, Sharh Ida’at al-Dujunna; Abu Mu`in al-Nasafi, Tabsirat al-Adilla; Qari/Abu Hanifa, Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar; Maydani/Tahawi, Sharh al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya; Bouti, Kubra al-Yaqiniyyat]
This was the way of the Salaf
This was clearly the way of the pious predecessors (salaf). Their statements of affirmation, which our methodologically-divergent brethren passionately latch onto, were not statements of excessive literalism. Rather, they were simply affirming what Allah has affirmed and strongly condemned those who would negate anything that Allah affirmed (for that entails disbelief, thus the reason why some statements were so firm). However, they did not affirm more than that and did not insist on understanding such affirmations in being “literal” in nature. This is because the literal (i.e. primary) meaning of such matters entails affirming similitude between the Creator and creation and such similitude has been clearly and decisively negated throughout the Qur’an.
What About Figurative Interpretation (ta’wil)?
However, when the need for it arose, some of the early Muslim (salaf) scholars and many of the later Muslim (khalaf) scholars used figurative interpretation to give a meaning to such “apparently problematic” primary texts, using the sound principles of linguistic usage and textual interpretation.
These scholars had clear precedent in the interpretations of many of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), most notably Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him), who also engaged in such interpretations when there was need. This is clearly found in many of the very earliest reliable tafsirs of the Qur’an, such as Tafsir al-Tabari, and also in Imam Maturidi’s own tafsir, Ta’wilat Ahl al-Sunna.
The later scholars engaged in figurative interpretation more than the earlier scholars because of the greater prevalence of literalist excesses and the harms these were causing to the laity among the believers.
Does Figurative Interpretation Entail Negation of What Allah Affirmed (ta`til)?
Figurative interpretation doesn’t entail negation of what Allah affirmed in any way whatsoever, because this way, akin to the way of ‘consigning the meaning to Allah’ (tafwid), also entails:
[1] Affirming what Allah has affirmed, such as istiwa’ or His Hand or Eyes.
[2] Negating what Allah has decisively negated, which is any similitude whatsoever between the Creator and creation–a negation that the sound intellect readily discerns, and which was affirmed by Allah’s words, “There is absolutely nothing like unto Him.” [Qur’an]
But it differs in that it
[3] Affirms a meaning to these texts, using the principles of established linguistic usage and sound textual interpretation (such as “Hand” signifying power or favor, as understood from the context). It is very important to note that this figurative interpretation entails affirming a meaning in the sense of affirming what the text signifies–and not an exclusive affirmation of meaning (such that A=B, meaning that text A means B, and nothing else). [For examples of such interpretation, see Shaykh Gibril Haddad’s Ibn `Abd al-Salam and Ash`ari Ta’wil.]
The way of figurative interpretation (ta’wil), as exercised by the mainstream Sunni scholars of the Ash`ari and Maturidi schools is an affirmation of what is understood from such expressions, and not an exclusive specification of meaning. Thus, the way of figurative interpretation (ta’wil), which the scholars only resorted to with the utmost of caution when there was genuine need, also entails a consignment of the ultimate meaning to Allah Most High (tafwid). This is an important but subtle matter, so understand!
And Allah alone gives success.
@Mudug_gyal This is a comprehensive overview there is literally nothing more than can be said
There is also this book- an English translation of an authoritative book almost 300 pages long going into great detail on the 'Ashari school and their place in the history of Ahlus Sunnah. You will also see all the tafseer of the master of tafseer the Sahabi Ibn Abbas and see how it matches with the understanding of these two Imams contrary to the lies that they were on something different.
Both Imam Abu’l Hasan al-Ash`ari and Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi were from the Salaf (the age of the early Muslims, generally defined as those of the righteous who lived in the first three centuries after the Prophetic age). Both of these Imams simply defended and upheld the transmitted beliefs of the Qur’an and Sunna, as understood by mainstream Sunni Islam in each generation before them, from the extremes of excessive literalism and excessive rationalism.
Their teachings and methodology were accepted as the standard of mainstream Sunni Islam by clear general consensus of the scholarly community in their own times and in every generation since–a sign of Divine acceptance by clear promise of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ (Allah bless him and give him peace), for it is a Divine promise that the teachings of His final revelation will be preserved and a Prophetic promise that his Umma will not agree on error.
The Divine Attributes and the way of Consigning (tafwid) the meaning to Allah
When it comes to understanding those Divine Attributes that may appear to indicate some similitude between the Creator and creation, the preferred position of both the Ash`aris and Maturidis is:
[1] Affirming what Allah has affirmed, such as istiwa’ or His Hand or Eyes, not more and not less.
[2] Negating what Allah has decisively negated, which is any similitude whatsoever between the Creator and creation–a negation that the sound intellect readily discerns, and which was affirmed by Allah’s words, “There is absolutely nothing like unto Him.” [Qur’an]
[3] Consigning (tafwid) the specific meaning and details of such matters to Allah Most High.
[Bajuri, Tuhfat al-Murid `ala Jawharat al-Tawhid; Nablusi, Sharh Ida’at al-Dujunna; Abu Mu`in al-Nasafi, Tabsirat al-Adilla; Qari/Abu Hanifa, Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar; Maydani/Tahawi, Sharh al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya; Bouti, Kubra al-Yaqiniyyat]
This was the way of the Salaf
This was clearly the way of the pious predecessors (salaf). Their statements of affirmation, which our methodologically-divergent brethren passionately latch onto, were not statements of excessive literalism. Rather, they were simply affirming what Allah has affirmed and strongly condemned those who would negate anything that Allah affirmed (for that entails disbelief, thus the reason why some statements were so firm). However, they did not affirm more than that and did not insist on understanding such affirmations in being “literal” in nature. This is because the literal (i.e. primary) meaning of such matters entails affirming similitude between the Creator and creation and such similitude has been clearly and decisively negated throughout the Qur’an.
What About Figurative Interpretation (ta’wil)?
However, when the need for it arose, some of the early Muslim (salaf) scholars and many of the later Muslim (khalaf) scholars used figurative interpretation to give a meaning to such “apparently problematic” primary texts, using the sound principles of linguistic usage and textual interpretation.
These scholars had clear precedent in the interpretations of many of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), most notably Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him), who also engaged in such interpretations when there was need. This is clearly found in many of the very earliest reliable tafsirs of the Qur’an, such as Tafsir al-Tabari, and also in Imam Maturidi’s own tafsir, Ta’wilat Ahl al-Sunna.
The later scholars engaged in figurative interpretation more than the earlier scholars because of the greater prevalence of literalist excesses and the harms these were causing to the laity among the believers.
Does Figurative Interpretation Entail Negation of What Allah Affirmed (ta`til)?
Figurative interpretation doesn’t entail negation of what Allah affirmed in any way whatsoever, because this way, akin to the way of ‘consigning the meaning to Allah’ (tafwid), also entails:
[1] Affirming what Allah has affirmed, such as istiwa’ or His Hand or Eyes.
[2] Negating what Allah has decisively negated, which is any similitude whatsoever between the Creator and creation–a negation that the sound intellect readily discerns, and which was affirmed by Allah’s words, “There is absolutely nothing like unto Him.” [Qur’an]
But it differs in that it
[3] Affirms a meaning to these texts, using the principles of established linguistic usage and sound textual interpretation (such as “Hand” signifying power or favor, as understood from the context). It is very important to note that this figurative interpretation entails affirming a meaning in the sense of affirming what the text signifies–and not an exclusive affirmation of meaning (such that A=B, meaning that text A means B, and nothing else). [For examples of such interpretation, see Shaykh Gibril Haddad’s Ibn `Abd al-Salam and Ash`ari Ta’wil.]
The way of figurative interpretation (ta’wil), as exercised by the mainstream Sunni scholars of the Ash`ari and Maturidi schools is an affirmation of what is understood from such expressions, and not an exclusive specification of meaning. Thus, the way of figurative interpretation (ta’wil), which the scholars only resorted to with the utmost of caution when there was genuine need, also entails a consignment of the ultimate meaning to Allah Most High (tafwid). This is an important but subtle matter, so understand!
And Allah alone gives success.
@Mudug_gyal This is a comprehensive overview there is literally nothing more than can be said
There is also this book- an English translation of an authoritative book almost 300 pages long going into great detail on the 'Ashari school and their place in the history of Ahlus Sunnah. You will also see all the tafseer of the master of tafseer the Sahabi Ibn Abbas and see how it matches with the understanding of these two Imams contrary to the lies that they were on something different.
Ahl Al Sunnah The Asharis The Testimony And Proofs Of The Scholars : Shaykh Hamad Al Sinan;Shaykh Fawzi Al Anjari : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Description :In an age in which intra-Muslim religious argumentation dominates, heterodox groups have tried and had great success in presenting their beliefs...
archive.org
Last edited:
Abu Ishaq who takfired almost all of the Sunnah for not being Ashar'ites like him? no I don't take my religion from him.
World
VIP
Tabari said, the proof that Isa can't be divine is because of the following characteristics: movement, indwelling and being in a place; therefore subject to temporalities and not God.
reer
VIP
do you take from al mawardi? if you declare asharis as jahmi remnants you basically throw away a major portion of the madhab. you cannot avoid asharis if study shafi fiqh lol.
It is bizarre that anyone could have an issue with something so basic.Tabari said, the proof that Isa can't be divine is because of the following characteristics: movement, indwelling and being in a place; therefore subject to temporalities and not God.
In the story of Nabi Ibrahim, these qualities are also why as a child he rejected the celestial his people worshipped. The tafsir explains that something that changes (is contingent) cannot be God, something that has a location cannot be God, etc.
Because they are as Tabari said:Tabari said, the proof that Isa can't be divine is because of the following characteristics: movement, indwelling and being in a place; therefore subject to temporalities and not God.
أنهما عبدان مملوكان لمن له ملك السموات والأرض وما فيهن
They are two servants owned by the One who has the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.
And let me answer your deleted posts from the same source, Tabari says on verse 11 chapter 41 of the Quran:
It is astonishing at the one who denies the understood meaning of the words of the Arabs in interpreting the words of God: “Then He ascended to the heaven,” which means height and elevation, in order to escape from himself being bound by his claim - if he interprets it in its understood meaning as well - that He only rose and rose after being below it - Until you interpret it with the unknown from its objectionable interpretation. Then he did not escape from what he fled from! It will be said to him: You claimed that the interpretation of his saying “he rose” was more acceptable. Was he turning away from the sky and approaching it? If he claims that this is not the arrival of an act, but rather the arrival of a plan, it will be said to him: Likewise, say: He exalted above her the exaltation of dominion and authority, not the exaltation of transfer and disappearance. Then he will not say anything about any of that unless he imposes a similar statement regarding the other.
I'm not a student of fiqh plus al mawardi and others like him are Ashar'i in creed while I'm Shafi'i in creed which is the creed of the 1st 3 generationdo you take from al mawardi? if you declare asharis as jahmi remnants you basically throw away a major portion of the madhab. you cannot avoid asharis if study shafi fiqh lol.
Which is why you've been making these statements!I'm not a student of fiqh
Yes and the quote is from Allah swt words
.أأمنتم من في السماء
Allah swt is above the heavens as the aya saysAl-Haafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr :
With regard to the words of Allah (interpretation of the meaning): “Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven [fi’l-sama’] (Allah), will not cause the earth to sink with you, and then it should quake” [al-Mulk 67:16], what it means is the One Who is above the heaven, i.e., above the Throne. The word fi [in the phrase fi’l-sama’ (translated above as ‘over the heaven’); fi literally means ‘in’] may mean ‘ala [above, over]. Haven’t you seen the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “So travel freely (O Mushrikoon) for four months (as you will) throughout the land [fi’l-ard]” [al-Tawbah 9:2], meaning on the land; and the verse in which He says (interpretation of the meaning): “and I will surely, crucify you on the trunks of date palms [fi judhoo’ al-nakhl]” [Ta-Ha 20:71].
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The salaf, the imams and all the scholars of the Sunnah, when they say that He is above the Throne, He is in heaven above all things, do not mean that there is something which contains Him or surrounds Him, or that He has a location, or that there is something that encompasses Him. Exalted be He above that. Rather He is above all things, He has no need of all things, and all things are in need of Him. He is above all things, He is the One Who carries the Throne and its bearers by His power and might. All created beings are in need of Him, but He has no need of the Throne or of any created being.
With regard to what it says in the Quran and Sunnah, “Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven [fi’l-sama’]…?” [al-Mulk 67:16] and so on, some people may understand the word heaven as being the same as the created heaven on high or the Throne and what is beneath it, so they say that His words “in heaven (fi’l-sama’)” mean that He is above the heaven, as the words “and I will surely, crucify you on the trunks of date palms [fi judhoo’ al-nakhl]” [Ta-Ha 20:71] mean on the trunks of date palms, and the words “So travel freely (O Mushrikoon — see V.2:105) for four months (as you will) throughout the land[ fi’l-ard]” [al-Tawbah 9:2] mean on the land.
There is no need for that; rather the word sama’ (often translated as heaven) refers to what is up high, and does not apply to any specific thing. So the words fi’l-sama’ [translated above as ‘in heaven’] apply to that which is up high as opposed to being low or down.
He is high and the highest, and He is the Highest of the high; there is nothing beyond the Most High, may He be glorified and exalted.
Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (16/100-101)
World
VIP
He gave the reason very simply:
“How can Isa(Messiah) be Divine whereas he was on earth, or is in the heavens, and he is not outside of these places.”
Meanwhile you believe:
Ibn Uthaymeen:
“In conclusion: Allah The Almighty has a place (Makan), and that his place (Makan) is in the Heavens, and the Prophet – may God’s prayers and peace be upon him – asked the slave girl, and he said to her: “Where is God?” She said: In the Heavens”
It's very clear, that according to the understanding of Imam Tabari, by Allah having a place and dwelling in the heavens, he isn't divine.
Firstly, that is not what Tabari says on verse 11 chapter 41, but from 2:29.
Dude, i dont know if you are low iq, but he is refuting you, not agreeing with you. Can you not read? "if he interprets it in its understood meaning as well - that He only rose and rose after being below it." MEANING IF YOU BELIEVE THAT ALLAH ASCENDED WITH DISPLACEMENT AND MOVEMENT, THEN ALLAH ONLY DONE SO BY FIRST BEING BELOW.
Tabari says:
The meaning of istiwâ’ in this verse is height (‘uluw) and elevation.
Then he said in that same paragraph:
"but if one claims that this means displacement for Allah, tell him: He is high and elevated over the heaven with the height of sovereignty and power, not the height of displacement and movement to and from."
AND THEN HE SAYS(after u cut it out):
If we did not wish to lengthen the book with what is not of its kind, we would have revealed the corruption of the saying of every person who said something contrary to the saying of the people of truth in this regard. What we have shown is sufficient enough for the person who understands it, God willing.
Last edited:
@Haragwaafi I want you to answer this, but you probably won’t.
This is coming from an Athari as well. There is a lot of contradictions with Salafis which is why I’m no longer one. They’ll insult Asharis ect but take from them at the same time.
Incredibly illogical. At least be consistent and it’s hard to do so with that stance.
reer
VIP
yes. they will declare asharis as ahlul bidah and insult asharis. but they wont do individual rulings on a historical ashari figure or scholar that is loved by muslims. then ask them about salahuddin they wont call him "jahmi remnant". salahuddin aldo spread ashari aqeedah in egypt ask them about al suyuti they wont insult him and they will also study his tafsir.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Last edited:
Wow I dont know for real. Both sides have valid points im confused icl
That one was a violation ngl
Trending
-
-
BREAKING NEWS Saudi ex-Muslim Terror attack in Germany kills 12 people during Christmas Festival- Started by TekNiKo
- Replies: 126
-
