Pinned Tweet
The argument is very simple and solid.
Mawlid = ‘Id according to the shar’i definition of ‘Id and therefore it’s a type of Tashri’ and a bid’ah in the Religion.
Abu Humayd Al-Hanbali retweeted
"Ibn Qudamah was a Secret Ash'ari.?" 🤣🤣
Ibn Qudāmah Al-Maqdisī said :
"And we do not know among the sects of innovation any group that conceals their doctrine and does not dare to display it, except for the Zanadiqa (heretics ) and the Ash'aris.
And Allah Almighty commanded His Messenger ﷺ with the manifestation of religion, calling to it, and conveying what was revealed to him. So Allah Almighty said: {O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to your Lord...}
[Al-Ma'idah: 67]."
"If their doctrine were the truth as they claim ,they would have manifested it and called the people to it!"
ALT Source: [Ḥikāyat Al-Munāẓarah fī Al-Qurʾān maʿa Baʿḍ Ahl Al-Bidʿah by Imām Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh bin Aḥmad bin Muḥammad Ibn Qudāmah Al-Maqdisī, Verified and edited by ʿAbd Allāh bin Yūsuf Al-Judayʿ, Maktabat Al-Rushd, Riyadh, Pages 35>
Was Ibn Qudama a secret Ash'ari?
Sure seems like it (in some of his principles). Here are some of his statements from one of his works known as: al-Ṣirāt al-Mustaqīm fee Ithbāt al-Harf al-Qadīm.
Before the Wahhabis come on here and start to bark with statements from the Imam disparaging Imam Ash'ari, I'm well aware of such statements. These statements have no weight or truth behind them. May Allah forgive Ibn Qudama for his slander of Imam Ash'ari. He wasn't the first, nor the last. Unfortunately, he was affected by the false propaganda of Sijzi and others. What's important is the Imam's statements in aqeeda, not what he unjustly said about other imams. All of the following statements are in agreement with the Ash'ari school.
_
1●"The speech of Allah is eternal."
(Here, the Imam is stating that the speech of Allah has no beginning or end. It is atemporal. The Ash'aris agree.)
_
2●"Agreement in the fundamental reality of an attribute does not constitute anthropomorphism, just as the correspondence of [the attribute of] sight [between God and the creation] in being the perception of visible things, [the attribute of] hearing in being the perception of audible things, and [the attribute of] knowledge in being the perception of things known does not constitute anthropomorphism."
(The imam here is saying that just a you, O Ash'aris, have affirmed Sight, Hearing and knowledge for God, even though the creation is ascribed with such attributes, does not constitute Tashbeeh, because its different in its reality. The only shared meaning between the two [i.e., God's attributes & the creation's attributes] is the fact that there's perception taking place. Btw, the Ash'aris have no issue with this point.)
_
3●"If they (i.e., the Ash'arīs) say: “We do not call it a voice, despite the fact that it is heard,” we would say: There are several answers. The first is that this is a disagreement in wording while agreeing in meaning, for by voice we mean nothing other than that which is heard."
(Here, the imam is stating that what the Hanbalis mean by God possessing a voice is that his speech is heard. He states that the difference between the Hanbalis and Ash'aris on this point is semantic because the Ash'aris also agree that the Speech of Allah is heard. The Ash'aris simply have an issue with ascribing a voice to God. The Hanbalis ascribed a voice to God because the word voice [ṣawt] has come in some narrations. The Ash'aris did not affirm ṣawt for God because it is not mentioned in the Quran or Mutawātir Sunnah, and the āhād ahadith that mention ṣawt are open to interpretation [i.e., not definitive].)
والله أعلم بالصواب.
He رحمه الله also said:
“What they condemned me for and hated me over is something that every scholar in al-Sham, Yemen and elsewhere would affirm as the truth and the religion of Allah and His Messenger.“
Abu Humayd Al-Hanbali retweeted
نعوذ بالله جل جلاله من الشرك والزندقة والكفر ومن كل اعتقاد وقول وعمل يخالف أصول التوحيد ونسأل الله جل جلاله أن يحفظ قلوبنا من الزيغ والضلال وأن يصون ديننا من الباطل وأن يرزقنا الثبات على القرآن والسنة الصحيحة حتى نلقاه
Imam Ahmad did not negate the meaning. He negated all meanings except the revealed one, which is the apparent meaning!
It is like the Shahada: it negates all objects of worship except Allah.
Abu Humayd Al-Hanbali retweeted
Imam al-Karaji Al Shafi'i (d. 532 AH) said :
"Whoever says: 'I am Shafi'i in jurisprudence, Ash'ari in creed,' we say to them: 'This is among contradictions, nay, it is among apostasy, for Imam al-Shafi'i was not Ash'ari in creed.'
And whoever says: 'I am Hanbali in branches [of jurisprudence], Mu'tazili in fundamentals [of theology],' we say: 'You have indeed strayed from the straight path in what you claim, for Imam Ahmad was not Mu'tazili in religion and ijtihad.'"
ALT From the words of the Imam, the Shaykh of the Haramain, Abu al-Hasan Muhammad ibn Abd al-Malik al-Karji al-Shafi'i (who died in 532 AH) in his book (Al-Fusul fi al-Usul 'an al-A'immah al-Fuhul Ilzaman li-Dawi al-Bida' wa al-Fudul), and it was quoted by Imam Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—(Majmoo' al-Fatawa, 4/176-177).
Ibn ʿAqīl al-Ḥanbalī said:
If they say, ‘Aḥmad did not anthropomorphize, yet you [Ḥanbalīs] do,’
we reply: al-Shāfiʿī was not an Ashʿarī, whereas you are Ashʿarīs. So if this accusation against you is a fabrication, then we too have been falsely accused.
ALT ذيل طبقات الحنابلة - لابن رجب - ت العثيمين ١/٣٣٤ — ابن رجب الحنبلي
Abu Humayd Al-Hanbali retweeted
Ibn ʿAqīl al-Ḥanbalī said:
If they say, ‘Aḥmad did not anthropomorphize, yet you [Ḥanbalīs] do,’
we reply: al-Shāfiʿī was not an Ashʿarī, whereas you are Ashʿarīs. So if this accusation against you is a fabrication, then we too have been falsely accused.
ALT ذيل طبقات الحنابلة - لابن رجب - ت العثيمين ١/٣٣٤ — ابن رجب الحنبلي
The early Hanabilah were not Mufawwidah!
Ibn Shaqilla (d. 329 AH), refuting a Kullabi scholar:
“Had they meant other than their apparent meaning, he ﷺ would have clarified it, and the Companions would have asked him ﷺ about it.”
Abu Humayd Al-Hanbali retweeted
Is Allah the Most High Within Time? A Summary of the Concept of Time According to Ibn Taymiyyah and Those Who Opposed Him – Aḥmad ʿIṣām al-Najjār
Time Segments
01:49 The Nature and Definition of Time
03:31 Ibn Taymiyyah on Time and Allah's Eternal Actions
08:53 The Three Different Kinds of Time
12:10 Refuting al Rāzī's Understanding of Time
15:37 Allah's Actions and the Creation of the Universe
18:07 The Ashʿarīs and Philosophers on the Origination of the Universe
20:26 Refuting Mullā Ṣadrā and Mīr Dāmād
22:54 Summary of the Three Kinds of Time
25:10 The Succession of Allah's Actions and Their Effects
Abu Humayd Al-Hanbali retweeted
Refuting the Ashʿarī Denial of Kayf for Allah
The statements of the Salaf: bilā kayf (without describing how), lā yuqāl kayf (one does not ask how) and al kayf majhūl (the manner is unknown) do not negate that Allah's attributes possess a kayfiyyah.
But they show the reality of his attributes, and actions, while withholding knowledge of their manner, which belongs to Allah alone. The mistakes the Ashʿarīs make in this issue, is treating the prohibition of asking about the kayfiyyah as a denial of its existence.
ʿAbd al ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbdullāh al Mājishūn (d. 164AH) said: "The question of how is only asked concerning someone who did not previously exist and then came into existence.
As for the One who has never ceased to exist, who does not change and who has no likeness, none knows how He is except Himself." His statement affirms that knowledge of Allah's manner belongs to Allah Himself. (Siyar Aʿlām al Nubalāʾ, al Dhahabī, as referenced on p. 151).
Imam al Shāfiʿī (d. 204AH), in the creed attributed to him, said: "Allah is upon His Throne in His heaven. He draws near to His creation however He wills and descends to the lowest heaven however He wills."
The words kayfa shāʾ (however He wills) affirms that Allah acts according to His will without describing how His actions occur. (Tafsīr al Qurʾān, al Samʿānī, 2/51).
Abū ʿUbayd al Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 224AH) said concerning the authentic reports about Allah's attributes: "These narrations are authentic. The scholars of hadith and jurisprudence have transmitted them from one another, and we believe they are true without doubting them.
However, when someone asks, 'How does He place His Foot?' or 'How does He laugh?', we say that these matters are not to be explained, nor have we heard anyone explaining them." Thus, the reports are accepted without attempting to describe the manner of the attributes mentioned in them. (Kitāb al Ṣifāt, al Dāraquṭnī, pp. 68–69).
The Imams Affirmed That Allah Acts However He Wills
Ḥammād ibn Zayd (d. 179AH) was asked by Bishr ibn al Sarī concerning the hadith of Allah's descent whether Allah moves from one place to another. After remaining silent, he answered:
"He is in His place and draws near to His creation however He wills."
ʿAbdullāh ibn al Mubārak (d. 181AH), when asked how Allah descends, replied: "He descends however He wills." Neither answer attempts to describe the manner of the descent. (Siyar Aʿlām al Nubalāʾ, al Dhahabī, 9/333; al Asmāʾ wa al Ṣifāt, al Bayhaqī, 2/378).
Abū al Muẓaffar al Samʿānī (d. 489AH) said: "The Hand is an attribute of Allah without describing how, and He has two Hands. It has authentically been reported that the Prophet ﷺ said, 'Both His Hands are right Hands.'
Allah knows the manner intended." His statement explicitly leaves knowledge of the manner to Allah rather than denying it altogether. (Tafsīr al Qurʾān, al Samʿānī, 2/51).
Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311AH) affirmed the reports concerning Allah's descent and said: "We speak concerning these reports of descent without undertaking to describe its manner, since the Prophet ﷺ did not describe to us the manner of the descent."
The absence of a hadith explanation concerning the manner is therefore the reason for refusing to describe it. (Kitāb al Tawḥīd, Ibn Khuzaymah, 1/289–290).
Abū al Ḥasan al Ashʿarī the Ashʿarī Imam(d. 324AH) himself said: "Allah draws near to His servants however He wills." (al Ibānah ʿan Uṣūl al Diyānah, al Ashʿarī, p. 250).
This wording is relevant to the claim that Allah's actions possess no manner whatsoever.
The Manner Is Unknown, Not Nonexistent
Abū Bakr al Ismāʿīlī (d. 371AH) affirmed the reports concerning Allah's attributes as they had been transmitted, without claiming knowledge of how they occur. His explanation was that the believers must accept what has been made clear and refrain from investigating what has not been explained. (ʿAqīdat al Salaf wa Aṣḥāb al Ḥadīth, al Ṣābūnī, p. 192).
Ibn ʿAbd al Barr (d. 463AH) said: "We know through our reason and senses that we possess souls within our bodies, yet we do not know their manner. Our ignorance of the manner of our souls does not require that we have no souls.
Our ignorance of how Allah is above His Throne does not require that He is not above His Throne." Thus, ignorance concerning the manner of something does not negate its reality. (al Tamhīd, Ibn ʿAbd al Barr, 7/137).
Al Sarakhsī (d. 483AH) said: "What is unclear concerning the description does not invalidate knowledge of the original meaning.
The Face and Hand, as Allah has affirmed in the Qur'an, are known in their original meaning, while their manner belongs to what is unknown." The meaning is therefore affirmed even though its kayfiyyah is not known. (Uṣūl al Sarakhsī, 1/170)
Al Qurṭubī (d. 671AH) said concerning Allah's istiwāʾ (rising over the Throne): "None of the righteous Salaf denied that Allah rose over His Throne in reality. They were ignorant of the manner of His istiwāʾ, for its reality is not known to them." (Tafsīr al Qurṭubī, 7/219)
This expressly distinguishes affirming the attribute from possessing knowledge of how it occurs.
Ibn Ḥajar al ʿAsqalānī (d. 852AH) said: "They did not delve into Allah's attributes because they knew that doing so involved investigating a manner which cannot be known through reason, since reason has limits beyond which it cannot go."
Their refusal therefore concerned investigating the manner, not denying that the attributes possess one. (Fatḥ al Bārī, Ibn Ḥajar, 17/293).
Al Āmidī the Ashʿarī scholar (d. 631AH) said: "We accept that it is impossible for Allah to possess a manner resembling what is found in the observable world. However, what prevents Him from possessing a manner different from everything found in the observable world?"
This distinction confirms that denying resemblance does not require denying the existence of a manner unlike that of creation. (Abkār al Afkār, al Āmidī, 1/506–508)
The Meaning of Bilā Kayf in the Reports of the Salaf
Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241AH) said: "He descends however He wills, according to His knowledge and power. He has encompassed everything in knowledge."
He also instructed the believers to accept the authentic reports concerning Allah's decree and attributes, saying: "One does not say 'Why?' or 'How?' Rather, one affirms them and believes in them."
The first statement concerns Allah acting according to His will, while the second prohibits questioning what has not been disclosed. (Fatḥ al Bārī, Ibn Rajab, 3/117; Sharḥ Uṣūl Iʿtiqād Ahl al Sunnah, al Lālakāʾī, 1/175).
Imam Mālik ibn Anas (d. 179AH) said: "One does not say 'How?', for the manner is withheld concerning Him."
Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh (d. 238AH), when questioned about how Allah descends every night, answered: "One does not ask how. Rather, He descends without describing how."
The prohibition concerns asking about the manner of Allah's descent. (Siyar Aʿlām al Nubalāʾ, al Dhahabī; al ʿUluw, al Dhahabī, p. 179)
Al Dāraquṭnī (d. 385AH) transmitted from al Walīd ibn Muslim that he asked al Awzāʿī (d. 157AH), Mālik ibn Anas, Sufyān al Thawrī (d. 161AH) and al Layth ibn Saʿd (d. 175AH) about the reports concerning seeing Allah and other attributes.
They answered: "Transmit them without describing how."
Al Tirmidhī (d. 279AH) also reported from scholars including Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah (d. 198AH) and Ibn al Mubārak that these reports are narrated and believed in, without asking how. (Kitāb al Ṣifāt, al Dāraquṭnī, p. 44; Sunan al Tirmidhī, 5/101).
Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyā al Dhuhlī (d. 258AH) affirmed the authentic reports concerning seeing Allah, His descent, the grave, the Hereafter, Paradise and Hell.
He said that believers must accept these reports even when their minds cannot comprehend their realities, saying: "They must believe in them and submit, without describing how or attempting to explain their manner." (Iʿrāb al Qurʾān, al Naḥḥās, 5/57).
Since several of these reports concern created things whose existence and meanings are known, bilā kayf cannot mean that they possess no manner whatsoever.
Seeing Allah Without Knowing How
Imam al Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321AH) said: "Seeing Allah is true for the people of Paradise, without encompassing Him and without describing how."
This affirms ruʾyah (seeing Allah) while denying that creation comprehends its manner.
Al Bābartī (d. 786AH) explained: "Seeing itself is something that occurs to us, and it must have a manner. However, we do not know its manner, nor do we know how it occurs."
He also said that attempting to determine its precise reality leads to error, while belief requires accepting what has been revealed without attempting to describe what remains unknown. (al Sharḥ al Kabīr ʿalā al ʿAqīdah al Ṭaḥāwiyyah, al Bābartī, p. 671).
The statements of the Salaf distinguish between denying kayfiyyah and denying knowledge of it. Imam Mālik, Imam Aḥmad, Ibn al Mubārak, Ibn Khuzaymah and some of their own scholars affirmed Allah's attributes while leaving the kayfiyyah to Allah.
Simply put, using the statements of the Salaf to deny that Allah's attributes possess any manner whatsoever confuses the absence of knowledge with the absence of reality.
Al Intiṣār lil Tadmurīyyah by Māhir Amīr, pp. 151–158
So the person who openly declared Ash’aris heretics was secretly an Ash’ari when they were the dominant force? Or was he so jahil that he didn’t even know he was one? 😂
No, I think we all know who the real jahil is! 🤡
Was Ibn Qudama a secret Ash'ari?
Sure seems like it (in some of his principles). Here are some of his statements from one of his works known as: al-Ṣirāt al-Mustaqīm fee Ithbāt al-Harf al-Qadīm.
Before the Wahhabis come on here and start to bark with statements from the Imam disparaging Imam Ash'ari, I'm well aware of such statements. These statements have no weight or truth behind them. May Allah forgive Ibn Qudama for his slander of Imam Ash'ari. He wasn't the first, nor the last. Unfortunately, he was affected by the false propaganda of Sijzi and others. What's important is the Imam's statements in aqeeda, not what he unjustly said about other imams. All of the following statements are in agreement with the Ash'ari school.
_
1●"The speech of Allah is eternal."
(Here, the Imam is stating that the speech of Allah has no beginning or end. It is atemporal. The Ash'aris agree.)
_
2●"Agreement in the fundamental reality of an attribute does not constitute anthropomorphism, just as the correspondence of [the attribute of] sight [between God and the creation] in being the perception of visible things, [the attribute of] hearing in being the perception of audible things, and [the attribute of] knowledge in being the perception of things known does not constitute anthropomorphism."
(The imam here is saying that just a you, O Ash'aris, have affirmed Sight, Hearing and knowledge for God, even though the creation is ascribed with such attributes, does not constitute Tashbeeh, because its different in its reality. The only shared meaning between the two [i.e., God's attributes & the creation's attributes] is the fact that there's perception taking place. Btw, the Ash'aris have no issue with this point.)
_
3●"If they (i.e., the Ash'arīs) say: “We do not call it a voice, despite the fact that it is heard,” we would say: There are several answers. The first is that this is a disagreement in wording while agreeing in meaning, for by voice we mean nothing other than that which is heard."
(Here, the imam is stating that what the Hanbalis mean by God possessing a voice is that his speech is heard. He states that the difference between the Hanbalis and Ash'aris on this point is semantic because the Ash'aris also agree that the Speech of Allah is heard. The Ash'aris simply have an issue with ascribing a voice to God. The Hanbalis ascribed a voice to God because the word voice [ṣawt] has come in some narrations. The Ash'aris did not affirm ṣawt for God because it is not mentioned in the Quran or Mutawātir Sunnah, and the āhād ahadith that mention ṣawt are open to interpretation [i.e., not definitive].)
والله أعلم بالصواب.
Abu Humayd Al-Hanbali retweeted
al-Shahrastānī al-Ashʿarī affirms his creed is a innovation and said:
“So al-Ashʾarī innovated a third saying and judged with the emergence of the letters, and this is the destruction of the ijmāʾ and he judged that what we read is Allāh’s speech only metaphorically not in reality – and this is pure innovation.”
[Nihāyat al-Aqdām p. 313]
Abu Humayd Al-Hanbali retweeted
al-Razi said:
“The [supposed] ijmā’ regarding Him being a speaker is weak, because we have clarified that the ijmā’ is only concerning the lafdh. As for the meaning affirmed by our group (Kalām nafsī), there is no ijmā’ on it; rather, no one affirmed it except our group.”
Abu Humayd Al-Hanbali retweeted
There is a strong opinion in the Hanbali madhab that they become kuffar if they fight. Which is one of the Aqwal of Imam Ahmad, like Al-Mardawi, Ibn Muflih, Ibn Taymiyah and others said.
That’s absolutely not the case. In the same book, he affirms the apparent meanings of al-Yad, al-Wajh, al-Ityan, al-Ghadab, al-Nuzul, etc. (Scan 1)
This is what Ibn Qudamah means by dhahir (Scan 2).
Don’t conflate it with the Ash’ari understanding of dhahir (Scan 3).
This Post is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
What about these random guys saying these random things 😂:
teapawt.net/opti_prime87/status/21…
Random opinions by random people have no value.
It is an established fact in the Quran, Sunnah & Ijma.
158
Abu Humayd Al-Hanbali retweeted
S͟h. Faiṣal al-Jāsim [may Allah preserve him] said:
As for what concerns the ordinary Muslims, there is no doubt that if they are left without being instructed otherwise, they remain upon the sound fiṭrah and the creed of the Salaf and Ahl al-Ḥadīth. They do not know the principles kalām, the taʿwīl [interpretation] of the ṣifāt, or anything of that nature. No one can claim otherwise except out of sheer stubbornness.
The ordinary person knows only that Allah is in the heaven, above His creation, upon His Throne. He does not know what the Ashʿarīs say: that Allah is neither inside nor outside the world, neither above nor below.
The ordinary person knows only that Allah speaks, and that He spoke to Mūsā, so Mūsā heard the speech of Allah. He does not know about kalām nafsī, which they define as command, prohibition, information, and inquiry.
The ordinary person knows only that Allah loves those who repent, hates the disbelievers, is pleased with those who obey Him, and is displeased with those who disobey Him. He does not know that all these ṣifāt are reduced to the will (irādah).
The ordinary person knows only that Allah has enabled the servant to act and has granted him a will that has an effect upon his actions. He does not know about kasb, which is defined as the concurrence of the originated power with the eternal power, while the originated power has absolutely no effect upon the action.
Ask groups of Muslims, if you wish, and they will inform you of the reality of the matter, for they are upon the fiṭrah. As for the creed of the Ashʿarīs, none knows it except one who has studied it in institutes and schools.
الأشاعرة في ميزان أهل السنة (755)
1. When Imam Ahmad says, “We narrate it as it came and do not interpret it,” he is not denying knowledge of its meaning. Rather, he rejects speculative interpretation while affirming the text’s intended meaning as conveyed by its wording.
This is affirmed by the following text👇🏼
4. He then cites other texts concerning minor kufr and nifaq, stating:
“We submit to them, even if we do not know their interpretation. We do not discuss them, speculate about them, or interpret them. Rather, we narrate them as they came and believe in them.”
1
66
