|
|
Post by IbnNurAlShanti on Jun 13, 2015 12:22:50 GMT
On 10/06/15 Imran "Dawah Man" Ibn Mansur posted the following on his Facebook page:
Many of the comments that brothers had left in reply to him were deleted and upon being questioned why they were, there was no response.
The next day, another post was made stating the following:
A brother by the name Usamah Muttakin responded in a comment saying:
A brother named Samir Sakhi also commented:
|
|
|
|
Post by IbnNurAlShanti on Jun 13, 2015 12:29:16 GMT
The next day, the following was posted by him:
This video was an attempt at replying to Shaykh Mohammad Yasir's series, "The True Creed of The Salaf" particularly trying to assert that the position of the salaf was not Tafweedh al-Ma'na wa nafy al-Kayf (Consigning the meaning to Allah and negating the modality) but rather Ithbat al-Ma'na ala al-Haqiqi wa tafweedh al-Kayf (affirming the literal meaning and consigning the modality). This was answered by brother Abu Humayd in a comment, he stated:
|
|
|
|
Post by IbnNurAlShanti on Jun 13, 2015 14:01:25 GMT
I would also like to add some answers to the above video which ought to be mentioned in highlighting what a feeble response "Ustadh" Abdul Rahman Hasan gave, the timing of the video will be given in square brackets corresponding to his statement and then the answer will be given: [4:00] and [4:53] - He gives two quotes, one from Sayyidina Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud and one from Sayyidina Abdullah Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) respectively. He claims that in these two quotes the two sahabah mentioned, have explained the sifat of Allah of "al-Samad" and "al-Sayyid" along with a few others. Unfortunately he did not listen carefully to Shaykh Mohammad Yasir and in his haste has not realised that tafweedh al-Ma'na in the sifat is only in sifat al-Khabariyyah whereas he has given examples of sahabah explaining sifat al-Aqaliyyah. (See Episode 1 of Shaykh Mohammad Yasir's series for full explanations of the two. See here ) [6:45] - He questions, "Are we going to say Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud and Abdullah Ibn Abbas are mujassima?" This is a rather ridiculous question and further proof that "Ustadh" has not comprehended the difference between the different types of sifat, the sifat they have spoken on are not sifat that can create anthropomorphism or corporeality in the mind therefore to even ask such a question is embarrassing on his part. [7:10] - A quote of Abdullah Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him is given) and then a claim is made that he explained the sifat "yad" however if one listens carefully, Ibn Umar does not explain what the word "yad" means for Allah but rather relates as it comes; this is a proof for tafweedh and not against it! [8:15] - He claims that Allah created four things literally with His hand and then gives indication with his own hand, is this not tashbih? He then asserts that the asha'irah claim the word "yad" means only ability or power, however this is false and as Shaykh Yasir has explained we only hold that it is a possible meaning to remove ones mind from giving physical qualities to Allah, again please refer back to the series. [9:15] - A claim is made that Allah's Hand is not like the hand of the creation. He said we should affirm the sifat literally and said there's nothing wrong with saying Allah has a hand because we say that we have hands and a clock has hands but it's not the same thing so there's no tashbih. What he doesn't understand is that "clock hands" and "clock face" are figurative statements like saying "foot of the hill" and "eye of the needle" so really he's said take it literally but then given a figurative example when he claims to be against ta'wil and majaaz. He needs to go work on his English perhaps and rework his logic because a good 80% of what he was saying was in fact an affirmation of tafweedh and the positions of the asha'irah. [9:58] - Here a mention is made of Abu Aaliyah in Tadhkiratul Huffaz of Imam al-Dhahabi, and he makes another mention at [14:33] so it may be relevant to show what Imam al-Dhahabi's position on tafweedh was. See here: ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/74/assalamu-alaikum[10:36] - A mention is made of Abu Aaliyahs statement that Allah is above, as brother Abu Humayd has already stated, this is not denied however it cannot be asserted that this is according to sensory perception and there are many proofs for this including the statement of Ibn Hajr in Fath al-Bari however since the "Ustadh" likes to mention Imam al-Tabari, let us give some statements of Imam al-Tabari from his tafsir on Allah's Istiwa and Uluww': 1. "He is above His creations with His power." (Vol. 3, under Ayat al-Kursi) 2. "Allah is above His creation with His Kingdom and Power, not the elevation of movement." (Vol. 1, Surah al-Baqarah, Ayah 29) 3. "He is above them with His power and they are below Allah with less power." (Vol. 5, Surah al-An'am, Ayah 18) For more watch episode 3 of Shaykh Mohammad Yasir's series "Is Allah Above The Throne?" for what he said about Allah's aboveness/elevation (uluww') not being according to sensory perception ( see here) [12:52] - He gives a quote of Ikrima of Allah's two hands and gives reference to Naqd of al-Darimi, this Darimi is a mujassima who claims that Allah can settle on the back of a mosquito, claiming Allah has two flanks/wings, that Allah is closer to the peak of a mountain/minaret than it's foot etc. We refuse to accept anything from a person who makes such claims! See episode 3 again in above link for full references. [15:46] - At the start of his video he claims the position of the salaf is to do tafweedh of the kayf but here he brings a quote of Sufyan Ibn Uyayna asking "how" is the istiwa? If how is consigned then why is he bringing this to prove meaning? [17:58] - He then makes mention of Imam Maliks statement on the same issue, he should refer to Shaykh Yasirs video "Imam Malik on Where Is Allah?" ( see here) [17:45] - A statement is made that it is obligatory for one to believe in istiwa, asserting as though the asha'ira and maturidyyah do not believe it. Please give reference to show what proof there is that it is not believed by these two groups and also bring proof that believing in it means one must have a meaning for it and that meaning is elevation in direction and being according to sensory perception. [18:25] - At this point he states that the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) would not leave us oblivious about our Lord. The simple answer to this is that he didn't, he told us what we needed to know which is sufficient. It was not needed for him to go into great depths for us to wonder about how Allah is etc since Allah will not question on these things rather He will question whether we truly believed in Him and worshipped Him without ascribing any partner to Him. [18:48] - Here he gets overly excited in quoting Imam al-Bukhari regarding the sawt (sound) of Allah and claiming that the asha'irah do not accept this sifat. Please prove that this has been rejected by the asha'irah? [19:42] - When speaking of the sound of Allah he indicated towards his mouth, demonstrating the sound of Allah coming out of his mouth. If Allah's sound is not like that of the creation then why is he demonstrating it coming out of his mouth, is this not tashbih? [22:05] - Again when speaking of Allah's right hand he waves his right hand, is this tashbih again or not? [22:25] - Here he speaks about Allah's nuzul and then demonstrates movement from above to below with his hands. Is he claiming movement for Allah? These tragic blunders don't seem to end! [23:18] - A quote of Imam al-Tirmidhi is given from his sunan claiming that this is a refutation of the asha'irah but rather it is a proof for the asha'irah as he clearly states that these sifat are to be read over and the part where Abdul Rahman states "it is to be taken on the apparent" is an interpolation and a lie against Imam al-Tirmidhi, no such statement exists in the quote! [23:35] - Here Abdul Rahman states that this was rejected by the Jahmiyyah in order to claim that this is similar to the asha'irah. Where have the asha'irah rejected this? The fact of the matter is that the Jahmiyyah have rejected this because they believed that Allah was on the earth and this cannot be applied to the asha'irah as we believe that Allah exists without a place and this negates existing on the earth. Therefore mention of this in direction to the asha'irah in desperation is academic dishonesty. As now most of his speech has been answered it becomes evident to anyone of sound discernment that this was a pathetic attempt to project incorrect beliefs on to the pious salaf, a speech filled with red herrings and deceit. The rest of the 7 or so minutes was filled with much more nonsense and brash statements with no substance. Let Abdul Rahman Hasan and the other detractors take note that the above is how one refutes something, systematically and point for point. If one is not up to it then they should not attempt half jobs half-heartedly. We request something that is worthy of being called a response! |
|
|
|
Post by IbnNurAlShanti on Jun 13, 2015 17:13:52 GMT
Ustadh Abdul Rahman was waving his hand around talking about the يد of Allah, what's the hukm for this?
قال ابن وهب : سمعت مالكا يقول : من قرأ " يد الله " وأشار إلى يده ، وقرأ عين الله ، وأشار إلى ذلك العضو منه يقطع تغليظا عليه في تقديس الله تعالى وتنزيهه عما أشبه إليه ، وشبهه بنفسه ، فتعدم [ نفسه و ] جارحته التي شبهها بالله ، وهذه غاية في التوحيد لم يسبق إليها مالكا موحد
أحكام القرآن لإن العربي المالكي ٤/١٧٤٠
The above was translated by GF Haddad as follows:
"I heard Malik [ibn Anas] say: 'Whoever recites (the Hand of Allâh) (3:73, 5:64, 48:10, 57:29) and indicates his hand, or recites (the Eye of Allah) (cf. 20:39, 11:37, 23:27, 52:48, 54:14) and indicates that organ of his: let it be cut off to discipline him concerning the Sacredness and Transcendence beyond what he has compared Him to, and above his own comparison to Him. Both his life and the limb he compared to Allâh are cut off." Ibn Wahb.
Ibn al-`Arabi al-Maliki, Ahkam al-Qur'an (4:1740)
|
|
|
|
Post by DarulTahqiq on Jun 13, 2015 18:57:38 GMT
Ustadh Abdul Rahman was waving his hand around talking about the يد of Allah, what's the hukm for this? قال ابن وهب : سمعت مالكا يقول : من قرأ " يد الله " وأشار إلى يده ، وقرأ عين الله ، وأشار إلى ذلك العضو منه يقطع تغليظا عليه في تقديس الله تعالى وتنزيهه عما أشبه إليه ، وشبهه بنفسه ، فتعدم [ نفسه و ] جارحته التي شبهها بالله ، وهذه غاية في التوحيد لم يسبق إليها مالكا موحد أحكام القرآن لإن العربي المالكي ٤/١٧٤٠ The above was translated by GF Haddad as follows: "I heard Malik [ibn Anas] say: 'Whoever recites (the Hand of Allâh) (3:73, 5:64, 48:10, 57:29) and indicates his hand, or recites (the Eye of Allah) (cf. 20:39, 11:37, 23:27, 52:48, 54:14) and indicates that organ of his: let it be cut off to discipline him concerning the Sacredness and Transcendence beyond what he has compared Him to, and above his own comparison to Him. Both his life and the limb he compared to Allâh are cut off." Ibn Wahb. Ibn al-`Arabi al-Mliki, Ahkam al-Qur'an (4:1740) This is such a serious matter that such great scholars like Imam Malik did not like the non specialists to get involved in these matters that could lead to common people getting mislead. Here is an excellent example: Imam Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani al-Maliki (b. 310 – d. 386 AH) mentioned in his Kitab al-Jami, translated into English by Abdas Samad Clarke under the title: “A Madinan View on the Sunnah, courtesy, wisdom, battles and history” (Taha publishers, London, 1999, p. 30): Someone said, ‘What about one who narrates the hadith, ‘Allah created Adam on his form,’ and that ‘Allah will unveil His shank on the Day of Resurrection,’ and that ‘He will put His hand into Jahannam and bring out whomever He wills out of it’, and He (Malik) rejected them strenuously, and forbade anyone to narrate them. Someone said, ‘Ibn Ijlan has narrated it.’ He said, ‘He was not one of the people of fiqh.’ Malik did not reject the hadith of ‘descent’ nor the hadith of ‘laughter.’ Someone said, ‘What about the hadith that ‘the Throne shook because of the death of Sa’d?’ He said, ‘It should not be narrated, and what call has a man to narrate that when he sees what danger it contains?’”Now we are witnessing the asaghir (little one's) taking on the Akabir as if they know better. Such are the times which are surely an indication of the closeness to akhira when people will look upto the unscholarly rabble as being some sort of authority on such delicate matters. |
|
|
|
Post by IbnNurAlShanti on Jun 16, 2015 16:21:30 GMT
A Facebook user by the name Muhammad Ibn Fulan objected to the statement of Qadhi Abu Bakr mentioned above by saying the following:
Our brother Abu Humayd answered him with the following:
|
|
|
|
Post by mustjustchow on Jul 7, 2015 9:02:37 GMT
Ustadh Abdul Rahman was waving his hand around talking about the يد of Allah, what's the hukm for this? قال ابن وهب : سمعت مالكا يقول : من قرأ " يد الله " وأشار إلى يده ، وقرأ عين الله ، وأشار إلى ذلك العضو منه يقطع تغليظا عليه في تقديس الله تعالى وتنزيهه عما أشبه إليه ، وشبهه بنفسه ، فتعدم [ نفسه و ] جارحته التي شبهها بالله ، وهذه غاية في التوحيد لم يسبق إليها مالكا موحد أحكام القرآن لإن العربي المالكي ٤/١٧٤٠ The above was translated by GF Haddad as follows: "I heard Malik [ibn Anas] say: 'Whoever recites (the Hand of Allâh) (3:73, 5:64, 48:10, 57:29) and indicates his hand, or recites (the Eye of Allah) (cf. 20:39, 11:37, 23:27, 52:48, 54:14) and indicates that organ of his: let it be cut off to discipline him concerning the Sacredness and Transcendence beyond what he has compared Him to, and above his own comparison to Him. Both his life and the limb he compared to Allâh are cut off." Ibn Wahb. Ibn al-`Arabi al-Maliki, Ahkam al-Qur'an (4:1740) A similar report in al-Shahrastani's al–Milal wa al-Nihal (1:119): و كانوا يحترزون عن التشبيه الي غاية ان قالوا: من حرك يده عند قرائة قوله تعالى: (خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَىَّ) او اشار باصبعيه عند رواية (قلب المؤمن بين اصبعين من اصابع الرحمن) وجب قطع يده و قلع اصبعيه They (Some of the Salaf) would avoid anthropomorphism ( tashbih) to such an extent that they said that if one was to move his hand while reciting Allah Ta'ala's word: 'I have made with My own hands' or make a gesture with his two fingers while narrating the hadith: 'The heart of a believer lies between two fingers from the fingers of the Merciful one' it will be necessary to cut his hand off and remove his fingers. |
|
|
|
Post by IbnNurAlShanti on Aug 23, 2015 22:36:58 GMT
Answering Part Two of
"Response To the Mistakes of Hanafi Fiqh Channel" By Abdur Rahman Hasan
In his failed attempt at answering Shaykh Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi's series "The True Creed of The Salaf", Abdur Rahman Hasan picked on Shaykh Mohammad Yasir's use of the word "mutakallimun" (theologians) who use rationalistic and dialectic argumentation. Abdur Rahman Hasan was very unfair in the manner in which he brought his quotes. He failed to mention that there is a distinction between blameworthy and praiseworthy kalam. By bringing only those statements of the scholars in admonishing those who engage in blameworthy kalam, he attempted to assert that this was a major error by Shaykh Mohammad Yasir. Much like his previous episode, which was riddled with errors from start to end as we have demonstrated above, this episode was also completely devoid of any real benefit.
Firstly we recommend one reads the following links to understand what ilm al-Kalam is as stated by the classical scholars:
Kalam and Islam
Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki on the Importance of Ilm al-Kalam
Imam Abu Mansur ‘Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi on the `Ulema of Kalam
The above links are sufficient to inform one regarding the truth about ilm al-kalam and the differences between the blameworthy and praiseworthy however we can take it further. As Abdur Rahman Hasan and his ilk falsely ascribe themselves to the Athari aqidah which is the methodology of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, we will provide quotes and evidences to prove that the Hanbali scholars as well as Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal approved the use of kalam:قال الإمام العلامة السفاريني الحنبلي: تعريف علم الكلام الذي هو التوحيد وأصول الدين: العلم بالعقائد الدينية عن الأدلة اليقينية، أي العلم بالقواعد الشرعية الاعتقائدية المكتسبة من أدلتها اليقينية [لوامع الأنوار ٥/١] Imām al-Allāmah al-Saffarīni said: "The definition of ilm al-Kalām that agrees with tawhīd and the fundamentals of the religion, are those such as the knowledge of aqīdah from definitive proofs, namely the knowledge of the principle beliefs of shari'ah that are acquired through certainty." [Lawami' al-Anwar 5/1]
Imām Saffarini has also mentioned that the purpose of this knowledge is to refute the deviant groups and to repel them. He says:
و ليس القصد بالأوضاع الكلامية إلا دفع شُبَه الخصوم والفرق الضالة عن الطرق الحقية، فإنهم طعنوا في بعض منها بأنه غير معقول، فبُيِّن لهم بالقواعد الكلامية معقولية ذلك البعض "It is not intended by the subjects of kalām except to repel the enemies [of Islam] and the deviant sects that are away from the path of truth. Indeed there have been some who have attacked [the religion] and their reasoning has been a lack of rationality [of certain matters in the religion], however the rationality [of these matters] is made clear to them by the principles of kalām." [Lawami' al-Anwar 5/1]
واستمداده من الكتاب والسنة والإجماع والنظر الصحيح "It's derivation is from the book [Qur'an], sunnah, consensus and sound discernment." [71/13]ودخل علم علماء الصحابة بذالك، فإنه كلام وأصول وعقائد، وإن لم يكن يسمى في ذلك الزمان بهذا الاسم حيث كان متعلقا بجميع العقائد بقدر الطافة البشرية "Knowledge was taken in by the scholars of the sahabah by that which is indeed kalām, usul and beliefs (aqa'id). Although it was not named as such in that time with this name (i.e kalām), wherever it relates, it is the whole of the beliefs as much as it is among the groups of people." [70/11]
قال الإمام ابن حمدان الحنبلي في صفة الفتوى: وعلم الكلام المذموم هو أصول الدين إذا تكلم فيه بالمعقول المحض أو المخالف للمنقول الصريح، فان تكلم فيها بالنقل فقط والعقل الموافق له فهو أصول الدين وطريقة أهل السنة وعلم السنة وأهلها Imām Ibn Hamdān al-Hanbali states in Sifat al-Fatawa: "The knowledge of kalām is blameworthy in regards to the principles of the religion when they are spoken of using purely reason or when they contradict what has been explicitly imparted [from Qur'an and sunnah]. Therefore, that which is spoken of by using only the texts and what rationally favours them, is from the principles of the religion and the way of ahl al-sunnah, the knowledge of the sunnah and its family."
وقد نقل عن الامام احمد قوله: لست بصاحب كلام ولا أري الكلام في شيء إلا ما كان في كتاب الله أو سنة رسوله. وقيل أحمد كنا نأمر بالسكوت فلما دعينا إلي الكلام تكلمنا. قال حمدان يعني زمان المِحنة للضرورة في دفع شبههم It was recorded about Imam Ahmad that he stated: "I am not a person of kalām and I do not see anything in kalām, the only kalām that I see is in the book of Allah and the sunnah of His prophet." He would also say, "We would order to remain silent [regarding kalām] but when we were invited to it, then we spoke." Imam Hamdān states: "Meaning in times of tribulations it was necessary to repel the people of falsehood."قال يوسف بن عبد الهادي المقدسي الحنبلي كتاب مقبول المنقول من علمي الجدلو الأصول: وذهب ابن حامد والقاضي ابي يعلى والتميمي وغيرهم الى أنه مشروع ونص عليه أحمد Imam Yusuf bin 'Abd al-Hadi al-Maqdisi al-Hanbali states in his book "Maqbūl al-Manqūl min 'ilm al-jadūl al-usūl": "Ibn Hāmid, Qādhi Abu Ya'la, al-Tamimi and other than them approved that it (kalām) is legislated in the shari'ah and it was recorded upon that from Imam Ahmad."
سئل الإمام أحمد: تريد لرجل أن يشتغل بالصوم والصلاة ويسكت عن الكلام في أهل البدع؟ فكلح وجهه وقال: اذا هو صام وصلى واعتزل الناس أليس إنما هو لنفسه؟ فقلت: بلى قال: فإذا تكلم كان لهو لغيره يتكلم أفضل - طبقات الحنابلة ٢١٤/٢، الآدب الشرعية ٢٢٧/١ Imam Ahmad was asked: "Do you wish that a man busies himself in fasting and praying and remains silent in the speech of the people of innovations?" Imam Ahmad frowned and said: "When he fasts and prays, removing himself from the people, is that not only for himself?" I said: "Of course." Imam Ahmad said: "When he speaks for himself and for others then that is best." [Tabaqat al-Hanabila 214/2, al-Adab al-Shari'ah 227/1]
Imam Ahmad authored many books in refutation of the heretics and the libertarians (qadariyyah) regarding the ambiguous verses of the Qur'an and other than them and he utilised rational evidences against them as mentioned by Imam Ibn Muflih in his al-Adab al-Shari'ah, he states: ووجدت في كتاب لولد ولد القاضي أبي يعلى ذكر فيه خلافا في المذهب وكلام أحمد في ذلك قال والصحيح أن الكلام مشروع مأمور به وتجوز المناظرة فيه والمحاجة لأهل البدع ووضع الكتاب في الرد عليهم وإلى ذلك ذهب أئمة التحقيق القضي والتميمي في جماعة المحققين تمسكوا في ذلك. وقال: وما تمسك به الأولون من قول أحمد فهو منسوخ قال أحمد في رواية حنبل قد كنا نأمر بالسكوت فلما دعينا إلى أمر ما كان بد لنا أن ندفع ذلك وتبين من أمره ما ينتفي عنه ما قالوه ثم استدل لذلك بقوله تعلى: (وَحَٰدِلْهُم بِاْلَّتىِ هِىَ أَحْسَنُ) [النحل: ١٢٥] وبأنه قد ثبت عن رسوله الجدال ولأن بعض اختلافهم حق وبعضه باطل ولا سبيل إلي التميز بينهما إلا بالنظر فعلمت صحته - الآداب الشرعية ٢٢٧/١ "I found in the book of Qadhi Abu Ya'la's grandson, mention regarding the differences in the [Hanbali] school [regarding kalām] and the authentic opinion from the statements of Imam Ahmad that kalām is legislated [in shari'ah] and permitted to be used in debate as evidence against the people of innovation. Books were written in refutation upon them and in agreement with that were the scholars of verification such as Qadhi [Abu Ya'la] and [Imam] al-Tamimi from among a great number of scholars who agreed with that. He stated, "Regarding those formers who opined to the [earlier] view of Imam Ahmad, then it has been abrogated." He narrates from Imam Ahmad that he stated: "We would order to remain silent until we were invited to order that which became necessary upon us to repel that [deviance]." He demonstrated that from his statements as he used as evidence the verse of Allah: "And debate with them with what is best." [Surah al-Nahl: 120] and that is established from the debates of His Prophets (alayhimussalam)* because some of their [the deviants] arguments are true and some of it is falsehood and there is no way to differentiate the truth except distinguishing the two by looking and understanding it's truth." [al-Adab al-Shari'ah 227/1]
*Such as Ibrahim (alayhissalam) as mentioned by Imam al-Ghazzali in his book on logic in refutation of the Batinites, "al-Qistas al-Mustaqīm"
For those who can understand Arabic, Shaykh Saif al-Asri posted the following on his Facebook page regarding ilm al-kalam: |
|
|
|
Post by IbnNurAlShanti on Oct 26, 2015 1:04:45 GMT
Answering Part Three of "Response To the Mistakes of Hanafi Fiqh Channel" By Abdur Rahman Hasan
The times in square brackets correspond to the timings of the above video [3:50] Abdur Rahman Hasan begins with a lie and a contradiction in one. He states that the position of tafwidh is that the characteristics mentioned in the Qur'an are mere words and letters. However previous to this he stated in his definition of tafwidh, that it means to consign the meaning of the said characteristics to Allah. If it means to consign the meaning to Allah then how is tafwidh nullifying or negating these characteristics so that they are nothing but letters and words since it is acknowledged that they have a meaning? Shaykh Mohammad Yasir has clearly stated that tafwidh is not to make the words meaningless or just blank letters but rather that these characteristics are ambigious and instead of getting into confusion about their meanings, we consign it's meaning to Allah. Either Abdur Rahman Hasan is ignorant of this or he is making himself ignorant of this, both are as bad as each other.
[6:00] Again in his faulty explanation of what tafwidh is, Abdur Rahman Hasan says the meaning is consigned then yet again goes on to say that there is no meaning it. We suggest that he and whosoever reads this, sees the concise and comprehensive definition of tafwidh that Shaykh Mohammad Yasir gave in his series from Lisan al-Arab, you may see and be assured yourself that it does not state that the intent of tafwidh is to say there is no meaning behind a thing as Abdur Rahman falsely claims.
[6:21] Here he states the modern characteristic of the Ashaa'irah of not wanting to accept certain characteristics is inherited from Jahm ibn Safwan. Again Abdur Rahman Hasan is either deluded himself or is choosing to be ignorant of the truth. Shaykh Mohammad Yasir has stated clearly in the series that the characteristics are affirmed and accepted as they have come and the meaning is consigned to Allah. Just because the Ashaa'irah choose to consign their meanings to Allah and do not take them on the apparent or literal meaning, the neo-salafis of this age falsely accuse them of negating/refusing to accept these said characteristics and this is nothing short of slander. If only Abdur Rahman Hasan watched Shaykh Mohammad Yasir's entire series before getting excited to record a refutation attempt he may be the wiser (evidence that he has not watched the entire series will be given below).
[8:42] Here Abdur Rahman narrates a story from Imam al-Bukhari's Khalq Af'al al-I'bad about Jahm ibn Safwan saying that he wishes he could remove the verse "The Most-Merciful Rose over The Throne" and that he kicked the mus'haf after reciting about Allah speaking to Musa (alayhisalaam). After stating this story, Abdur Rahman states that the hating of these characteristics and the mentioning of these verses is from the methodology of deviants. We ask, where have any of the Ashaa'irah demonstrated any dislike or any actions such as the one mentioned in the story that we should be likened to Jahm ibn Safwan in such a way? Rather if one reads our works they will see that we accept Allah's Istiwa over the arsh and Allah's speaking to Musa (alayhisalaam). Once again, just because we do not submit to the twisted interpretation that the neo-salafis want to enslave us with, we are accused of disliking these ayat and sifat of Allah, a further wretched slander. Let Abdur Rahman come forward and show us from our books where we have attempted to remove these ayat and speak against them. As mentioned earlier in this thread, we mention it again for the relevancy to what Abdur Rahman has stated:
Will Abdur Rahman also call Imam Malik (rahimahullah) a jahmi or a deviant?
[9:46] Here Abdur Rahamn states that negating (ta'til) the characteristics of Allah is the methodology of the Jahmiyyah, a statement for which he would be correct. However he then says at [9:59] right after it that tafwidh is the methodology of the Jahmiyyah and that it has no place among the salaf. Yet again, another contradiction; is ta'til (negating) the methodology of the Jahmiyyah or is tafwidh (consigning) the methodology of the Jahmiyyah, it cannot be both and with this we are sure that Abdur Rahman is confused. As for his claim that it has no place among the salaf, we will see how he fairs with his claim against the 60 quotes from the salaf on tafwidh.
[10:18] Abdur Rahman states that the salaf were known to do Ithbat al-Sifat (affirmation of the attributes), can he show us where any Ash'ari has negated the sifat of Allah. Notice also how he said that the salaf were known to have affirmed the sifat but he did not claim that the salaf affirmed them upon their apparent as the neo-salafis usually claim.
[10:28] He claims that the majority of the Qur'an are names, attributes and characteristics of Allah, and that for somebody to claim that the majority of the Qur'an's meaning is not known goes against the reason why Allah has revealed the Qur'an. As much as it is a false claim that majority of the Qur'an is mention of Allah's attributes, it's also very clear that Abdur Rahman has no idea where tafwidh is applied. Tafwidh is applied in those ayat that are mutashabih (ambigious) as Allah has mentioned there are ambiguous and clear (muhkam) ayat in the Qur'an, Allah says in Surah Al-Imran, verse 7:
It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding. [Sahih International]
We are saying we only do tafwidh in those verses which are ambigious (mutashabih) and Allah is saying in the Qur'an that majority of the Qur'an is clear and precise, so how have we rendered the majority of the Qur'an meaningless. Once again, we advise Abdur Rahman Hasan to watch the series thoroughly before he jumps ahead of himself.
[11:58] He states that at the end of every verse of the Qur'an you will find a name or an attribute of Allah and that Allah mentions a characteristic in just about every verse of the Qur'an. We ask, which Qur'an have you been reading brother Abdur Rahman? Indeed Allah makes mention of His names and attributes often but is it not an exaggeration to say that its the case in just about every verse of the Qur'an? Abdur Rahman should understand the differenced between the sifat al-khabariyya and sifat al-aqaliyyah that Shaykh Mohammad Yasir has explained and he can understand that among the sifat of Allah, those which tafwidh is applied upon is narrowed down even further to a very small number; further proving that his claim is baseless.
[11:36] He states that the salaf would affirm Allah's characteristics and all those after them would affirm all of Allah's names and attributes, believing in their meanings and their realities. There is no dispute here, we do not deny that any of the salaf or khalaf were upon the above, indeed we too are upon this! To claim that we deny Allah's characteristics or that we do not believe in them is a slander and had Abdur Rahman put his bias to a side and read even some of the most basic of our books he would know this. Either he is ignorant or he is making himself ignorant of the truth, both are as bad as each other!
[12:15] A quote of Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr is given wherein he claims that it is an ijma' (consensus) that all the sifat of Allah are taken literally. Firstly the consensus that Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr brings is not a consensus from the salaf. Secondly Imam Abd al-Barr's statement here regarding taking the sifat "ala'l haqiqa" means to accept the reality of the sifat, not to take the meaning literally. This is further enumerated by other statements of the Imam:
Imām Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr – may Allah have mercy upon him – said:
"And a group ascribed to the Sunna said that He, the Exalted, descends with His Essence! This statement is rejected, because He, Exalted is His mention, is not a locus for movement and He has nothing from the signs (characteristics) of the creation." [Al-Istidhkār: 8/153]
He also said in his refutation against someone who said that He descends with His Essence:
“This is rejected [laysa bī shay’in] according to the people of understanding among Ahl al-Sunna because it is a modality [kayfiyya], and they flee from that because it is only suitable for something that is directly encompassed, and Allah, the Exalted, is transendent above that.” [Al-Tamhīd: 7/143]
He also said in Al-Tamhid 18:345:
وأما قوله (يضحك الله) فمعناه يرحم عبده عند ذاك، ويتلقاها بالروح والراحة والرحمة والرأفة، وهذا مجاز مفهوم
'And as for his statement (Allah 'laughs'), it means He has mercy on His servant at that, and receives him with repose, comfort, mercy and affection; and this is a well-understood metaphor.'
So here the Imam is giving a metaphorical explanation!
Salafi Shaykh Hamd Al-Tuwaijiri (of King Sa'ud University), after rejecting Ibn Abd Al-Barr's statement comments:
لكن لعله يلتمس لابن عبدالبر عذر في ذلك، أنه فسر الصفة ببعض لوازمها ومدلولاتها، وهذا سائغ عند السلف
'However, perhaps Ibn Abd Al-Barr can be pardoned for this; he explained the Attribute as per one of its [various] connotations and considerations, and this is warranted according to the Salaf.'
So even a salafi acknowledges that giving metaphorical meanings is warranted according to the salaf, in fact Imam Ibn Rajab even states that Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr was opined to the view of ta'wil (allegorical interpretation) of Allah's attributes:
"A part of Ahl al-Hadith had inclined towards [Ta’weel] regarding the Hadith of Descent, specifically, among them: Ibn Qutaybah, al-Khattabi, and Ibn Abd al-Barr; it has been advanced on authority of [Imam] Malik, and there is dispute regarding its authenticity on his authority; a party among our companions, of those who inclined towards the discussion, adopted it .." [Ibn Rajab in Fath al-Bari 9/279]
Take note Abdur Rahman!
[14:58] Next he brings a quote of Imam al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi and then interpolates his own words "the meaning" in reference to taking the sifat on the dhahir (exterior), nowhere does the Imam make mention of "ma'na" so why is Abdur Rahman putting words into the Imams mouth? He even says in [15:30] that the Imam said "go over its apparent" which means affirm the literal words but go over them without meaning, this is a proof for tafwidh which Abdur Rahman is distorting as an evidence for affirmation according to the literal meaning! The proof that he meant take it on the literal words and not meaning is that after saying the above, he says:
"And we do not say that they [the attributes] are limbs/parts (jawarih) and we do not liken the hands, the hearing and seeing to the parts and limbs (adwat) of actions."
If those attributes were to be taken on their literal meanings, they would all necessitate limbs and parts and therefore proves that he did not mean take the literal meaning.
[15:42] He now claims to give a quote of Ibn al-Qayyim and this is an ultimate fail. Of course he would opine to the view that the sifat are taken on the literal meanings, the series that Abdur Rahman is responding to is demonstrating against Ibn al-Qayyim so how can he be used as a proof?! All of a sudden, it becomes a quote of Imam Ibn Kathir! Even then its just a statement about accepting the sifat as they came which turns out to be another evidence for tafwidh as theres no statement whatsoever about taking the attributes in the literal meaning! Abdur Rahman cannot be serious at this point!
He then goes off on a tangent speaking of the status and manaqib of Ibn Taymiyyah as though praises of other scholars deflects the problematic things that he stated and absolves him of any error. At [21:40] he mentions that a great student of his, Imam al-Dhahabi praised him with some words. However he also harshly reprimanded him which the neo-salafis will not tell you about, take a look here and let me quote just one sentence of what Imam al-Dhahabi said about Ibn Taymiyyah which is relevant here, he says:
"What are your followers but hidebound do-nothings of little intelligence, common liars with dull minds, silent outlanders strong in guile, or dryly righteous without understanding?"
Here are more critical statements on Ibn Taymiyyah from Imam al-Dhahabi:
Imam al-Dhahabi mentions that ibn Taymiyya’s followers weakened, and that he was forbidden from issuing fatawa due to his views on talaq, yet he remained stubborn on his views:
“His followers weakened and he involved himself in weighty questions that neither the intellects of his contemporaries nor their learning could bear, such as: the question of the expiation of the oath of repudiation (talaq), the opinion that repudiation (talaq) uttered three times is valid only once, and the opinion that repudiation (talaq) during menstruation is not valid. He composed writings about these topics in the order of some forty quires. Because of this, he was forbidden to issue legal opinions (fatawa). He controlled himself in a strange way and held firm to his own opinion.”
[al-Dhahabi, Nubdha in Bori, “A New Source“, 336, (Arabic Text) – 342 (English Translation)]
Imam Adh Dhahabi (D. 748AH) describes the position of Ibn Taymiyyah’s closest companions and “fans” from the unique opinions that he has:
Dhayl Tareekhil Islam pg. 328 – 329
www.archive.org/download/alhelawy06/tiz53.pdf
ولا ريب انه لا اعتبار بمدح خواصه والغلاة فيه فان الحب يحملهم على تغطية هناته بل قد يعدونها محاسن. أهـــ
“And without doubt, no consideration should be given to the praise of his closest companions or those who are extreme in their admiration for him. Their love for him will make them cover his mistakes, nay they may even count them to be from his good deeds.”
Courtesy of Shaykh Abdur Rahman Sondalaani:
forum.aslein.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=117
Imam al-Dhahabi (D. 748AH) said in Dhuyool Al ‘Ibar fee Khabari man Ghabar, page 84:
s203841464.onlinehome.us/waqfeya/books/10/0923/0923_4.rar
وله مسائل غريبة نيل من عرضه لأجلها
“And he has strange (rulings on) issues, due to which his repute was under fire”
Courtesy of Shaykh Abdur Rahman Sondalaani:
forum.aslein.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=117
Imam al-Dhahabi (D. 748AH) said in Al Mu’jam Al Mukhtass bil Muhadditheen, on page 25 (pg 45 in the PDF reader), bio #22:
www.archive.org/download/waq1281/1281.pdf
وانفرد بمسائل فنيل من عرضه لأجلها, وهو بشر له ذنوب وخطأ ومع هذا فوالله ما مقلت عينِي مثله ولا رأى هو مثله نفسه. أهــ
“And he went alone on issues that, because of them his repute was under fire. And he is a man. He has sins and mistakes. Yet despite this, by Allah, my eyes have never seen the likes of him, nor has he seen the likes of himself.”
Courtesy of Shaykh Abdur Rahman Sondalaani:
forum.aslein.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=117
In his book, Tadhkiratul Huffaadh pg 1497, Al Imam Adh Dhahabi (D. 748AH) mentions about his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah:
www.archive.org/download/waq1331/1331.pdf
وقد انفرد بفتاوى نيل من عرضه لأجلها وهي مغمورة في بحر علمه, فالله تعالى يسامحه ويرضى عنه فما رأيت مثله. وكل واحد من الأمة فيؤخذ من قوله ويترك فكان ماذا؟ أهـــ
“And he went alone to make unique fatawas, due to which his repute came under fire. Yet they are submerged in the ocean of his knowledge. So may Allah forgive him and be pleased with him, for I have never seen anyone like him. And since the case with everyone in the Muslim Ummah is that some of their statements may be accepted and others may be rejected, what is the problem?”
Courtesy of Shaykh Abdur Rahman Sondalaani:
forum.aslein.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=117
Imam Adh Dhahabi (D. 748AH) said about his teacher Ibn Taymiyyah:
مع أني مخالف له في مسائل أصلية وفرعية
“However I disagree with him in creedal and legal issues.”
See pg 329 of Dhayl Tareekh Al Islam:
www.archive.org/download/alhelawy06/tiz53.pdf
Courtesy of Shaykh Abdur Rahman Sondalaani:
forum.aslein.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=117
All the above and more regarding his arrogance, rightful accusations of lying and more found here: taymiyyun.wordpress.com/?s=dhahabi
[33:28] Here Abdur Rahman mentions a quote of Imam Ibn Daq'iq al-I'd apparently praising Ibn Taymiyyah by saying "I saw a man, all the sciences laid before his eyes, he takes from what he wishes and leaves from it what he wishes." However this quote is incomplete, it continues as Imam Ibn Daq'iq was further asked; "Why didn't you debate him?" to which he replied: "He loves to speak and I love silence." See how the neo-salafis take quotes which are far from praises and twist them to support those that they admire!
Reply to part 4 coming soon insha'Allah!
|
|
|
|
Post by IbnNurAlShanti on Oct 27, 2015 3:28:42 GMT
Answering Part Four of "Response To the Mistakes of Hanafi Fiqh Channel" By Abdur Rahman Hasan
[2:40] The first ridiculous point that Abdur Rahman Hasan makes in this episode is that he is 12 minutes into the first episode of Shaykh Mohammad Yasir's series and there is still not a single quote from the salaf to prove that the way of the salaf regarding the sifat of Allah is tafwidh. We remind Abdur Rahman that Shaykh Mohammad Yasir's video is clearly titled "Introduction" and we are sure that any sound minded person would agree that it does not make sense throwing quotes at a person within the first 12 minutes of a presentation, without first actually explaining what the topic is and giving the audience some understanding on what the issue is. The case of Abdur Rahman is like that of somebody who opens a book, reads half way down the first page of the introductions and says; "This book is worthless, I found no sound argument or evidence in it whatsoever!" As the saying goes, hold your horses. An ocean is about to come and beat against your little rubber dingy!
[4:05] Abdur Rahman here completely butchers and misrepresents the statement of Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (rahimahullah) claiming that the Imam said that the text of the Qur'an leads one to create a body, limbs and a direction for Allah, and further he claims that Imam al-Razi is accusing the Qur'an and sunnah of anthropomorphism. This is an absolute lie on the Imam and may Allah forgive Abdur Rahman for such a slander! Imam al-Razi has clearly stated that when one takes certain texts on their apparent (wa amm'al dhawahir al-naqliyyah...) meaning it leads one to imagine body parts and directions for Allah, Imam al-Razi is not saying that the Qur'an in and of itself leads one to think these things but rather when a crass literalist takes these texts and words on their apparent (dhawahir) meaning, then their logic causes them to think these things. What the Imam said and what Abdur Rahman inferred from what he said are worlds apart! It can only be due to some waswasa or a lack of intellect on the part of Abdur Rahman that he would make such an error, we pray that Allah increases him in understanding.
[7:08] Once again he completely misunderstands a text, this time of Imam al-Bayjuri regarding the speech of Allah. What Imam al-Bayjuri meant was that when one takes the ayat regarding the speech of Allah literally, they imagine a body for Allah, for if we take Allah's speech as being literal speech then that necessitates limbs such as a mouth and a tongue etc. Abdur Rahman on the other hand falsely asserted, rather lied on the Imam claiming that he said this ayah in and of itself leads one to tashbih and nothing could be further from the truth. Come to us Abdur Rahman rather than being a foul autodidact riddled with errors and we'll teach you what these texts really mean, then you can save yourself from slandering these Imams.
[8:00] Same error of misunderstanding here also.
[8:40] He states that all Shaykh Mohammad Yasir is saying is repeating what his forefathers before him said, indeed this is true and it will be proven that Shaykh Mohammad Yasir only repeated what the pious salaf have said and it will be shown that what Abdur Rahman Hasan says is also a repeating of what his forefathers said except these things cannot reach the pious salaf, they fall short of a few centuries.
[9:42] A quote of Imam Ishaac Ibn Rahway is given wherein he defines what tashbih (anthropomorphism) is. Abdur Rahman quotes the Imam as saying that when a person says "Allah's yad is like a yad" and this is in fact a refutation of Abdur Rahman and the pseudo-salafis! They are the ones who affirm Allah's yad as a hand, since the word 'yad' has 25 different meanings as Imam Ibn Hajar has stated in his Fath al-Bari, when they affirm it according to the most literal meaning as a hand are they not the ones who are actually saying "Allah's hand is a hand"? Ask any of them what is meant by Allah's yad and they will clearly say that it means a hand, this is what the Imam is saying is tashbih. The latter part of the Imam's quote is a further proof that he is not saying what Abdur Rahman is implying, the Imam says; "As Allah has said.." saying Allah's yad etc is to say it as Allah said it in the Qur'an and leave it at that since Allah has not taken it further, why do Abdur Rahman and his ilk give yad an explanation as a literal hand? Is this not going beyond saying it "as Allah has said"?
[11:20] Abdur Rahman claims that the only time a person does tashbih is when they mention an attribute and say "...like such and such a thing." This is false and absurd, one does not need to say like such and such a thing with words for it to be tashbih, even the way that one says it can imply that they mean it is like the creation without specifying it. If one says that Allah has a literal hand then that necessitates it to be a literal limb or body part nauzubillah since there cannot be any avoidance of this if it is taken literally. How can anybody say that Allah's attribute of yad is a literal hand but it is not a limb, that is simply oxymoronic. We have seen many cases where pseudo-salafis have stated this ridiculous and ludicrous statements where they say a hand only means a limb when related to created beings but when it relates to Allah it does not mean a limb, this contradiction and incoherency within them is only one of numerous.
[11:39] Here he lies against Shaykh Mohammad Yasir claiming that he said affirmation of the sifat is tashbih. Rather what Shaykh Mohammad Yasir said was that affirming them on the literal meaning is tashbih. Abdur Rahman says that just because He affirms a Hand for Allah and an Eye for Allah as Allah affirmed for Himself, he is accused of tashbih. Let him take note that Allah did not affirm a Hand or an Eye for Himself literally, He affirmed a yad and an ayn for Himself which we accept as it came. Where did Allah affirm a literal Hand or a literal Eye for Himself that Abdur Rahman and his ilk affirm for Allah?
[12:16] A quote of Imam Tirmidhi is given wherein he says that the Jahmiyyah have distorted the sifat of Allah, saying that Allah did not create Adam with His hands. This quote obviously makes no reference to the Ashaa'irah so what use is it directing it towards us? Is Abdur Rahman implying that we too reject Allah creating Adam with His hands? Can he show us one place where we have rejected this? Then he quotes Imam Tirmidhi saying the Jahmiyyah explained the yad of Allah as Power and then Abdur Rahman states that this is also what the Ashaa'irah do and we, according to him, took it from the Jahmiyyah. The difference here is that the Jahmiyyah stated its meaning was power with certainty (inna al-ma'na i.e indeed the meaning) whereas the primary position of the Ashaa'irah as mentioned before is to tafwidh i.e consigning the meaning to Allah. Only as a secondary position to remove ones mind from the influences of the deviants, was an allegorical interpretation given; however it is expressed that this is not the exact meaning but a possible meaning. We recommend that Abdur Rahman watches Shaykh Mohammad Yasir's explanation on what ta'wil is and sees his evidences where he has shown that even the salaf accepted ta'wil. In fact, let us show where Imam Tirmidhi himself has done ta'wil;
From Abu Hurrairah who said: "The Prophet (sallalahu alayhi wa sallam) was sat among his companions and he said: 'By the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, if any of you were to send a man down with a rope to the lowest earth, then he would descend upon Allah. Then he recited (He is The First and The last, The Outer and The Inner and He is Knowledgeable of all things).'"
Imam Tirmidhi then said: "This hadith is ghareeb from this direction." He said: "It is narrated from Abu Yunus bin Ubayd and Ali bin Zayd, they said: 'al-Hasan did not hear this from Abu Hurrairah. Some of the people of knowledge explained this hadith saying: Indeed regarding the saying 'descend upon' [Allah] is [meant] the Knowledge of Allah, His power and His Majesty. The Knowledge of Allah, His Power and His Majesty is in every place and He is over His Throne as was mentioned in His Book." [al-Jami' al-Tirmidhi 5/403]
Here we have Imam Tirmidhi giving and supporting a metaphorical explanation of a hadith in his Jami' so will Abdur Rahman say he took this from the Jahmiyyah?
He also says:
Abu Hurrairah narrates: The Prophet (salallahu alayhi wa sallam) said, “Allah the Most High said, ‘I am as My servant thinks (expects) I am. I am with him when he mentions Me. If he mentions Me to himself, I mention him to Myself; and if he mentions Me in an assembly, I mention him in an assembly greater than it. If he draws near to Me a hand’s length, I draw near to him an arm’s length. And if he comes to Me walking, I go to him at speed.’”
Imam Tirmidhi said: "This hadith is hasan-sahih, and it is narrated from al-A'mash in the explanation of this hadith that 'the one who draws nearer to Me a hands length I draw near to him an arms length' means by forgiveness and mercy and it was also explained like this by some from the people of knowledge..."
Again we have Imam Tirmidhi giving an metaphoric interpretation of Allah's drawing near to a slave, will Abdur Rahman accuse him of taking from the Jahmiyyah?
[15:20] Yet again Abdur Rahman brings a quote from Imam al-Tabari attempting to support his view when in reality it is another proof for tafwidh. In this quote, Imam al-Tabari states that we accept all the attributes as they came (just as the Ashaa'irah say) and he said it is taken ala' ma yu'qal which means "upon what is rationally reasonable" not "based upon what is understood from the word" as Abdur Rahman said as he attempts to stretch this and use it for his claim that this means taking it upon the literal meaning! Imam al-Tabari then says "haqiqat al-ithbat" which means a "reality of affirmation" i.e to affirm these characteristics as a reality, not "in its literal affirmation" as Abdur Rahman claimed and this error is just as the one he made regarding the quote of Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr in the previous reply. Why is Abdur Rahman bringing quotes about accepting the reality of the attributes when his dawah is accepting the attributes upon their literal meanings, nowhere does Imam al-Tabari talk about literal meanings!
He says at [15:30] (regarding ala' ma yu'qal which means "upon what is rationally reasonable") that the word that came to us which is hand, in the Arabic language it has a meaning and we will understand and comprehend what it means in the Arabic langauge. Firstly the word that came to us is not hand, it was yad and secondly as mentioned earlier, in the Arabic language it has 25 different meanings, please do tell us why you understand it according to the most literal meaning with proof for its appropriateness from the Arabic language, may you be rewarded.
[16:04] Abdur Rahman asks where it is by affirming the sifat of Allah that ones falls into tashbih, we say it is not merely by affirmation as your feeble mind has misunderstood, rather it is by affirming upon a literal meaning. Why brother did you not pay attention to what Shaykh Mohammad Yasir said?
[17:00] He lies again on Shaykh Mohammad Yasir by saying that he has chosen to negate the hand as a sifat of Allah when Shaykh Mohammad Yasir has clearly stated that these are the sifat of Allah in his series!
Several more quotes are given by use of the word "haqiqa" which do not prove that the meaning is taken literally, they simply state that they are taken as realities but in no way necessitate literal affirmations of meanings.
[20:26] A quote of Abu Nasr Ubaydullah Sijsi is given. Nowhere in the entire quote is there any evidence of affirmation of the sifat on the dhahir (literal), rather the Imam says that the Arabs took it as it was understood by them according to appropriateness of their language and Abdur Rahman interpolates with his own words trying to imply that this means that they took it on the apparent meanings. This quote does nothing for Abdur Rahman but rather can be used as a proof for us.
[23:45] At this point Abdur Rahman asks Shaykh Mohammad Yasir why he affirms the 7 sifat dhatiyyah of Allah (The Hearing and Seeing etc) literally but not the attributes such as yad, ayn etc. Abdur Rahman will be happy to know that Shaykh Mohammad Yasir has already answered this long before he even asked, this is a common objection of the pseudo-salafis which they inherit from their forefather Ibn Taymiyyah. As Shaykh Mohammad Yasir says, they think this is a great objection but in reality it is feeble and weak. Unfortunately these brothers haven't gone past the first episode of Shaykhs series so they do not understand the difference between the two types of attributes, watch the video here titled The True Creed of the Salaf- Ep 2- Ibn Taymiyyah's objection enjoy!
Reply to part 5 coming soon insha'Allah!
|
|
... and even ibnu Taymiyya mentioned this about him also!!!
... and even ibnu Taymiyya mentioned this about him also!!!
