Why is the Ash'ari Affirmation of 7 Attributes Not Tashbih?

I haven't read the entire piece, but just to respond to the charge that the above claim about Salafi belief is unsubstantiated:

Ibn Uthaymin says:

نفي التشبيه على الإطلاق بين صفات الخالق وصفات المخلوق لا يصح لأنه ما من صفتين ثابتتين إلا وبينهما اشتراك في أصل المعنى، وهذا الإشتراك نوع من المشابهة (مجموع فتاوى ورسائل فضيلة الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين، ج١ ص١٨١)

"Negating tashbih (similarity) in an absolute way between the Sifat of Creator and the Sifat of creation is incorrect because there are no two Sifahs that are established but there is a commonality between them in the basic meaning, and this commonality is a degree of similarity."

Ibn Taymiyyah says the mafhum (meaning) of the Sifat of Allah is the same as their mafhum in created things, and clearly implies the words "yad" etc. are physical limbs just like they are in creation:

وبيان هذا أن صفاتنا منها ما هي أعيان وأجسام، وهي أبعاض لنا، كالوجه واليد، ومنها ما هي معان وأعراض، وهي قائمة بنا، كالسمع والبصر والكلام والعلم والقدرة. ثم إن من المعلوم أن الرب لما وصف نفسه بأنه حي عليم قدير لم يقل المسلمون إن ظاهر هذا غير مراد لأن مفهوم ذلك في حقه مثل مفهومه في حقنا، فكذلك لما وصف نفسه بأنه خلق آدم بيديه لم يوجب ذلك أن يكون ظاهره غير مراد لأن مفهوم ذلك في حقه كمفهومه في حقنا (رسالة التدمرية، ٧٧-٨)

In responding to an argument, Ibn Uthaymin also clearly implies wajh, yad etc. as applied to Allah are limbs:

ولجاز أيصا أن يثبت المفتري لله سبحانه أعضاء كتيرة مع نفي التشبيه فيقول: إن لله تعالى كبدا لا كأكباد العباد، وأمعاء لا كأمعائهم، ونحو ذلك مما يتنزه الله تعالى عنه، كما أن له وجها لا كوجوههم ويدين لا كأيديهم (مجموع فتاوى ورسائل فضيلة الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين، ج١ ص٢٠١)

You'll find the Ash'aris/Maturidis in their books of aqidah clearly explain the Sifat that are qa'im bidhatillah (e.g. Qudrah, Hayah, Ilm etc.) in terms of their results and outcomes, so the claim that this is unfounded is also untrue.

The literal (حقيقي) meaning is taken but what it is, isn't obvious.saying يد ,وجه /hand, face etc are words not meanings.

Salafis do ithbat(establish), they do ithbat of the literal meaning, claiming to know the reality of the Sifat as they exist in Allah's Dhat. Yad etc., for them, is a Sifah of Allah's Dhat with a known meaning: its meaning is the same as its meaning in created beings. (as they believe إثبات المعني و تفويض الكيف ) establish a meaning and leave the how and modality of it to allah.

Hence, our problem with their aqidah is not in the ithbat of an attribute( حقيقت :reality) itself and accepting it as a Sifah of Allah (when it is supported by sound textual evidence).

But our problem with their aqidah is their claim that the meaning of the Sifah as it exists in Allah's Dhat is known, and it is only the modalities (kayfiyyat) that are different and unknown.

This is why their aqidah is weak. Also if anyone even tries to say that what was mentioned is incorrect and follow this salafi aqeeda in saying that Allah has a yad with a known obvious meaning and just how it is we don't know and that it's not like a creation. then don't comment unless you tell me what is this known meaning of Allah's يد/hand that you do ithbat/establish of. And if you cant ( which you will never be able to do as a human can never know the haqeqat of Allah and the meaning of yad ,wajh istiwaa etc in dictionaries will give meanings attributed to creations)don't you dare go and say that the meaning is not known and that you leave it to Allah because that is the ashari/maturidi belief the true followers of the salaf. we do إثبات الحقيقة وتفويض المعني /believe in its reality and leave the meaning to Allah. but so called salafies will say that they don't leave the meaning to Allah they establish it but it's just how it is they don't know. so if your gonna go with this false creed then your gonna have to say/mention the meaning of Yad and JLS that you establish for allah before you go and say that the how and modality of the yad of Allah etc is not known and different.

The ta'weel of the ashari and maturidi are not metaphorical meanings they are haqeeqi meanings of the word (unlike the mutazila who actually used metaphorical meanings) so don't confuse the ashari and maturidi with those people who did these metaphorical interpretations. Also these meanings that the Ash'aris and Maturidi's done were all meanings that they considered as possible meanings they didn't believe that is was the actual meaning with complete yaqeen and make it a part of aqidah as a must belief. The actual belief is what I mentioned before in that the real meaning is known to Allah and him alone as a creation cannot know the haqeqat of Allah as I have mentioned before. The only reason they interpreted these POSSIBLE حقيقي meanings is to stop people in thier time from either denying the ayaat, or taking and anthropomorphic meaning or taking a metaphorical meaning without any evidence from the salaf as these are all incorrect to do so.

But like I said the belief of the ashari and maturidi is the same as the salaf which is that the haqeqat of Allah's' hand istiwaa etc is not known but it is believed in and the meaning is known to Allah alone, the aqidah of the TRUE salaf not a made up one that the salafies of today and thier ilk dream up. If one was to  say I'm wrong and the meaning is known but it's not like any creation then I ask you, What is this meaning of the hand of Allah etc that you claim to know?  FORGET about taking it to the how and modality of it, EXPLAIN THE MEANING YOU ESTABLISHED FIRST. AND BY THE WAY يد/hand استوي etc are not meanings they are words that have meanings. A creation cannot and will never be able to say it's meaning in accordance with the Dhat of Allah and salafies don't know it either. The only difference is we will actually say we don't know it and leave it to Allah while these so called salafies  will say they know it( even though they never bring a meaning of it forward ) and the only thing they say is that the how/ modality of it is not like any creation.  but what about the meaning of the hand of allah etc that was claimed to be known and established?

Deen and guidance is from allah and him alone everything I have stated and mention if anything is wrong then it is a mistake from myself and shaytaan and I ask forgiveness from allah and whatever is right then its from allah and him alone , I make dua to Allah that it helps people see and recognise the foolish and stupid mistakes that people are making today in establishing a certain literal meaning for the atrributes of Allah that they don't even know the meaning of, as they are unable to present and explain it and by leaving the overwhelming and vast majority of this ummah In doing so, by not consigning the meaning that cannot be known by creation to allah subhana wa ta'ala. Ameeen.

When affirming yad etc for Allah (which you have to do) you are affirming it's reality (حقيقث ) ie you are not going to affirm a metaphorical meaning as there is no evidence for that nor are you denying the word itself as people have done so in the past. you are only arfirming for Allah ta' alaa what Allah ta' alaa has affirmed for himself.You are also going to affirm it's meaning (which is ambiguous and not known, as there are many haqeqee meanings for the word yad. ) Ibn hajar al asqalani RA says they are are 25 different haqeeqe meanings for the word yad. Etc Then deny a modality ( بلا كيفية ) as Allah ta' alaa cannot be attributed to a 'how' because establishing a modality will necessitated a how which will in-turn give a meaning of 'like' So therfore resulting in - Allah's hand is like.... this is incorrect as Allah cannot be like anything. That's why a modality must be denied when affirming the reality of the word and it's meaning.

Now you mentioned that yad and وجه do have meanings in the Arabic language. Correct yes they do, however go and look up any of those meanings and tell me if you can apply them to Allah. You can't because those meanings will be attributed to that of the dhat of creations. Therfore those meanings cannot be attribute to Allah as Allah is free from being attributed to any creation. THE MEANING is not denied it's just not known to us as we cannot comprehend the dhat of Allah and will never be able to do so in this dunya. Which is why whatever it is, we leave it (the meaning) to Allah like the way the salaf did, and, practically the entire ummah has done ever SIince day one.

The salafies you probably spoke too or may speak with don't represent the whole sect itself. This ideology of doing ithbat ul ma'na wa tafwidul kaif are apparent in their aqidah books. 

Salam.

The following came to my head while reading Mufti Zameel's post.

In the Ash'ari/Maturidi world, limbs automatically means something that is created. So it can never be associated to Allah, and it's something that is in conceivable and not worthy for Allah.

In the Salafi world, limbs does not have to mean something created. Limbs associated to Allah are not created, because an attribute of Allah is not created, but the ones associated to the creation are created. This is why it's said Allah's yad or wajh is different than the creation's.

I think this is the underlying difference. i.e. the definition of limbs and whether it has to mean "created" or not.