Confusion of the mujassimah
Walid Dabbous
In an article it was written:
|> A group of Ahlus Sunnah used the term 'without place' and a group of
|> them used 'in a place' BUT THEY BOTH MEANT THE SAME THING,
This is a contradictory sayning and it has no sense.
No one from Ahl-es-Sunnah said that Allah is "in a place".
Any one who says this is a kafir. Ad-Daraqutnee is clear
from the two poem verses attributed to him falsly by the deviant
ibn al-qayyim.
Ahl-es-Sunnah say that Allah exists without a place.
This is documented in many books of Ahl-es-Sunnah.
Imam Malik said about hadith an-Nuzul: Nuzul Rahma, la Nuzul Naqla.
which means:
The Nuzul is a mercy from him to his slaves and not a movement.
|> a group of Ahlus Sunnah from amongst the companions of
|> Ahmad and others replied by saying that Allah is in a place and that
|> place is above the Throne.
Imam Ahmad is innocent from the mujassimah who pretended that Allah
sits on the throne. This flase saying was stated by ibn taymiyah in his
book majmou^ fatawa ahmad ibn taymiyah.
Imam Ahmad said: Istawa kama akhbar, la kama yakhtouru lil bashar.
Imam Ahmad refused the saying that Allah is a body.
ibn taymiyah pretended that some "scholars" said that Allah is smaller
than the throne. he said that they are among the "ahl-es-Sunnah"!
look at his arrogance: he said that there were people from
Ahl-es-Sunnah who said that Allah is smaller than the throne.
This is blasphemy.
|> But what is the meaning of place here? In the Sharee'ah place
|> (Makaan) is used in two senses - Makan al-Wujoodee i.e. a place that
|> is limited to the six directions and time etc or Makaan al-Adamee
|> i.e. a place that has no such limitations rather it refers to
|> something outside of creation.
This is a saying that has no sense. The term "makan ^adamiyy" was
innovated by ibn taymiyah (in ar-risalah at-tadmouriyyah). The
mujassimah followed him on this point (as stated by harras in the
commentary on al-wasitiyyah). Can you give the name of a Sahabi that
talked about the "^adamiyy place". You are not applying the "rules" you
set your self.
There is a proof that there is a place over the throne. it is
the place of the book in which it is written "Inna Rahmati sabaqat
ghadabi". Go and learn before discussing with people.
If you pretend that Allah is himself above the Throne, this means that
He is like this book. This is belying Qur'an.
|> He is outside of creation and not mixed in it in any way.
People from Ahl-es-Sunnah like (1) Ibn al-Jawziyy in Daf^ Shubah
at-Tashbih, (2) Muhammad ibn Ahmad Mayyarah in ad-Dur ath-thamin,
(3) Muhammad Ibn Jalal and many others said that Allah exists, neither
in the world not outside the world. He is not a body and he does not
need a place to exist. Before the creation of the world, Allah existed,
without being "in" the world, nor "outside" the world. And also after
the creation of the world Allah exists without a place. He exists,
neither in the world, nor outside the world.
NB. the mujassimah do not like ibn al-Jawzi although he is a great
hanbali scholar, because he is Ash^ariyy in ^aqeeda.
|> Another group of Ahlus Sunnah said that Allaah is without a place -
|> but these comments were directed to deviants such as the mujassima
|> who held Allaah to be a body that was subject to time and space.
the truth is clear to who has eyes. Those are Ahl-es-Sunnah.
Those who beleive that Allah exists without a place.
Tens and hundrends of scholars said Allah exists without a place.
They refute the mujassimah like ibn taymiyah and his followers
who say that Allah will sit our Master Muhammad on the throne next to
him (which is blasphemy).
Some one from Ahl-es-Sunnah reported the hadith:
|> >"Allah existed eternally and there was nothing else." This hadith
|> > proves that Allah was alone in al-'azal, (the status of existence
|> > without a beginning,) i.e., before creating any of the creation.
then some one replied:
|>
|> This in no way proves that Allaah subhaana is not above the Throne -
|> since this is what Allaah says in the Qur'an and if it had any other
|> possible meaning other than "over the throne" - then the Qur'an is
|> not the clearest and most eloquent of books.
It seems that you did not hear that there is Ayat Mutashabihat in the
Qur'an. I refer you to the AICP web page to read on this topic.
The word Istawa has 15 meanings (check the Qamus, bu al-Fayrouz Abadi).
1) Qahara -- to dominate
2) Hafitha -- to protect
3) Abqa -- to keep, to save
4) I^tadala -- to stand up straight again,
5) Jalasa -- to sit
6) Istaqarra -- to be established
7) Istawla -- to conquer
8) Iktamala -- to reach physical maturity
9) Kasada -- to have the will to
10) ^ala (by status) -- to be higher in status
11) ^ala (in place) -- tp be higher in place
12) nadaja -- to ripen
13) ^adala -- to be equivalent to
and two others...
chosing the meaning of sitting is tashbih.
This verse means that Allah dominates the Throne.
Allah said: "wa Huwa l-Qahiru fawqa ^Ibadih".
Muslims call their children Abdul Qahir.
No Muslim call his child Abdul Jalis.
Some one from Ahl-es-Sunnah wrote:
|> >Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadiyy related in his book, Al-Farqu Bayn al-Firaq
|> >, that Imam ^Aliyy, the fourth of the caliphs, may Allah reward his deeds,
|> >said,which means: "Allah existed eternally and there was no place, and He
|> >now is as He was, i.e., without a place."
|> >
|>
|>
|> This statement of Ali (alayhis salaam) has no isnaad (chain of narration) and
|> was not on the tongues of any of the sahabah as explained in the last post. It
|> is shameless deception of the AICP to blatantly quote a narration which has NO
|> isnaad whatsoever, da'eef or saheeh.
|>
The saying of Imam ^Aliyy is related by Abu Mansur al-Baghdadiyy. It is
also related by as-Suyutiyy and by Abu Nu^aym in Al-hilyah.
Imam Zayn al-^abidin ^aliyy ibn alHusayn ibn ^Aliyy ibn abi talib
also said: Subhanaka Anta Allah La yahweeka makan.
You are clear from imperfection O Allah, You are not contained in
any place.
The Prophet Muhammad Salla Allah ^alyhi wa sallam said:
Kana Allah wa la yakun shay'un ghayruh.
This means: Kana Allah wa la makan. because the makan is something
other than Allah. the makan is not Allah.
instead of giving your so-called "naseehah" to Asha^irah and
Maturidiyyah, follow their path. It is the path of Ahl-es-Sunnah.
--
Walid Dabbous
AICP
aka al-Ahbash
Abu Moosa
innalhamdulillah was salaatu was salaam ala rasoolillah wa ba'd,
>|> A group of Ahlus Sunnah used the term 'without place' and a group of
>|> them used 'in a place' BUT THEY BOTH MEANT THE SAME THING,
>
>This is a contradictory sayning and it has no sense.
To clarify: - 1 group of Ahlus Sunnah, like al Tahaawi, were asked by the
mujassimah "Is Allah everywhere?" - Al Tahaawi responded by saying Allah is
ABOVE THE THRONE, not in a place (like earth which is contained by the 6
directions).
1 group of Ahlus Sunnah like Al Darimi and al Daarqutni were asked "Allah
exists nowhere, not above the throne, nor on earth?" - and they responded Allah
is in a place and that is ABOVE THE THRONE - and this place is not limited by
space, direction, or time.
And both groups of Ahlus Sunnah, as is shown above, meant the exact same thing
while using different wordings. I hope this makes the situation clearer for
you.
>Imam Malik said about hadith an-Nuzul: Nuzul Rahma, la Nuzul Naqla.
>which means:
First of all - it should be noted that in the trial of Ibn Taymiyyah - he
challenged them to PRODUCE ONE INCIDENT OF THE SALAF USING TA'WEEL - not just
the salaf, but the first 300 years of Islaam. Mashaa Allah - they came with 2
challenges, both of them having no basis whatsoever.
But the point being - they did not use these examples you, or Kabbani, present
of the Salaf making ta'weel - because they knew these examples were FABRICATED
and/or SEVERELY WEAK - these were the classical asha'irah - and they admitted,
as al Subki (tajuddeen) wrote "The way of the salaf is safer, but our way
(ta'weel) is wiser and with more knowledge." If these narrations you quote had
any shred of authenticity, they would have brought it to Ibn Taymiyyah
(rahimahullah) by your forefathers.
At any rate, let me prove without a doubt that this narration has no basis in
order to back up my claim for the reader of this online dialogue:
This "ta'weel" of Imaam Maalik (rahimahullah) is located in the Tamheed of Ibn
Abdul Barr (who is what you would call a Mujassim) (7/143); also mentioned by
al Dhahabee (whom your shaykh Abdullah al Harari is on record as calling a
"faasiq") in Siyar A’laam an-Nubulaa’ (8/105). I will now quote my brother
Aboo Rumaysah for the rest in his response to Hasan Ali Saqqaf who brought the
same ta'weel:
" And this is the text from ‘Siyar’,
‘ibn Adee said: Muhammad bin Haroon bin Hissaan narrated to us from Saalih bin
Ayyub from Habeeb bin Abu Habeeb that Maalik narrated to me:
“Allaah the Exalted sends down His Command, as for He then He is Everlasting ,
still (Laa yazool).” Saalih said, “I mentioned this to Yahya bin Bakeer and he
said, ‘good by Allaah although I have not heard
this from Maalik”'
I (Saqqaaf) say: the narration of ibn Abdul Barr is via another route so be
aware, and we have mentioned this from Imaam Maalik in the ta’leeq number 129.”
This is what he said in number 129: “and from those that made ta’weel of the
hadeeth of Nuzool by the descent of His Mercy was Imaam Maalik and he was from
the Imaams of the salaf as is narrated….” And he mentioned what is in
‘as-Siyar’.
In this book this person has blackened it’s pages by abusing the Imaams of the
past and by quoting phrases that betray only his lack of investigation and
enmity and jealousy to the true scholars of Ahlus
Sunnah, past and present, and showing a sectarianism that is blind to the
truth.
For in the above quote he narrates only a portion of the statement of
adh-Dhahabee, for adh-Dhahabee follows on by saying, “I say: I do not know
Saalih, and Habeeb is mashhur (famous)!! And what is preserved from Imaam
Maalik, may Allaah have mercy upon him, is the narration of Waleed bin Muslim
that he asked him about the ahaadeeth to do with the Attributes of Allaah and
he replied, ‘we take them as they are, without explanation (tafseer).’ So the
Imaam would have two sayings on this if the narration of Habeeb is authentic.”
The narration of Habeeb is not authentic, dh-Dhahabee says about him,
“Ahmad said: he is not trustworthy. Ibn Ma’een said: he used to read to
Maalik…(?)…and I was asked about him in Egypt and I replied, ‘he is nothing’.
Abu Dawood said: he is the most lying from amongst the people.
Abu Haatim said: he narrated fabricated ahaadeeth from the son of the brother
of az-Zuhree. Ibn Adee said: all of his ahaadeeth are fabrications. Ibn Hibbaan
said: …(?)...and he narrated fabrications from
trustworthy narrators. He used to include in their ahaadeeth what they did not
narrate.” [‘al-Meezaan’ (1/452)]
Ibn Adee said about him, “the scribe of Maalik, he fabricated ahaadeeth…..and
the ahaadeeth of this Habeeb are all fabricated, from Maalik and from other
than him…. And frequently the hadeeth of Habeeb from Maalik are hadeeth that he
fabricated against him…” [‘al-Kaamil’ (2/818)]
So this is the state of Habeeb, and when we also consider that the isnaad also
contains an unknown narrator then know that it is impossible to depend upon
this chain of narration from any perspective! So how is it that this Saqqaaf
overlooks all of this? Truly the isnaad also contains an unknown narrator then
know that it is impossible to depend upon
As for what is narrated by ibn Abdul Barr then he said, “and Muhammad bin Alee
al-Jiblee - who was one of the trustworthy Muslims of Qayrawaan - said that
Jaami bin Sawaadah in Egypt narrated to us from Matraf from Maalik bin Anas
that he was asked about the hadeeth, “indeed Allaah descends to the lowest
heaven” so Maalik replied, ‘He sends down His Command.’ [‘at-Tamheed’ (7/143)]
Then this isnaad is also da’eef for Jaami’ was eclared weak by ad-Daaruqutnee
and he reported it in ‘Gharaa’ib al-Maalik’ with three other narrators between
him and Maalik. And so it becomes clear that this ta’weel is not from Imaam
Maalik and in fact what is affirmed from him contradicts this as has preceded.
And it is seems clear that this ta’weel is from Habeeb himself as quoted from
him in ‘at-Tamheed’ of ibn Abdul Barr (7/143), and the condition of Habeeb has
preceded.
This what scholarly research free from sectarianism dictates. [This discussion
is taken from ‘Rudood wat- Ta’qubaat’ (pg. 93+) and ‘as-Sawaa’iq was Shuhub’
(pg. 45+). For a similar discussion see ‘Mukhtasar as-Sawaa’iq’ of ibn al-
Qayyim.]
And it is the madhhab of the Righteous Salaf that they took the Attribute of
Nuzool as it befitted the Majesty of Allaah without takyeef, tashbeeh and
ta’weel. "
End quote from my excellent brother.
And the rest of your quotes are without reference or sources in your last post
- and even if you did list the references - from what has proceeded, it's clear
to the reader of who is correct and who is quoting from the incorrect sources
(purposely or not).
You then go on to quote that the meaning of "Istawaa" is 15 - and this is not
so. Ibnul Qayyim (who although many ash'ari scholars differ with him in
aqeedah, admits he was a truthful and great Haafidh, unlike Al Harari who
declares him to be kaafir) lists the meaning of istawa to be 4 in number - and
I have heard from another member of the ahbash (an imam in pennsylvania) saying
that the istawa's meanings were 7.
So you differ from one of your own imaams it seems. He is more honest and
closer to the truth - since many of the meanings of "istawaa" you quote are
based upon fabricated poetry of the jahiliyyah time as even this Imam sees and
as is pointed out by Abu Bakr ibnul Arabi al Maliki [Reported by Khateeb
al-Baghdaadee in ‘Taareekh Baghdaad’ (5/283), al-Laalikaa’ee in ‘Sharh Usul
I’tiqaad’ (3/399) with a saheeh sanad].
The only meaning of 'ala over another noun is literal loftiness and higness.
And what is to prevent the person from saying Allah is over the throne, as it
is an attribute He himself has said, and it signifies perfection.
At any rate I just want to quote again from my excellent brother Aboo Rumaysah
in response to the false meanings of istawaa:
Isteelaa which is used to explain Istawaa is used to mean creation
(Khalq), or Strength (Qahr), or Overcoming (Ghalba), or Owning (Milak),
or Power (Qudra), and it is not correct to apply any of these meanings
to His, the Exalted, saying, ‘ar-Rahmaan Istawaa upon the Throne’(Taa
Haa:5) due to the following reasons:
1.As for the (meaning of) creation then this claim includes that the
Throne would need to be created after the heavens and the earth, and
this contradicts the Book and Sunnah and consensus because Allaah
informed of the creation of the heavens and the earth and all that was
between them in six days then He Rose over the Throne, and he informed
that the Throne was upon the water before he created the heavens and the
earth, and likewise it is reported in the hadeeth of Imraan bin Hussain
(RA) that the Prophet (SAW) said, ‘Allaah was and there was nothing
before him, and His Throne was upon the water, and He wrote in the Book
(dhikr) everything and then He created the heavens and the earth.’
[Reported by Bukhaaree.] So if the Throne existed before the creation
of the heavens and the earth, and His Istawaa upon it was after the
creation then how could His Istawaa upon it be His creation of it or His
tending towards or intending to create it? This along with the fact that
taking ‘istawaa upon’ or ‘istawaa’ to mean tending to or intending to is
not known in the language at all, neither in it’s literal or
metaphorical expressions, or it’s poetry and prose.
2.istawlaa (conquer) is only said to one who has an opponent, and Allaah
has no opponent. Dawood bin Alee said, ‘we were with ibn al-A’raabee
when a man came to him and said, “O Abu Abdullaah what is the meaning of
His saying, ‘ar-Rahmaan made Istawaa upon the Throne?’ (Taa Haa:5)?” He
said, “He is Over His Throne as He informed”. So he said, “O Abu
Abdullaah the meaning is istawlaa.” So he said, “be silent! You do not
say istawlaa upon something unless it has an opponent that may be
overcome as was said by an-Naabigha: except for the likes of you or one
who preceded you the preceding of the horse when it conquered (istawlaa)
al-Amad” [Reported by al- Khateeb al-Baghdaadee in ‘Taareekh Baghdaad’
(5/284), and al-Laalikaa’ee (3/393), al-Bayhaqee in ‘Asmaa was Sifaat’
(pg.523) with a saheeh sanad.]
4.It is not said that someone conquered (istawlaa) something unless
first it was not possible for him to do so and then later it became
possible. So is there a creation from the creation of Allaah for which
there was a time that Allaah had not conquered it?….Let these people
whose desires play with them as a dog plays with it’s master know that
Allaah has always been omnipotent over all things.
5.Allaah has made Istawlaa of all the creation so what is the meaning of
mentioning the Throne specifically and mentioning it over and over again
in His Book? So if it said: the Throne has been specified due to it’s
being the greatest of creation, and its highest and largest so
specifically mentioning this is like informing of the rest of creation.
We say: this opinion is rendered invalid because it is not permissible
to say that Allaah made istawaa over the son of Aadam, the mountain, the
sun and the moon.
6.the term Isteelaa is not applied except to one who was weak and then
became able, and nothing can make Allaah weak.” [‘Ayn Allaah - Difaa’un
an Hadeeth al-Jaariyah’ (pp.45-51) of Shaykh Saleem with some summary] "
End quote...
More details to come when I have the time to respond to the other posts of the
Ahbash, inshaa Allah.