Why Do Some Muslims Deny Where Allah is?

[reer]

I am amazed at the Ash'aris. A scholar who was a student of Imam Shafi'i- his aqeedah now is somehow "Wahhabism".

what type of ashari? people say nawawi was ashari because of his aqeedah. even salafis admit he had some similarities with asharis. whether or not he was an ashari is a debate.

Sheikh Fawzan's commentary:

View attachment 326652

sh fawzan is a hanbali. the hanbali madhab was against asharis.

 

[Omar del Sur]

what type of ashari? people say nawawi was ashari because of his aqeedah. even salafis admit he had some similarities with asharis. whether or not he was an ashari is a debate.

Asharis in general. I don't know anything about Nawawi's aqeedah. I've heard as well that he was ash'ari. But Ibn Hajr I believe was an extreme ashari. I remember I saw a video where they showed a quotation from I believe Fath al-Bari... they included the original Arabic... and as far as I remember it was something incredibly takfiri to the point where I think he was basically rendering all atharis as kaffirs. I think every athari person here would be a kaffir according to the statement of Ibn Hajr I saw. But Imam Nawawi I don't know about.

sh fawzan is a hanbali. the hanbali madhab was against asharis.

Al-Aqidah Al-Tahawiyyah is known to contain errors. That book is not like an aqeedah equivalent of Sahih al-Bukhari.

it does appear Tahawi was epousing aqidah of the jahmiyyah. but I would like to see anyone bring any of the students of Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i (not counting Tahawi as he left the Shafi'i madhhab and became Hanafi), or Imam Hanbal and show them promoting ash'ari/jahmi aqeedah.

And I think it's interesting that I've brought a student of Imam Shafi'i and a student of Imam Hanbal and the other side brings Tahawi. Tahawi wasn't a student of any of the four famous imams.

Some of the Mistakes and Deficiencies of Al-Aqidah Al-Tahawiyyah @AlIslamProductions​

 

[reer]

Asharis in general. I don't know anything about Nawawi's aqeedah. I've heard as well that he was ash'ari. But Ibn Hajr I believe was an extreme ashari. I remember I saw a video where they showed a quotation from I believe Fath al-Bari... they included the original Arabic... and as far as I remember it was something incredibly takfiri to the point where I think he was basically rendering all atharis as kaffirs. I think every athari person here would be a kaffir according to the statement of Ibn Hajr I saw. But Imam Nawawi I don't know about.


Al-Aqidah Al-Tahawiyyah is known to contain errors. That book is not like an aqeedah equivalent of Sahih al-Bukhari.

it does appear Tahawi was epousing aqidah of the jahmiyyah. but I would like to see anyone bring any of the students of Imam Malik, Imam Shafi'i (not counting Tahawi as he left the Shafi'i madhhab and became Hanafi), or Imam Hanbal and show them promoting ash'ari/jahmi aqeedah.

And I think it's interesting that I've brought a student of Imam Shafi'i and a student of Imam Hanbal and the other side brings Tahawi. Tahawi wasn't a student of any of the four famous imams.

Some of the Mistakes and Deficiencies of Al-Aqidah Al-Tahawiyyah @AlIslamProductions​

ibn shamsuddin has been branded a haddadi and a takfeeri. i dont know if hes a scholar.

أخلاق التكفيري محمد شمس الدين

✅ لمتابعة حساباتنا أو التواصل أو دعم القناة🌐https://linktr.ee/shuounislamiya

www.youtube.com

 

[Omar del Sur]

ibn shamsuddin has been branded a haddadi and a takfeeri. i dont know if hes a scholar.

أخلاق التكفيري محمد شمس الدين

✅ لمتابعة حساباتنا أو التواصل أو دعم القناة🌐https://linktr.ee/shuounislamiya

www.youtube.com

Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was branded all sorts of things. Of course any person can be branded things. I don't know of any evidence that Muhammad Shams Uldin is takfiri. As for a haddadi... it remains to be proven that people who criticize Nawawi's aqeedah are wrong for doing so.

 

[World]

The creed of the Hanbalis and the creed of Salafis are distinct and not the same.

Atharis are free from anthropomorphism.

 

[Omar del Sur]

frankly, I think a "haddadi" revolution is happening and I think it's a good thing. people are waking up to the ash'ari aggression against the aqeedah of ahlus sunnah

 

[Omar del Sur]

The creed of the Hanbalis and the creed of Salafis are distinct and not the same.

Atharis are free from anthropomorphism.

View attachment 326670

 

[reer]

Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was branded all sorts of things. Of course any person can be branded things. I don't know of any evidence that Muhammad Shams Uldin is takfiri. As for a haddadi... it remains to be proven that people who criticize Nawawi's aqeedah are wrong for doing so.

if you watch the video youll see his anti nawawi stance. we dont even know if he is a scholar. hes a syrian refugee to germany teaching people deen.

 

[reer]

@World albani said ibn hajar and nawawi was ashari. but also early asharism is totally different to later asharism. there is dispute on if they were asharis or not.

 

[World]

@World albani said ibn hajar and nawawi was ashari. but also early asharism is totally different to later asharism. there is dispute on if they were asharis or not.

Ashari creed existed for 500 years by the time of Ibn Hajar and Nawawi.

Plus i am not talking about Asharis. The modern Salafi creed is based upon Ibn Taymiyyah/Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahabb and doesn't have anything in common with traditional Hanbali creed.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Myself I am pro Muhammad Shams Uldin, I don't have a problem with him criticizing Imam Nawawi. I think the people who attack him over the issue should show us why exactly people are accusing Imam Nawawi of aqeedah problems. There might be very good reasons people are talking about him having been an Ash'ari.

But Muhammad Shams Uldin, Imam Nawawi, the "Haddadi" label that has been pushed to attack people who criticize Nawawi.... all of those are side issues.

aqeedah of Tahawi has been criticized by islamqa. islamqa is not "haddadi":

https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/93197

Despite what we have referred to of the good features of this ‘Aqeedah and its commentary by Ibn Abi’l-‘Izz, it also contains a number of issues which were criticized, because they go against what the salaf believed, such as his saying, when defining faith: “Faith is affirming with the tongue and believing in the heart,” because limiting it to that is the view of the Murji’i fuqaha’ who excluded physical actions from the definition of faith. The same applies to what he said after that, “Faith is one and the same, and believers are equal with regard to the foundation of faith.”

It also includes some general phrases that may be understood incorrectly, and are most often used by innovators to mean things that are contrary to the beliefs of the righteous salaf, such as his saying, “exalted be He above limits and boundaries” and “exalted be He above having faculties and parts” and “He is not subject to directions and dimensions which are attributes of created beings.” Such phrases are used by those who misinterpret the attributes of Allah (al-mu’attilah) to deny what is affirmed in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger of the sublime attributes of Allah that befit His perfection, may He be glorified and exalted, such as His Countenance, hands and eyes. They call them faculties and parts, and deny that Allah possesses them.

Another example is His being above His creation, and His rising above His Throne in His heaven. They call this “directions and location” and deny that it applies to Allah, may He be exalted.

 

[Omar del Sur]

since I've criticized Ash'aris, I want to mention that I myself may sometimes read books by Ash'aris. I don't want to be hypocritical, I think a person can learn from Ash'aris in other areas which are not aqeedah. so I do criticize Ash'ari aqeedah but I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't learn from Ash'aris at all.

 

[Garaad Awal]

sh fawzan is a hanbali. the hanbali madhab was against asharis.

Hanbali is a school of Fiqh not an Aqeedah. Most of the followers of the Hanbali Fiqh school are Athari in Aqeedah just like most Hanafis are Maturidi in Aqeedah. Malikis & Shafi’i followers are mostly Ash’ari

 

[Midas]

This is such a funny debate . The idea that you could sideline imam nawai the greatest shafi scholar in the last several years is ridculous. Almost every single important scholar of the last thousand years was an ashari/maturidi. This was the offfical aqdeeh of every major sunni empire . The idea that some salafi who follow a small neohanbali strain are more correct and have a better understanding of fiqh/aqeedah and the salaf than 95% of scholars of the past is something only an insane person could believe.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Almost every single important scholar of the last thousand years was an ashari/maturidi.

There's that number a thousand again. this is the second time in this thread I point this out. the ash'aris have a pattern of mentioning a thousand instead of 1,400. the atharis have a pattern of talking about the salaf.

just this whole business of using "1,000" makes me think the Ash'aris themselves know they aren't following the salaf.

About a thousand years ago there was Ibn Arabi al-Maliki whose tafsir I greatly respect. But from what I've read he was an Ash'ari. And Nawawi obviously is extremely important in the Shafi'i madhhab. I'm not saying ppl shouldn't learn his fiqh. But in aqeedah- should we follow the salaf or follow figures like Nawawi and Ibn Arabi al-Maliki? It would be crazy to give more weight to later scholars than to the salaf al salih. The correct way is Quran and Sunnah upon understanding of salaf, not Quran and Sunnah upon understanding of a thousand years ago.

 

[Midas]

There's that number a thousand again. this is the second time in this thread I point this out. the ash'aris have a pattern of mentioning a thousand instead of 1,400. the atharis have a pattern of talking about the salaf.

just this whole business of using "1,000" makes me think the Ash'aris themselves know they aren't following the salaf.

About a thousand years ago there was Ibn Arabi al-Maliki whose tafsir I greatly respect. But from what I've read he was an Ash'ari. And Nawawi obviously is extremely important in the Shafi'i madhhab. I'm not saying ppl shouldn't learn his fiqh. But in aqeedah- should we follow the salaf or follow figures like Nawawi and Ibn Arabi al-Maliki? It would be crazy to give more weight to later scholars than to the salaf al salih. The correct way is Quran and Sunnah upon understanding of salaf, not Quran and Sunnah upon understanding of a thousand years ago.

The idea that modern people will somehow understand the salaf better than the last thousand years of islamic scholars is ridculous. This is why I can take people who say they follow the salaf seriously. The implication is that all of the scholars of the past didn't follow the salaf.

 

[reer]

@Omar del Sur it seems like youa re not an arabic speaker. anyway mohame dbin shams ul deen gives off taqiyaa vibes on his takfeer. he doesnt say asharis are muslims or kuffar. and in a different video says nawawi was ashari.

 

[Omar del Sur]

@Omar del Sur it seems like youa re not an arabic speaker. anyway mohame dbin shams ul deen gives off taqiyaa vibes on his takfeer. he doesnt say asharis are muslims or kuffar. and in a different video says nawawi was ashari.

I'm an Arabic learner and I can somewhat read it but not speak it.

I don't care about Muhammad Shams Uldin criticizing Nawawi. A Salafi is overly close with the Saudi gov- an army emerges to attack him over it. Muhammad Shams Uldin emerges and a campaign is brought out against him because he isn't subservient to Saudi. The campaign against him has to do with him being independent and not being a stooge of Saudi. A lot of the slander campaign against him is because of that. It is a psyop of the "Madkhali" group.

 

[World]

There's that number a thousand again. this is the second time in this thread I point this out. the ash'aris have a pattern of mentioning a thousand instead of 1,400. the atharis have a pattern of talking about the salaf.

just this whole business of using "1,000" makes me think the Ash'aris themselves know they aren't following the salaf.

About a thousand years ago there was Ibn Arabi al-Maliki whose tafsir I greatly respect. But from what I've read he was an Ash'ari. And Nawawi obviously is extremely important in the Shafi'i madhhab. I'm not saying ppl shouldn't learn his fiqh. But in aqeedah- should we follow the salaf or follow figures like Nawawi and Ibn Arabi al-Maliki? It would be crazy to give more weight to later scholars than to the salaf al salih. The correct way is Quran and Sunnah upon understanding of salaf, not Quran and Sunnah upon understanding of a thousand years ago.

Both the Ashari and Athari aqeedah is from the Salaf, however the Salafi aqeedah is from Ibn Taymiyyah and completely distinct. This is what Imam Nawawi said regarding the hadith of descent:

“This ĥadīth [of Nuzūl] is of the ĥadīths mentioning attributes. There are two famous ways of the scholars regarding them, that have been explained previously in the chapter on belief.

Their brief description is that one is the approach of most of the Salaf, and some Kalām scholars, which is to believe it is true in a sense that befits Allāh, and that it's apparent, usual meaning for us, is not meant, and one does not speak about its meaning, accompanied with the belief that Allāh is clear of having attributes of created things, and of translocation, movements, and all descriptions that are for created things.

The other approach is that of most Kalām scholars, and groups among the Salaf, and they are narrated here from Mālik and Awzāýī, is to interpret these according to what befits the context. Accordingly, they interpreted this ĥadīth in two ways. One of them: Is that of Mālik ibn Anas and others, which is to say that it means: His Mercy, command, and angels descend, as it is said, ‘the Sultān did so and so’, when it was actually his subjects that did it by his command. The other: Is that it is metaphorical, and its meaning is, ‘accepting those who call by answering them and [showing them] benevolence.’”

And this is what Imam Nawawi said regarding the hadith of the slave girl:
“This hadith is from the narrations of the attributes of Allah, and there are two madhdhabs regarding this, and I have mentioned them both in the chapter of Iman. The first is to believe in it without delving into its meaning, while believing that Allah has no similitude to Him at all, and negating for him the attributes of created beings. And the second school is that it is interpreted in a manner that befits Him.”

 

[Omar del Sur]

Both the Ashari and Athari aqeedah is from the Salaf, however the Salafi aqeedah is from Ibn Taymiyyah and completely distinct.

I can't respond to all the misinformation such as this. I posted what Al-Muzanī, student of Imam Shafi'i said. from this point, I can't be bothered to keep responding to misinformation.

Athari aqeedah is from the salaf. Ashari is not and came later. This is why Ash'aris keep saying "1,000" rather than "1,400". Their aqeedah isn't from the salaf.

Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah of course is Athari. I don't claim he was perfect or infallible or anything like that but I don't think it's true that he invented some new aqeedah.