“We sent them with clear proofs and the Zabur. And we revealed to you the message that you may make clear to mankind what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.” (Qur’an 16:44)
﷽
This section will be on engaging the Pseudo-Islamic.
In particular this section of the blog will have all articles related to two Pseudo-Islamic movements.
The first being the Hafs Qur’an Only Religion.
THE HAFS QUR’AN ONLY RELIGION
It is important to understand that we believe that the adherents of the Hafs Qur’an only movement are a distinct religion in much as we respect the way the Baha’i movement is a distinct religion from Islam.
Insh’Allah this section will deal with common arguments among the federation of sects that are known collectively as the ‘Qur’anist’.
This section will be refuting their many bold assertions; as well as showing why this particular attempt to re-interpret Islam and make it altogether different religion is deeply flawed.
Now why are they called the Hafs Qur’an only view? These people will either out of ignorance about the transmission and textual history of the Qur’an refer to their platform as ‘Qur’an Only’ or Quraniyoon. However, the Hafs Qur’an did not fall out of the sky. Thus, is important for them to reflect on why so much foundational trust is put into the men that transmittedthe Hafs Qur’an to the exclusion of all other transmissions of the Qur’an.
At the core of this religion of theirs is a massive epistemological problem.
In regard to approving comments from followers of the Hafs Qur’an Only Religion we have taken seriously the verse of the Qur’an: “And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.” (Qur’an 5:2)
Thus, they would do well to read the article listed below: Is the Qur’an a detailed explanation of all things? to understand the policy on this website that keeps them as well as us from sinning and keeps them consistent with in their worldview. Insh’Allah.
THE QADIANI MOVEMENT Also known as AHMADIYYA MOVEMENT is a divided movement, split into two competing jama’at or congregations. That is the LAHORI whom we refer to as The Ahmadiyya A and the QADIANI whom we refer to as the Ahmadiyya B.
As the Qadiani or Ahmadiyyah B believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a Prophet after The Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw), they have been marked as being outside the millat of Islam. Likewise, they (the Ahmadiyyah B) or Qadiani have made anyone outside of their jama’at to be kafirs. Though, their is some tongue in cheek wordplay see their website. Source: (https://www.alislam.org/articles/are-non-ahmadis-muslim-or-non-muslim-ahmadiyya-muslim-perspective/)
To the dismay of the Muslim Ummah, The Qadiani have a Khalifa, named MIrza Masroor Ahmed, he lives in Tilford, United Kingdom, where he pays taxes to the United Kingdom. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali were not known to have paid taxes to a Non Muslim government.
For future reference all articles addressed to either of the above movements will be found under: AHL AL-QIBLA / AHL AL-KHILAF under: Engaging with the Pseudo-Islamic:
Refutation that oral traditions came 300 years after the Prophet.
Even though they used to say that the hadith -oral traditions came some 300 years after the Blessed Messenger (saw). Praise be to Allah the more educated among them have backed away from that claim. However, this article is here because many in that movement may be unaware.
See Harold Motzki (a Non-Muslim orientalist and academic) who made short work of that Quranist claim
Does the Qur’an itself tell us to reject all hadith?
This article is a nail in the coffin for the entire movement. Some from their movement have commented but ended up leaving in frustration. It looks at their arguments and misquotations of the Qur’an. Also given in this article is an irrefutable example of Allah confirming a hadith to the Blessed Messenger [saw].
Did the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) write the Qur’an?
Our colleague had written a refutation like this many years ago on the ‘Qur’an only‘ web site known as http://www.ourbeacon.com/ or it used to be known as ‘GalaxyDastak‘. Dr. Shabbir Ahmed founder of the forum had me banned. This was also the last our colleague heard from their former teacher Hamza AbdulMalik. Hamza AbdulMalik used to be the director of IPCI international until he dropped off the radar and re-emerged as a Quranist.
Well, our colleague may have been removed from the forum but here is the refutation of their arguments for all to see here:
A pre-eminent argument used by ‘Quranist’ ripped to shreds By Dr. Jeffery Lang.
The most oft-quoted verse used by Quranist is analyzed and ripped apart by a Muslim convert, academic, and professor of math, Dr. Jeffery Lang.
This is a centerpiece argument used by Edip Yuksel, Sam Gerrans, “Joseph Islam”, Rashad Khilafa, Shabir Ahmed and the lot of them. The reason why this argument is especially devastating coming from someone like Dr. Jeffry Lang is that Dr. Lang is critical of the hadith corpus as we have it today.
The following is a look how Quranist have both misunderstood the word hikma as a reference to the Qur’an and how they do not understand that it is something that Allah gives his messengers to deal with situations and context not immediately addressed by the revelations they were given.
Hating a hadith just for the sake of hating a hadith.
This article a hypothetical question is posed. What if a particular ahad hadith turned out to be correct? Especially one that is of a scientific nature? What would the Quranist do in such a scenario?
Salaat in the Qur’an is not ritual prayer? Examining the claim of some Quranist.
This article looks at one Quranist claim that salat is not ritual prayer. This is what happens when you abandon the understanding of the Blessed Messenger and follow the ‘every man for himself’ approach of the Quranist.
Ha-Mim By the Book that makes things clear,-We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic, that you may be able to understand and learn wisdom. And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high in dignity, full of wisdom. Shall We then take away the Message from you and repel (you), for that you are a people transgressing beyond bounds? (Qur’an 43:15)
“Nay! it is a Glorious Qur’an, In a guarded tablet” (Qur’an 85:21-22)
﷽
This is an entry that discusses the problematic theological position held by those who call themselves ‘Salafi’ or ‘Athari. That is the belief that the Qur’an is the eternal uncreated word of Allah.
Now this is a belief of those who ascribe to Ahl Sunnah in general. However, there is an aberrant and bizarre perspective held by those who call themselves as ‘Salafi’ or ‘Athari’.
That is what this article will focus on.
I want to say from the outset that the Ibadi school does not make takfir of any Muslim who believes the Qur’an is created. This issue was not addressed by the Blessed Prophet (saw) nor by his companions. Takfir of other Muslims is not something that our school is known for.
This is a matter of dispute between the scholars. Each side will bring thier proofs and justifications for the position that they hold.
It is truly unfortunate that some of the Muslim intelligentsia and academics would feel so threatened by any discussion on this subject that it would incur a death penalty.
For example in one of the great works that are praised by the Sufi Muslims, Qadi Iyad we find
He said about someone who said that the Qur’an is created, “He is an unbeliever, so kill him.” He said in the version of Ibn Nafi’, “He should be flogged and painfully beaten and imprisoned until he repents.” In the version of Bishr ibn Bakr at-Tinnisi we find, “He is killed and his repentance is not accepted.”
Source: (Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, Muhammed Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], p. 419)
In fact, Muhammed ibn Isma’il Al-Bukhari (of Sahih Bukhari oral collection fame) was persecuted by a group of those from the Hanbali school of jurisprudence for a remark he made.
“Al-Dhuhli was fierce (shadîd) in his adhesion to the Sunna. He confronted Muhammed ibn Isma‘il [al-Bukhari] because the latter had alluded, in his Khalq Af‘al al-‘Ibad, to the fact that the reader’s utterance of the Qur’an was created. Bukhari made it understood without explicitly saying it, but he certainly made it clear. On the other hand, Ahmad ibn Hanbal flatly refused to explore the question, as well as Abu Zur‘a and al-Dhuhli, or indulge in the terminology of dialectic theologians (al-mutakallimûn), and they did well – may Allah reward them excellently. Ibn Isma‘il had to travel from Naysabur undercover, and he was pained by what Muhammed ibn Yahya [al-Dhuhli] had done to him.”
Source: (Al-Dhahabi, Siyar (10:207)
Also:
Al-Hakim [narrated with his chains]: Muhammed ibn Yahya [al-Dhuhli] said: “This Bukhari has openly subscribed to the doctrine of ‘pronunciationists’ (al-lafziyya), and for me those are worse than the Jahmiyya.” . . . Ahmad ibn Salama visited Bukhari and told him: “O Abu ‘Abd Allah, this is a respected man [i.e. al-Dhuhli] in Khurasan, especially in this town [Naysabur], and he has thundered with this speech until none of us can say anything to him about it, so what do you think we should do?” Bukhari grasped his beard then he said: (I confide my cause unto Allah. Lo! Allah is Seer of His slaves.) (40:44) He continued: “O Allah! You know that I did not want for one moment to settle in Naysabur out of arrogance, nor in quest of leadership, but only because my soul would not let me return to my own country [Bukhara] because of my opponents; and now this man intends harm for me out of jealousy, only because of what Allah gave me and for no other reason.” Then he said to me: “O Ahmad, tomorrow I shall leave and you will be rid of his talk which I caused.” . . . Muhammed ibn Ya‘qub the hadith master said: “When al-Bukhari settled in Naysabur Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj took to visiting him frequently. When the affair of the pronunciation of Qur’an took place between al-Bukhari and [al-Dhuhli] and the latter roused people against him and forbade them to visit him, most people stopped visiting him, but not Muslim. Then al-Dhuhli said: ‘Anyone that subscribes to the pronunciation [being created], it is not permitted for them to attend our gathering.’ Whereupon Muslim placed a cloak on top of his turban, stood up in front of everyone, and sent back to al-Dhuhli what he had written from him carried by a camel-driver, for Muslim openly subscribed to the pronunciation and made no attempt to conceal it.” . . . Ahmad ibn Mansur al-Shirazi also narrated it from Muhammed ibn Ya‘qub, adding: “And Ahmad ibn Salama stood up and followed him.” (See Al-Dhahabi, Siyar (10:314-315). Cf. Bayhaqi’s al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat (al-Hashidi ed. 2:20-21 #591).
As Hamza Yusuf correctly remarked. if you follow this line of reasoning you eventually end up with
@ 1:32 Listen carefully people. Shaykh Hamza Yusus if a public orator and a supremely articulate man. Listen very carefully to the doctrine you are being asked to subscribe to.
@ 3:00 “It definitely doesn’t mean though the mushaf you have in your house. Because that would then…I mean some of the Christians argue that well the Qur’an is imbibliation. Like we believe in incarnation of the logos the Muslims believe in imbibliation of the logos. That God became book and so we don’t we don’t see that as valid. That view of it so.” -Hamza Yusuf.
Salafi Da’wah hooks you with the transcendence of Allah (swt). Most people who are introduced to Islam through the street preachers who hold Salafi doctrine are intrigued by concepts such as: Allah being one. What seems to look like a simplistic creed. That Allah has no parents or no children or no partners. Allah is neither black nor white. Allah is not male or female.
However, once you have taken your Shahadah or delcaration of faith how much longer until you are taught ‘Kitab Al Tawhid’ and here come the bizarre concepts. Allah has two right hands, and one of those right hands is a left hand, Allah occupies space, has a shin, a foot, chuckles at people’s despair, comes down the third part of the night, appears to the disbelievers in forms and shapes that they knew and then appears to the disbelievers in forms and shapes they do not know.
SaidNO ONE EVER!
Yasir Qadhi, Salafis and Atheist.
Unfortunately Yasir Qadhi has come under fire from people who seemingly do not understand what he has been saying as of late.
Atheist and Agnostics have a different epistemology and world view when evaluating history then do believers. This also should not come as a shock or a surprise to anyone.
Agnostic/Skeptic: “We have not found any evidence of X.”
Believer: “They have yetto find any evidence of X.” The believer takes note that the Agnostic/Skeptic did not claim “We will neverfind.”
However, in one of his books he has given a very powerful argument to the atheist and agnostics to dismantle Salafi theology.
In reality I should not fault Yasir Qadhi for this as if it was some novel idea that he came up with. Rather, he is parroting the learned polemic that he would have picked up from his teachers.
Yasir Qadhi says:
“These Attributes are understood literally (in the case of the Attributes of kalam, that Allah, Speaks, whenever He wishes, with a sound, in different languages, and this Speech is composed of words and letters and is not created), but the actuality and ‘how-ness’ of these Attributes are not delved into, and any negative similarity be-tween these Attributes and the attributes of the creation are negated (in the case of this Attribute, that the speech of the creation is created, but the Speech of Allah is not.) Understanding these Attributes ‘literally’ does not mean understanding them in the manner that they are found in the creation, or comparing them with the attributes of the creation; rather, it means affirming the linguistic meaning of that Attribute in a manner that befits the Creator, and will never completely be understood by mankind.”
Source: (An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 52)
We are told that the ‘how-ness‘ is not delved into and yet this whole paragraph does exactly that! When you negate comparison you are comparing and contrasting ‘how‘ something is unlike something else.
When speaking of prophet Ibrahim (a.s) and the story of the idols Shaykh Yasir Qadhi says:
“In these verses, Ibrahim showed his people that their idols were not worthy of worship, primarily because they could not speak. After they themselves acknowledged this, Ibrahim rebuked them, and asked them, “Have you no sense?!” meaning, “How can an object that cannot even speak be worthy of worship?” Notice that Ibrahim was referring to a speech that could be heard, for Ibrahim’s people did not answer Ibrahim with the belief of the Ash’arees, “Our god speaks, but a speech that is not heard-an internal speech of the mind!” for they understood what Ibrahim meant!! This is why they turned to themselves, and realized the foolishness of their actions, and could only reply with the feeble response that everyone knew that their idols could not speak!”
Source: (An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 46)
Yasir Qadhi thinks that he has the goods on the Ash’ari Sunnis latter making a quote that in effect turns the Ash’ari Sunnis into idol worshipers.
Yet, look at the quotation above where he says:
“‘literally’ does not mean understanding them in the manner that they are found in the creation.”
Rather than help Islam, Yasir Qadhi and his Salafist-Athari creed and those who think like him have handed over to skeptics of their position a devastating argument.
So like Ibrahim (as) demands above the atheist has the right to demand from him speech from his Creator.
They have the right to demand “a speech that could be heard”
A typical discussion between an Atheist-Agnostic/Skeptic and one who follows Salafist theology could go something like this:
Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic: “Does your god, Allah speak? Let’s hear it then!”
Salafi: “Of course and here is the proof!” (pulls out Qur’an).
Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic: “Ibrahim didn’t ask the idols for a book; he asked if they can speak!”
Salafi:
Yet Yasir Qadhi is not done with the Ash’ari.
Yasir Qadhi thinks he has the goods on the Ash’ari when he says,
“1) If the kalam of Allah is without sound, then what did Musa hear when Allah spoke to Him? If they respond that Allah created a sound, and caused Musa to hear that created sound, then this means that this created object stated, “O Musa, verily, I am your Lord…Verily, I am Allah, there is no God save Me, so worship Me… [ Qur’an 20:12-14]
Therefore, if they state this, it implies that this created object claimed to be Allah, and asked Musa to worship it! However, if they stated that it was the actual kalam of Allah, then it must be asked, “How then did Musa hear it if you claim that Allah’s kalam is without sound? ” The scholars of the Ash’arees have not been able to provide a satisfactory response for this.”
Source: (An introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an pg 44)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
So Yasir Qadhi thinks that it was the object cried out ‘I am Allah, there is no God save Me, so worship Me’. Yet, obviously, we know that Moses (as) did not perform any act of worship towards the direction of the voice. Or at least no act of worship is recorded.
Yasir Qadhi and those who agree with his position have to wonder the following:
What did Rasul Allah (saw) think when Angel Gabriel (as) said. ” Indeed this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so worship Me.” (Qur’an 21:92)
Did the Blessed Messenger (saw) fall down and worship Gabriel? Obviously not!
Gabriel(as) was used as a medium in the same way the burning bush was.
As regards if Musa (as) heard audible sounds from the burning bush you ask yourself, did the companions hear audible sounds as the Qur’an was being revealed to the Blessed Messenger (saw)?
“And [We sent] messengers about whom We have related [their stories] to you before and messengers about whom We have not related to you. And Allah spoke to Moses with [direct] speech.” (Qur’an 4:164)
“When he saw a fire and said to his family, “Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire; perhaps I can bring you a torch or find at the fire some guidance.” And when he came to it, he was called, “O Moses, Indeed, I am your Lord, so remove your sandals. Indeed, you are in the sacred valley of Tuwa. And I have chosen you, so listen to what is revealed [to you] Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance.” (Quran 20:10-14)
“And when Moses had completed the term and was traveling with his family, he perceived from the direction of the mount a fire. He said to his family, “Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire. Perhaps I will bring you from there [some] information or burning wood from the fire that you may warm yourselves.” But when he came to it, he was called from the right side of the valley in a blessed spot – from the tree, “O Moses, indeed I am Allah, Lord of the worlds.” (Qur’an 28:29-30)
“Has there reached you the story of Moses? When his Lord called to him in the sacred valley of Tuwa” (Qur’an 79:15-16)
Likewise, since the Qur’an acts as a guardian of the previous scriptures let us see what is claimed to be the Torah has to say as well.
“There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight–why the bush does not burn up.”When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.””Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” (Exodus 3:2-5)
Allah (swt) created a sound and caused Moses (as) to hear that created sound. In fact, if you go on further the whole context shows how Allah (swt) is the creator of perception. Moses (as) was made to perceive a burning fire, it did not indicate if anyone saw it or not. He (as) was made to perceive his hand becoming white. He (as) was made to perceive a voice from a tree. He (as) was made to perceive his staff move like a snake.
“And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.” (Qur’an 42:51)
Unless our respected Yasir Qadhi wants to say that the Qur’an contains a flat contradiction he will need to understand ‘Allah spoke to Moses with direct speech‘ in light of the above verses.
Coming back to Ibrahim:
First of all notice that there are different approaches that the Prophets of Allah take when dealing with different groups.
“Say: “Do you see what it is you invoke besides Allah? Show me what it is they have created on earth, or have they a share in the heavens bring me a book (bikitabin) before this, or any remnant (atharatin) of knowledge (you may have), if you are telling the truth!” (Qur’an 46:4)
Why do people worship at all?
What is the motivation for worship?
A) Either derive from benefit. These deities bring fortune, or blessings.
B) Either to avoid some harm. These deities will bring misfotune, or wrath.
Now comes the question: What is the authority for this worship!
Notice that in the Qur’an 46:4 The Blessed Prophet (saw) is asking if these people have some authority for doing what they do. Do they have a revelation or an athar (report, hadith from a previous athority).
Ibrahim (as) and his approach is very logical and methodical.
There is no prophet or oracle from these people he needs to consult or contend with.
There is no claim of sacred revelation that he needs to consult or contend with.
It is obvious that Ibrahim (as) is trying to trigger these people. He is getting them to reflect on the basis for dong what they do.
They said, “Have you done this to our gods, O Ibrahim?” He said, “Rather, this – the largest of them – did it, so ask them, if they should speak.” (Qur’an 21:62-63)
“Ibrahim asked, “Can they hear you when you call upon them? Or can they benefit or harm you?” (Qur’an 26:72-73)
There is nothing in these text that even remotely suggest that it is the personal belief of Ibrahim (as) that in order for Allah to exist and be real, then He must communicate via audible sounds that can be perceived by the ear.
It would be great if we had the response of these idol worshippers.
Wait..we do!
In reply to Qur’an 26:72-73 we have:
“They replied, “No! But we found our forefathers doing the same.” Ibrahim responded, “Have you considered what you have been worshipping, you and your ancestors?” (Qur’an 26:74-76)
Now we get to the justification. They are simply following what the people who came before them did. At least here they are forthcoming.
In reply to (Qur’an 26:72-73) we have:
“So they came back to their senses, saying, “You yourselves are truly the wrongdoers. Then they regressed to their mind -set. “You already know that they cannot speak.” He said “Do you then worship besides Allah, what can neither benefit nor harm you? (Qur’an 21:64-66)
What can neither benefit nor harm you. This is proven by the previous episode of the idols being smashed to pieces. If they cannot benefit or protect themselves then what guarantee do you have that they can benefit or protect you.
People should really think carefully before they set up a whole generation of young people to be demolished in an age of Atheist, Agnostics and Skeptics.
“Behold, you received it on your tongues, and said out of your mouths things of which you had no knowledge; and you thought it to be a light matter, while it was most serious in the sight of Allah.” (Qur’an 24:15)
For those interested the book: “An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an” by Yasir Qadhi is still the best book in the English language on the topic. Nothing else comes close.
“And each one hath a goal toward which he turns; so contend with one another in good works. Wheresoever you may be, Allah will bring you all together. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.” (Qur’an 2:148)
“Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which you used to differ.” (Qur’an 22:69)
“So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?” –(Qur’an 10:32).
﷽
Insh’Allah the following section in the future will be found under the section above: Ahl Al-Qibla/Ahl Al-Khilaf.
Those of you who are used to seeing these people all over the internet and present on every social media platform available may come to the conclusion that their dawah is dominant. However, those of you who have access to the Arabic language, speak, read and write it will see that in the Arabic sphere these people (Wahhabis and Madkhalis) get absolutely pummelled by the Ibadi school. You will almost pity them (Wahhabis & Madkhalis). Though one should pity them and pray for their deliverance from the corruption and misguidance that they are upon.
The success of those who call themselves Salafi, Athari or those upon the Salafi Manhaj lies primarily in their ability into duping the masses to think that what they are upon is the view of the first three generation of Muslims.
They also feign the idea of taking the text by what they claim is the apparent meaning of a particular text. In fact, they apply ta’wil (interpretation) as do their opponents. Their opponents among Sunni Muslims (The Ash’ari & Maturidi) make the colossal mistake by granting a ‘default meaning’ to said words. Then turn around and say that they apply taʾwīl (interpretation). Where as we say that if a word has a range of meanings and the context determines the meaning, then it becomes dishonest to claim the word can only have one possible meaning. The context based upon use of the Arabic language itself, and the culture that the revelation was revealed in.
Understand that not everyone who goes by the title of Salafi, Athari is adversarial or antagonistic to the Ibadi school. Many of them we can cooperate with on many issues of concern to our communities and respective countries that we live in. Cooperation is always a good thing for the Muslim Ummah.
The inconsistency and flawed theology can readily be seen by the inconsistency that it deploys. Examples abound but the following should suffice:
Demanding a default location for Allah (swt). Where neither the Qur’an or Sunnah give a ‘default’ location for Allah (swt). The Qur’an and Sunnah ascribe to Allah (swt) many locations.
Using kalaam to speculate that Allah (swt) has two real eyes when we have no firm text on the matter.
The inconsistency in denying a gender for Allah (swt) when the apparent text clearly states: “There is nothing like Him, for He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11) They say the language determines the characteristic without realizing that Allah (swt) is the one that chose the rules for the language to begin with.
Their bidʿah disclaimer when referencing what they claim are attributes of Allah (swt) with their bid’ah disclaimer “in a way that befits his majesty” as if there would be anything un-majestic about Allah (swt) having this or that to begin with!
The inconsistency in telling the people to believe in the attributes of Allah (swt) without asking ‘how’ and then the same people saying that the attributes of Allah (swt), are neither identical to the essence of Allah and yet not other than Allah! A deep dive into kalaam to speculate about the Creator what they have no evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah.
The inconsistency in affirming Allah as the All-Hearing(Qur’an 42:11) without having to have ears; while simultaneously demanding that if Allah exist it must be in a place.
Allah (swt) himself gave mankind the faculty of reasoning and the ability to understand majaaz (metaphor) when He (swt) says:
so I become his sense of hearing with which he hears, and his sense of sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he grips, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection (Refuge), I will protect him; (i.e. give him My Refuge) and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him.”
But these body worshippers would have us to believe that the text is taken by the apparent and Allah (swt) does in some way becomes our hearing, our sight, our hand and our leg!
We have exposed the corruption in their misguided mis-understanding of the primary and secondary sources here:
Since they call us Ibadi as “Khawarij” let us see what Ibn Taymiyya has to say about the so called “Khawarij”.
“No one among the people who follow their desire, the more truthful and more just than the Khawarij. They do not intend to invent lies, indeed they are very famous for truthfulness to the extent that it has been said that the traditions narrated by them are the most authentic of all.”
Source: (Ibn Taymiyya Minhaj Al Sunnah Vol 3. p 3. Dr. Al-Sib’i Al-Sunna Wal Makanatuha Fii Al-Tashrii Al-Islami p. 99-101)
“No one of them has ever been known for lying.” Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Al Tafsiru Al Kabir Vol. 1, p. 124)
“Their religion is more correct because they do not say lies.” Source: (Ibn Taymiyya Mukhtasar Minhaji Al-Sunna Vol.2, p. 197)
“The Khawarij never says lies, indeed they are more truthful braver and more promise-keeping then the (Shi’ia)” Source: (Ibid Vol. 1 p. 393)
“The Khawarij are truthful, so their accounts are among the most correct ones.” Source: (Ibn Taymiyyah Al Furqan p. 227)
“And what indicates that the Companions did not consider the Khawarij to be disbelievers is that they used to pray behind them. Abdullah ibn Umar -RA- and others[companions] used to pray behind Najda al-Haruri. They also used to engage in debates with them, as the Muslim would debate with a Muslim, as Abdullah ibn Abbas debated with Najda al-Haruri when he was sent to him to ask about certain issues, and his hadith is in Al-Bukhari. Likewise, Nafi’ ibn Al-Azraq debated on famous issues. Nafi’ used to debate on matters in the Quran, as any two Muslims would debate among themselves”
Source: (The Path of the Prophetic Sunnah-In Refutation of the Shiite Qadariyyah Doctrine By Ibn Taymiyya Abu Al Abbas Taqi al Din Ahmad ibn Abd al-Halim.-Edited by Dr. Muhammed Rashad Salim Volume 5)
This entry will be split into three sections:
Section one: This will be aimed at refuting the lies, deception and outright propaganda that they aim at Ahl al-Haqq wal-l istiqama (The Ibadi school).
Section two: This will be the Ibadi school exposing the bizarre beliefs and strange views of those who call themselves: Salafi, Athari, the body worshippers etc..
Section three: Those who may loosely identify as Salafi, Athari etc that have had and do have cordial relations with our school. Because they simply see us as Muslims. Muslims perhaps they disagree with but Muslims none the less. Articles in relation to them will be posted under section three.
SECTION ONE: REFUTING THE LIES, DECEPTION AND OUTRIGHT PROPAGANDA THAT IS AIMED AT AHL AL-HAQQ WAL-ISTIQAMA (THE IBADI SCHOOL)
A REPLY TO THE CLAIMS OF THE SALAFI: MUHAMMED BIN SHAMS AL-DIN
SALAFI-SAUDI SHAYKH DR. SAAD AL-HUMID PROFESSOR OF HADITH SCIENCES IN MEDINA FLEES FROM DEBATE WITH SHAYKH SAEED AL QANOUBI: IBADI HADITH MASTER, ON THE CREATION OF THE QUR’AN
MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IBADIS AND SALAFIS/ATHAIRS: IBADIS BELIEVE WE HAVE THE ENTIRE QUR’AN. SALAFIS/ATHARIS BELIEVE WE ONLY HAVE THE QUR’AN ALLAH INTENDED FOR US TO HAVE.
THE CLAIM THAT THE IBADIS CURSE AND REVILE THE COMPANIONS.THIS FALSE ALLEGATION IS TURNED ON IT’S HEAD! THE WAHHABI/MADHKALI/SALAFIYYA RELY UPON THOSE WHO SAY VILE THINGS ABOUT ALI
HADITHS THE SALAFIYYA AND AHL SUNNAH IN GENERAL RELY UPON TO CALL HUGE SWATHES OF THE PROPHET’S COMPANIONS DOGS OF HELLFIRE! (THE IBADIS RIP APART THESE CHAINS)
SECTION THREE: THOSE WHO MAY LOOSELY IDENTIFY AS SALAFI, ATHARI ETC THAT HAVE HAD AND DO HAVE CORDIAL RELATIONS WITH OUR SCHOOL. ARTICLES IN RELATION TO THEM WILL BE POSTED UNDER HERE.
MY EXPERIENCE WITH SALAFIS AND SUFIS (NOT ALWAYS CHALK AND CHEESE)
“This is the book of Shayk of Hanabila of his time, Al-Qadi Abi Ya’la, who was very opposed to Jahmiyya and Ashar’i. This book is intended as a rebuttal of the wrong interpretation and distorings about the names and attributes of Allah. However, the author has several weak or invented hadith, making it a controversial book from the people of knowledge.”
“But, Alhamdulillah we present this heritage of one of the Imams of the Salaf in a checked version, authenticated, and annotated. This allows the reader to distinguish the authenticate & the weak in the hadiths cited. And also to have the authentic position (words of imams of the Sunnah in support) on the weak chapters contained in this book.”
This narration attempts to answer the following question:
“Where is Allah is before creating sky and earth? It is answered by stating that He (Allah Most High) was riding on a whale that was made out of light... and the hadith continues and he says about it: “Even this is a strange hadith it finds support with other hadith!”
Christians must feel some form of poetic justice or vindication. All those years where Shaykh Ahmed Deedat was turned loose upon Christendom and jeering at anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible and now the chickens have come home to roost.
May Allah (swt) forgive us. May Allah (swt) guide us.
“The servants of the RaHmān (the All-Merciful, Allah) are those who walk on the earth humbly, and when the ignorant people speak to them, they reply peacefully.” (Qur’an 25:63)
﷽
So it was just after Farj on Jumaa morning here in Singapore when I checked my WhatsApp and there from that gentle and noble soul, brother Nazzam were the latest links of interest. Bless him! I would get updates from time to time on articles, blog posts and vlogs and debates that have taken place. So this particular morning was a debate between two people I had not really known before.
So I head over to twitter and what do I see, already that one side has censored comments. So, I go and click on the link to the debate posted on YouTube. The comment section was clearly pro Dr. Khalil. I saw many people in vigorous exchanges with followers of the Athari creed; and they were getting pressed. I then recalled that the first time I heard of this Jake guy. I believe he was introduced by Mufti Abu Layth (Naheim Ajmal) in one of his episodes. I believe it was pointed out that he used arguments he pinched from Professor Emad Hamdeh’s against the Quraniyoon, to use as reasons why (he), Jake, was no longer intrigued with that movement. From there on this Jake threw in his lot with the Athari/Salafist crowd. In this day and age if you want to gain followers and notoriety quickly through social media that is the most strategic decision one could make.
Not knowing of Dr. Khalil Andani, however, was clearly a loss for me. It is clear to me that Professor Andani is quite formidable. There is no doubt in mind that anyone who ever had the blessing of attending his class got their hard-earned money’s worth. Beyond that, they learned at the hands of an adept.
As for those people who are sitting comfortably in their homes drinking high grade coffee shrugging their shoulders and saying ‘who cares’ about such a debate. Welcome to the world of privilege and security! Professor Andani is doing you and everyone else a huge service! He is debating a person who is representative of a certain strain of thought that on the regular participates in the anathematization of other Muslims.
It is no stretch of the imagination to say that by putting a dent in such creedal positions he could be saving lives! Imagine an impressionable young Muslim who believes that Professor Andani and all like him hold such abhorrent aberrant and dangerous views that they must be dealt with. Imagine a gathering of high profile Muslim philosophers conducting a symposium, Professor Andani is in attendance, suddenly an attacker unleashes a few rounds killing many people in the process.
Imagine that same impressionable young Muslim saw the disasters performance on behalf of Jake, and although he may not be inclined to agree with everything Professor Andani says, he witnessed enough to make him question the absolute certainty that he once placed in the Athari creedal position. Instead of wanting to pop off a few rounds into a crowd of people who have been anathematized; this youth leaves Salafism altogether, or he becomes convinced of his own position, while holding space for other views.
I will be fair to say that Al Qaeda, Al Nusrat, ISIS and others do not necessary represent Salafism per say. However, it is not even a point of debate to say that Al Qaeda, Al Nusrat, ISIS have more in common with Salafi/Athari thought than they do Ashari/Maturidi/Mutazali theological positions.
Make no mistake about it, this debate is a watershed moment. The Athari creed has never been laid bare, deconstructed and destroyed in such a public formatted debate as it was in this debate.
Jake went in so cocksure of himself thinking Dr. Andani would be easy prey.
It was like watching a Discovery Channel documentary where you see the Mongoose carefree through the forest, and you spot a cobra skulking and slithering its way through the foliage, poised to strike. Yet, this Mongoose will be no prey! On the contrary, once the Mongoose caught on to the scent, and pressed the attack, the poor cobra takes such a thrashing that you almost feel sorry for the elapid.
Let us look at the opening statements of each of the debaters. The big surprise for me not really knowing anything about these two debaters is who actually used more naql or text? My presumption would be that Professor Andani would come in using more philosophy, and logic and less textual proofs. My presumption is that the Athari would come to a debate loaded with textual proofs and evidence.
This was simply a no contest!
Professor Andani used 7 positive arguments from the Qur’an. Jake used 4. Andani gave us some commentary on how these text support his position. Jake simply quoted them without explaining how they support the Athari school. Jake used two other text from the Qur’an from Khusraw and Al Tusi in a polemical fashion against Andani. When it came to the Sunnah or ahadith, Professor Andani gave 5 a hadith. Firstly to show us that the guardians of proper understanding of the primary and secondary sources come from the Ahl Bayt. Secondly he gave two ahadith for his argument concerning the pen. Professor Andani quoted no less than 20 different source showing questionable ahadith that are an affront to the idea of a transcendent divine being. When it came to giving positive ahadith for the Athari position Jake gave us nothing. When it came to ahadith bringing into question Islamic philosophy Jake gave us nothing. Since Jake lacks the trade mark beard of the bulk of Salafi/Athari Muslims one could easily mistake Andani for being the Athari in the debate.
Since Athar means remnant or report, clearly not only is Professor Andani an adept in Islamic science, he is actually the true Athari between the two! Jake on the other hand, a nothing burger.
Not necessarily an argument against either Ismaili doctrine or Islamic Philosophy in general Jake repeated several times the Professor Andani asserts that anyone who claims that who ever states that Allah (swt) has names and attributes is tantamount to shirk and anthropomorphism. Please see @22:06 minute mark:
“Khalil does not believe that Allah is the direct creator of the heavens and the earth. He does not believe that Allah is All Knowing, All Powerful and Perfect, in fact HIS BOOK states: that to ascribe such names and attributes to God is shirk and anthropomorphism.”
A similar claim is made at the 23:37 minute mark.
Why didn’t Jake show us the extract from Professor Andani’s book? He claims that these are the beliefs of Professor Andani yet he doesn’t give us the quotes for this. This would certainly help Jake, as Jake has made takfir of Andani, he can now turn around and claim that Andani did the same thing.
Professor Khalil gives 5 arguments for refuting the Hanbali creed. He gives 5 arguments for the Absolute Oneness of Allah & His Creation of First Intellect. Although, I feel Professor Khalil more than proved his case in regards to the Absolute Oneness of Allah (swt), he possibly needed more time to flesh out his argument of the creation of the First Intellect.
Professor Khalil showed quite forcefully the issue with Tafwid.
Affirming the apparent meaning, or do ta’wil for metaphorical meaning. Jake must affirm the apparent meaning and reject ta’wil. This leads us to Tafwid al-Ma’na where you deny the apparent meaning and deny the opposite of the apparent meaning. This position is logically incoherent. If you say you do not know the meaning, then there is no meaning that is accessible to humans. This is a devastating argument because it shows that Athari are actually the one with some esoteric belief in the divine. The Qur’an and Sunnah conveys that which is not intelligible to humanity. Another devastating point given by Professor Khalil @39:27 minute mark that if you want to argue for Tafwid al-Ma’na and Tafwid al-Kayf and say ‘Bi Li Kayf’ than you should stop debating with Christians. The argument here is that Athari are in reality believers of Mysterianism.
All of the points given in Professor Andani’s slides are effectively devastating for the Athari position.
“No Qur’anic verse and NO Prophetic Report teaches that God possesses real attributes (sifat) that are additional to and distinct from His Essence.” Where did they get the idea from? They got it from speculative theology.
During his first 10 minute rebuttal.
Surprisingly for someone who has done many debates Jake seemed to forget how the rebuttal part of a debate goes. Instead of showing why Dr. Andani’s five points against Athari creed were wrong, Jake continued his opening presentation of attacking Andani’s views. The only thing he really interacted with was that which was easy pickings. He scanned the list of the slide Professor Andani put up and picked out Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani. (An Athari). Even, I am not sure why Professor Khalil had him on that list.
When quoting Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani
“We believe that Allah CONSTRICTS, EXPANDS, rejoices, loves, dislikes, becomes pleased, becomes angry, and abhors, he has two hands and both of his hands are right. The hearts of his servants are between two of his fingers and he is in the direction of uluh…..” Jakes says @ 50:35 “This sounds like Athari creed to me.”
What did Jake mean when he says Allah (swt) constricts and expands? Does he mean that it is an action that Allah (swt) does to the creation? As in constricting the breast or expanding the breast? Or does he mean that Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani is asserting that Allah (swt) himself, his essence, expands/constricts? This sort of irresponsible reading of the text in English without proper explanation is no Bueno. Jake did not deal with the issues of divine simplicity or the problem of the ontological collapse of his position.
Professor Andani’s first 10 minute rebuttal.
@1:03:27 They were not putting up Professor Adnani slides. It is hard to know if that was intentional or not.
@1:11:36 Professor Adnani claims that Jake was intellectually dishonest by admitting a fact from Nasir al-Din Tusi’s work by not admitting the fact of what he had actually written. @1:12:07 Professor Adnani bemoans the fact that Jake cannot read Arabic and therefore cannot go to the primary sources. He is overly reliant upon Orientalism and Orientalist.
Jake’s second 5 minute rebuttal.
@1:18:34 Jake puts up the claim that he has a document ‘with all these references if anyone is interested I’ll make them publicly available and you can read them yourself.” This statement is followed up with a dig @ Professor Khalil doing Taqiyyah, practicing obfuscation or lying.
@1:19:44 “No it does not mean there are multiple necessary beings, we don’t say there are multiple humans, that Jake is multiple humans just because I have multiplicity within me. I’m still one being. We don’t say that there are multiple uh beings within Jake. This is not the language that we use”
Did he just use himself to compare with Allah (swt)? This is very problematic. It is a violation of “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)
@1:20:07 “My argument is quite simple, just read the Qur’an, for the most part.” WHAT??
@1:21:23 Jake says that he trusts someone else over going directly to the text himself! Especially doesn’t trust Professor Andani. “You keep talking about Arabic but you cannot even pronounce basic words, which I find to be quite shocking.” You can tell that Jake felt the sting of Professor Andani’s comment about Jake not being able to go to the primary sources because Jake lacks the requisite command of Arabic to do so.
Professor Khalil second 5 minute rebuttal.
@ 1:24:06 Professor Adnani wanted to know whom Jake will rely upon for creedal positions. Prior to the debate Jake gave Professor Andani the creed of Ibn Qudama. Ibn Qudama says: “We do not go beyond the traditions from the Prophet and his companions; nor do we know the how these, save by the acknowledgement of the Messenger and the confirmation of the Qur’an.”-Ibn Qudama (Tahrim)
“Debate is for people who can use logic and reason which you are not allowed to do!”
Ouch! That was yet another stinging point from Professor Andani.
@1:26:00 Professor Adnani makes another great point. Jake did not specify what he meant by necessary attributes.
1:26:34 I almost fell out of my chair, Captain Planet? It is good to see that Dr. Khalil is forceful in his presentation and can keep a serious topic light-hearted.
@1:26:45 Professor Adnani bemoans the fact that Jake is severely handicapped in this debate by not being able to read the primary sources.
@1:26:58 Professor Adnani puts forth a very blunt question to Jake. “How do you define wujud, existence?
15 minute cross examinations. Jake cross-examines Professor Andani
During his 15 minute cross-examination, Jake spent less time asking questions and more time giving a sermon. As regards demeanor, Jake was like this angry child, who ran away from home only to find a wise and comforting father in Dr. Khalil Andani. Khalil was warm and had presence, Jake was bitter and needed consoled.
@ 1:30:19 Jake ask Professor Andani about true knowledge of Allah (swt) only coming through the Imams. Through the intellect or the imams (qualified scholarship). Jake himself admits its from qualified scholarship when he even queerly offered, “just read the Qur’an, for the most part.”
1:30:57 Jake could frame his question another way. ‘During the time of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was true Tawhid known only through the Prophet (saw), whom would be the ‘rightly guided Imam’ or through other means? If we can understand this, it will help us to understand the position of not only Ismaili Shi’a but our Shi’a brothers in general. Even if we disagree with them.
When Professor Adnani gives his reply that there are two types of ‘ilm and one is supra discursive, also known as marifa. This is something that adherents of Sufi paths would appreciate. Where as those who have no familiarity with the Seeker-Shaykh relationship would have no appreciation of this.
@1:33:41, Jake moves on to the next point because he saw no way in. Usually if you strongly argue, you will overwhelm your opponent and press the attack until you get them to capitulate through the sheer strength of your argument.@1:34:12 Jake started to bite his fingernails which is usually a sign of stress or anxiety. I don’t know if it is me but it looks like he proceeds to chew for a moment on a piece of fingernail.
@1:37:40 Professor Andani makes the point that there is no way Kirmani is refuting Ibn Sina because Ibn Sina has not even written his works yet!!! “Remember Ibn Sina died in 1037 and Kirmani died in 1020. There is no way Kirmani is refuting Ibn Sina because Ibn Sina hasn’t even written his major works when Kirmani is writing. Kirmani is likely referring to a pre Ibn Sina falsifa tradition.”
@1:38:40 Professor Andani enlightens Jake who confuses the Ashari position of the divine will that is entirely self determined, with that of the Ismail’i position.
1@:40:00 Jake when pressed on whether he knows what type of shirk Al Sharistani is referencing, Jake replies, ‘You can’t respond with a question.” Professor Khalil is not familiar with debates or debate territory. So, he could have used the most common trick there is in this situation, which would be to ask a statement of clarity, ‘I’m not sure the type of shirk you are referring to?’ Interestingly, as a point of order Jake ignored the ‘you are not supposed to respond with a question’ when he was being questioned. He (Jake) did this multiple times.
Anyway, Jake gets educated on the two different types of shirk, shirk kafi and shirk jalil. This itself shows further lack of preparation on his behalf.
@1:40:40 You really have to love Professor Andani at this point, he is totally, relaxed and having a great time. That slight smile on the face is transporting him straight to the class room where he is tenured Professor teaching a subject he has full grasp of to a first year student, thirsty for knowledge and information.
More Than an interlocutor or debate opponent, Professor Andani at this point takes on the role of a willing teacher, trying to help Jake in writing a thesis paper. It’s delightful to watch the good Professor work and it has made me keen to read his published works and follow up with more of his material.
@1:42:11 Jake asks Professor Andani the question: “If creation did not exist would God exist? Khalil asks a question, but Jake doesn’t’ pause him. At this point Jake is clearly forsaken any crusade he may have thought he was upon. Jake actually looks tired.
@1:42:31 Jake asserts about Professor Andani “You said he couldn’t exist without creation” -Always not a good sign in a debate when the opponent wants to put words in the other’s mouth.
@1:43:54 Professor Andani again asserts that Jake is unfortunately relying upon secondary sources. Jake responds that’s not true. “Well it is!” Quick to the rejoinder Professor Andani is!
15 minute cross examinations. Professor Andani cross-examines Jake.
@1:45:24 “Do the attributes depend on God’s essence or are they ā sē necessary in themselves?
@1:45:27 Jake ask a question: “What do you mean by depend?” As you can see as a point of order Jake violates the stipulations of the debate.
Professor Andani presses the question again: “Does the existence of an attribute of Allah depend on the essence?”
Jake responds: @1:45:34 “In the SAME WAY that for you the existence of creation or God’s existence depends on the existence of creation.”
This is what happens when you are in attack mode and you do not think your arguments through.
Here Jake is involved in pure speculative theology upon which he has provided no clear proof text from the Qur’an or the Sunnah. He is comparing the creation of Allah (swt) with his attributes. He is also arguing against Athari creed; because, if he is saying he believes THE SAME WAY (that he assumes Adnani believes) this is a problem.
Again Professor Andani presses: “Do the attributes depend on God’s essence, either they do or they don’t?”
@1:45:44 Jake responds: “Yes, in the SAME WAY you would say that God’s existence depends upon creation.”
Trust me people there are Muslims who are Athari/Salafi in Aqidah listening to these statements of Jake and their jaws are gaping open and they are stroking beards repeated ‘astaghfirullah’ over and over upon hearing these things.
@1:46:15 Professor Andani ask: “Are the attributes of Allah are they ā sē or not ā sē?
1:46:22 Jake breaks the rules again and asks a question: “Why are you changing the question?”
The reason he is changing the question is you are so elusive and Professor Andani is trying to get you to clarify your position. @1:46:30 Professor Andani has to bring in the moderator because Jake is evading the questions.
@1:47:24 Professor Andani is having none of it. He presses Jake ‘You define dependence and tell us whether the attributes depend upon the essence or not.”
@1:47:42 Professor Khalil “Let’s make some breakthrough here. Creation depends on God I said that? Are you saying the attributes depend on the essence the same way creation depends on God?”
@1:47:50 Jake responds: “I am saying there is a counterfactual dependence.”
May Allah (swt) guide us and protect us from being among the lost! At this point I began to wonder if Jake really is a Muslim. Because, if he is now stating there is a counterfactual dependence, which is to state that the attributes and the essence are mutually dependent or inter-dependent. Not necessarily problematic in and of itself; However, either one in Islam is major shirk, especially if you juxtapose that statement to Jake’s earlier admission:
Thus, Allah (swt) and his creation are counterfactual? They are mutually dependant or inter-dependant? That is not the belief of the Muslims, and for us, Jakes’ statements take him out of Islam. That is unless Jake claims he misspoke or he was confused during the debate. Hopefully he will clarify in the future. Those statements juxtaposed together take one out of Islam.
Listen @1:48:48 “In a sense, one cannot exist without the other. We don’t say it’s a casual dependence.” @1:49:12 Professor Andani says, “The attributes depend upon the essence.”
Moreover, Jake responds: “Only in the sense that they cannot exist without each other.”
I was surprised by Professor Andani’s continued line of questioning considering Jake’s admission that he believes the essence and attributes are counterfactual and that the attributes depend on the essence in the same way that God depends on the existence of creation.
Nonetheless @1:49:45 “If something is not ā sē (aseity) can it be God?”
Jake responds: “Sorry” I do not believe that Jake is familiar with the Latin terminology for aseity.
Professor Andani continues: “If something is not ā sē is it contingent?”
Jake is uncertain about what he is being asked. He is not supposed to ask questions but answer them. Nonetheless: “Anything that is not God is a contingent is that the question?”
Jake responds: “Yeah sure.”
@1:51:00 Jake is buckling under the pressure, disengaging the rules of the debate, speaking out of turn. Jake established that he believes that God is the essence and the attributes.
@1:52:08 Professor Andani “So God contains and essence and real distinct attributes?”
1:52:22 Professor Andani presses the point: “The attributes are not identical to the essence and not identical to one another.”
“Jake responds: “Correct.”
@1:52:25 Professor Andani states: “O.K Therefore your God is a conglomerate of different entities. Thank you for confirming that. Next, I’m gonna move on now.”
@1:52:47 A very classic moment in this debate. Professor Andani set this up nicely. “My view is this, O.K.? The will of God is necessary. Every decision, choice that God has made could not have been any other way O.K.? Its the best possible choice. And any choice God has made it is impossible to conceive it could have been other way. This is my position.” “Is that position compatible with Islam according to you or not?
@1:53:24 Professor Andani “Does it go against Tawhid?” To which Jake responds: Yes it does!”
“It goes against Tawhid in the sense that your saying God does not have free will, that creation is just a necessitated by his essence. Yes that goes against Islam because the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah say otherwise.”
An odd statement from Jake considering he just stated earlier:
Jake responds: @1:45:34 “In the SAME WAY that for you the existence of creation or God’s existence depends on the existence of creation.”
This Jake does not have a sound aqeedah position. Nonetheless, go back and read Professor Andani’s statement above @1:52:47 you will see that he is reading from either a piece of paper or screen. He is reading verbatim a statement from Mohamed Hijab!
That was very cunning of Professor Khalil. Remind me never to debate that guy!
If Professor Andani made any “bad” move during the debate it was @1:54:26. It is not an error per say. It’s just that he should have saved that explosive bit of information for his closing remarks! Because, the way that Professor Andani puts the bait on the hook, Jake caught on real fast, and knew what was up.
@1:55:05 Jake is sensible enough to know the trap that Dr. Khalil is laying out before him. However, he is reluctant to make that commitment. This shows the shifting nature of his own doctrinal position. Haqq is Haqq. How can you be firm on a position literally just 3 minutes ago and now you are hesitant!
@1:55:43 Professor Andani drops the bomb on Jakes “I read to you the words of Mohamed Hijab during his Londoniyyah video published 6 months ago! You can go see it! He literally says, what I just said!”
Professor Andani doesn’t stop there: “
“So Mohamed Hijab is teaching a view of Tawhid that you think is not Tawhid yet you go and work for the Sapiens Institute!” If there was a debate equivalent of Khabib Nurmagomedov making Conor McGregor submit during their UFC bout that was it! @1:55:57 “Can you read it?”
Jake at this point is desperate to find any contentious point to avoid the devastating blow just dealt to him. “Your claiming he is my Ustadh.” “How is he my Ustadh?”
Asking Professor Andani to read a text is a strategic move. It also gives Jake a breather, so that Professor Andani will just stop asking more devastating questions and the timer can run out.
You wanna know something telling. Is the heavy weights in the Athari/Salafi community. Those most visible out there in the Daw’ah. If anyone thinks for an iota of a second that Jake won this debate surely the silence of the Athari/Salafi dai’ee is deafening.@ 2:00:42 Professor Andani asks: “Where is Allah? Can you point with your finger?”
Jake pointing towards the direction of Allah (swt). The Earth spins on its axis on a 24 hour rotation. Now imagine if we placed someone on the polar opposite side of the Earth and asked the same question at the same time. Allah’s throne would have to be somewhere in the middle of the Earth. Then next we put Jake in a space suit in zero gravity and ask him the same question.
@2:00:50 Professor Andani asks: “Is the Throne below Allah?” Jake responds: “Yes”
Professor Andani ask: “Is the lowest heaven below the throne?” Jake responds: “Yes”
@2:01:26 Professor Andani ask: “Do you affirm Allah as per the hadith descends every night to the lowest heaven?” Jake responds: “Yes I affirm Nuzul.”
@2:01:41 Professor Andani ask: “Do you affirm that Allah descends from above the throne to below the throne?” Jake responds: “He never leaves the throne.”
22:01:51 Professor Andani asks: “What is the meaning of a descent here? Because descent means to go from above to below. So what does Nuzul mean?” Jake responds: “Yes we understand it in the plain meaning which is mentioned in a hadith….it’s very clear I think everybody knows what descent means.”
2:2:02:11 Professor Andani asks: “So you affirm that Allah descends from above the throne to the lowest heaven below the throne.” Jake: “Without entering his creation. Yes”
Jake just posited pure speculative theology. Where is there a text from the Qur’an or Sunnah that says that Allah (swt) does not enter his creation? Where did he get that idea from?!
2:02:08 Jake claims: “It’s very clear I think everyone knows what descent means.”
@2:02:25 Professor Andani asks: “What is the meaning of descent that everybody knows? Jake responds: “I just explained it to you.”
As one person on Twitter described this segment: “Descending means descending but not descending as descending can be descending when we say descending but you know and I know you know what descending is.”
Another point of contention. From what text of the Qur’an and Sunnah do the Athari get the idea that Allah (swt) is above the throne as some ‘default position‘?
Jakes closing remarks:
@2:06:36 Jake claims he will have a talk with Mohamed Hijab. So it will be interesting in the future, if Jake retracts his claim or claims Mohamed Hijab’s views on Tawhid are mistaken.
@2:08:30 Jake is clearly upset that he couldn’t turn this into an Athari Sunni vs a Shi’a Ismaili debate. This is also why either he or his team changed the name of the YouTube Video.The misleading and dishonest title vs the agreed upon debate topic and correct title.
@2:08:50 An admission from Jake that he did not address many of Khalil’s points.
Professor Adnani closing remarks:
In his closing remarks Dr. Khalil Andani had made comments about Jake that was not insulting. He said that Jake is certainly a smart individual; however, Jake needs practice in defending his creed (which he does).
In my humble opinion, Professor Andani messed up with giving good will points. Professor Andani means well but unfortunately in Jake’s mind saying that he (Jake) is intelligent but utterly demolishing his (Jakes) ability to defend the Athari creed was worse than if Andani had not said anything in good will at all.
@2:18:25 Professor Andani brings up a point that should have been brought up during his rebuttal period. I am not a fan of either party introducing pertinent points of a debate during closing statements. However, it would be interesting to see if Jake has any rejoinders to that statement in the future concerning Kashf Al Asrar-‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani
@2:19:35 Professor Andani comments on how Jake calls his presentation a machine gun approach, because he (Jake) was utterly unprepared. Which is true.
@2:21: Professor Andani likened Athari creed to mysterianism which was a very tight intellectual slap. It certainly hurts the Daw’ah and prepared Christians WILL use these counter arguments, as well they should.
Conclusion: Final Thoughts.
Professor Andani put on a clinic in that debate! If someone mentions his name to me I will reply, ‘Oh you mean the excellence of execution?’ Because Jake was excellently executed by the excellence of execution, Professor Andani. The man is not even a seasoned debater, but he was methodical, lucid and on point!
In fact as stated before, this is a watershed moment. Never that I can think of has Athari creed been laid bare in public in such a way. Professor Andani reached deep and took a piece of Jake’s soul. Not that this was the good Professor’s intention; however, you can tell by Jake’s Kamkazi approach after the debate that he realized he got destroyed.
Observe: Jake: The Kamkazi: I got destroyed in this debate but I am going to do my best in my little Mitsubishi A5M to take you down with me!
Who won this debate?
When I was first told about the debate in the early morning hours of 17/6/2002 I went to see the video and I observed in the comment section the Athari’s were getting pressed. The majority of comments were in favour of the Professor. So they deleted comments in favour of the Professor. They deleted comments of exchanges where athari were not doing too well. They changed the title of the debate. Finally, they stopped comments altogether.
You want to know something telling? It is this. The heavy weights in the Athari/Salafi community, those most visible out there in the Daw’ah, if they think one of their people did well in a debate it will be broadcasted all over social media. It will go viral. The after math of this debate is radio silence. If anyone thinks for an iota of a second that Jake won this debate surely the silence of the Athari/Salafi community is deafening. May Jake repent of the blasphemy he uttered during the debate and renew his Shahadah. May Allah (swt) bless Professor Andani, illuminate the way for him, forgive him and us, guide him and us.
Oh I see we are already playing games of censorship and control my Salafi friends?
Good thing I came prepared. For those of you who do not want to watch the debate (on a channel that blocks comments) I have uploaded the debate here:
“Do not mix truth with falsehood and do not deliberately hide the truth.”(Qur’an 2:42)
﷽
What we hear may not necessarily be the truth. Nowadays the anti-Sufi groups, which are at the same time strict followers of Ibn Taimiyya, as well as Sufi groups (namely the Ashari) affiliated with theological schools that Ibn Taymiyya was not affiliated with have both misrepresented and seemingly suppressed the truth about this iconic figure in the history of Islam.
When searching the history of Ibn Taimiyya we find that he himself was not against ‘Sufism’ but he was even adorned with the cloak (khirqa) of shaikhood of the Qadiri Order! Believe it or not, Ibn Taimiyya was himself a Sufi, but he accepted Tasawwuf on the condition that it follows shari’ah, which no Sufi order objects to. In fact in the Hidayua al-Addhkiya ila Tariq al-awliya by A’ynal Din b. Ali Ma’bari a very beautiful description is given to Shari’a (Laws), Tariqah (path), and Haqiqa (Truth.)
He said, “Shari’a is like a boat, Tariqa is like an ocean and Haqiiqah is like the precious pearl. Whoever aspires after the pearl must (definitely) embark on the boat and then divine into the ocean.” Logically nobody reaches the pearl without having to sail into the boat. In this book will you find many more shocking realities about Ibn Taimiyya that contradict the very foundation of the neo-Salafite movements. It will also shed light upon the reason why many Sufi groups affiliated with theological positions that Imam Ahmad, Shaikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani, and Ibn Taimiyya were not upon may like to cast aspersions upon the shaykh.
In fact, Ibn Taimiyya says: “The miracles of saints are absolutely true and correct, by acceptance of all Muslim scholars. And the Qur’an has pointed to it in different places and the Hadith of the Prophet (s) have mentioned it, and whoever denies the miraculous power of saints are only people who are innovators and their followers.”
IBN TAYMIYYA AND TASAWWUF.
Orientalist, Modern Islamist, and Sufi orders who follow theological schools that Ibn Taimiyya, Imam Ahmad, and Shaikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani were not upon having contributed to the misrepresentation of Ibn Taymiyya as an enemy of Sufis. This has been propounded even more strongly lately by the scholars of the “neo-Salafi” school, whose followers claim to strictly adhere to Ibn Taymiyya’s teachings, but who in fact have severely deviated from them in this area of understanding.
However, regardless of the desires of one group or another, the facts provide a clarification of reality: that Ibn Taymiyya accepted Tasawwuf on the condition that it follows shari’ah, and that Ibn Taymiyyah himself was not only a Sufi follower but was adorned with the cloak (khirqa) of the shaikhood of the Qadiri Order.
A closer look at the facts:
Ibn Taymiyya’s supposed anti-Sufism sentiment is a clear cut misrepresentation of the truth. To conclude that Ibn Taymiyya opposed Sufism/Tasawwuf as a whole, simply because he considered particular activities or statements by some individuals and groups as unacceptable in shari’ah, is like concluding that he opposed the Science of Fiqh because he criticized the viewpoints and practices of certain fuqaha (jurists). This would be more than exaggeration, it is completely inaccurate.
Ibn Taymiyya received initiation as a Sufi Sheikh. The fact that Ibn Taymiyya himself was Sufi has been conveniently ignored by those who chose to misrepresent him, and with good reason: how could someone say that Ibn Taymiyya opposed Sufism/Tasawwuf and that he was a Sufi/mutassawwif/ in one and the same breath? Hence the corollary statement to Ibn Tamiyya’s alleged anti-Tassawuf stance is that “he could certainly not have been a Sufi,” compounding inaccuracy with speculation.
Clear proof that most of the great ‘ulama and the major figures of the Four Schools of Islam were trained in tassawwuf exists in the specialized biographical books known as “Tabaqat.” Tasawwuf was part and parcel of the complete education of a Muslim scholar, from the beginning of the formation of the Islamic curriculum until the gradual weakening and dismantling of the institutions and figures of Islamic higher education in the twentieth century. This resulted in the replacement of the Islamic ‘ijaza’ system (being “licensed” or receiving permission to teach from one’s own teacher), with the modern doctoral system of degrees, inherited from the West.
Far from denigrating or attacking the Sufi component of the Islamic sciences like some of our contemporaries who claim him as their reference, Ibn Taymiyya, in fact, praised it in his time, endorsed it, participated in it, and achieved its highest formal level, which is to receive the khirqah, the equivalent of the ‘ijaza or permission in Sufi terms, from a Sufi shaikh. The khirqah, representing the cloak of the Prophet (saw), is passed to a student of a Sufi shaikh, only when he is seen to be fit and fully qualified to pass on the teachings he has acquired from his shaikh in turn to students of his own. In this he has simply been one of many among the Hanbali ‘ulama who both educated him or were educated by him, to undergo the expected training and instruction in the various disciplines of Tassawuf appropriate to the scholarly vocation.
Many well-read specialists of Islam are to this day still surprised to hear that Sufis al-Ansari al-Harawi (d.481 H.) and ‘Abdul Qadir al-Jilanai (d. 561 H) were both very strong Hanblis. When one refers to their biographical notices in Ibn Rajab’s [student of Ibn Qayyim] “Dhail ‘ala Tabaqat al-Hanbabila,” one finds al-Ansari referred to as “as-Sufi” and Jilani referred to a “az-zahid.” Ibn Rajabs use of these terms in close proximity indicates their inter-changeability.
Ibn Rajab’s two-volume biographical work covers a period of three centuries, from the middle of the 5th century Hijri to the middle of the 8th. Identifiable as Sufis are over one-third of all the Hanbalis scholars treated by Ibn Rajab and other sources from the same time period.
The theory, presented by some Orientalists, that Abdul Faraja Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 H) and Iban Taymiyya (d.728 H), were antithetical to Tasawwuf does not stand up to scholarly scrutiny. In fact, neither of these Hanbali doctors of law qualifies as in any way antithetical to Tasawwuf.
Let us examine their record.
Ibn al-Jawzi’s work Talbis Iblis is perhaps the most important single factor in keeping alive the notion of this hostility towards Sufism. In reality, this work was not written against Tasawwuf as such at all, nor against Sufis alone. However, it was an indictment of all unorthodox doctrines and practices (according to Sunnis), regardless of their sources, and opposed any which were innovations in the rule of shari’ah-i.e not found in the Qur’an and Sunnah, wherever found in the Islamic community, especially in Ibn al-Jawzi’s time. It was written against specific innovated practices of many groups, including philosophers (mutakallimoon), theologians, traditionalists (‘ulama-al-hadith), jurists (fuqaha), preachers, philologist, poets, and Sufis. It is in no way an indictment of the subjects they studied and taught, but were an indictment of specific introductions of innovation into respective disciplines and fields.
Ibn al-Jawzi has written other works, which are not only in favor of Tasawwuf, but present its greatest figures in the most complimentary light. Two works considered as pillars in the field of Tasssawuf are Safwat as-Safa and Minhaj al Qasidin wa Mufid as-Sadiqin. In addition, full-length biographies in praise of the early Sufis have been penned by Ibn al Jawzi, including Fada’il Hasan al-Basri (The Gracious Character of Hasan al-Basri), and Manaqib Ibrahim bin Adhan, (The Good qualities of Ibrahim bin Adham), Manaqib Bishr al-Hafi, Manaqib Ma’ruf al-Karhkhi, “Manaqib Rabi’a al-Adawiyya,. In sections of his book al-Muntazam many biographical notices may be found in praise of the Mutasawwifeen.
IBN TAYMIYYA’S DONNING OF THE QADIRI CLOAK.
As for Ibn Taymiyya, one would search in vain to find his works the least condemnation of Sufism as a discipline. He opposed the seemingly pantheist description of certain Sufis, known as the “ittihadiyya,” but he showed his great admiration for the works of the Sufis Junayd Baghdadi, Sahl at-Tustari, Bayzaid al-Bistami, Abu Talib al-Makki, al-Qusharyri, Adul Qadir al-Jilani, and Abu Hafs as-Suhrawardi.
At present we are in the position to show that this allegedly great opponent of Sufism was himself a Sufi, who belonged to at least one ‘tariqat’, but especially to that of ‘Abdul Qadir Jilani.
In a manuscript of the Hanbali ‘alim, Shaikh Yusuf bin ‘Abd al-Hadi (d. 909H), entitled Bad’ al-‘ula bi labs al-Khirqa [found in Princeton, Sorbonne, and Damascus, Ibn Taymiyya is found in a Sufi spiritual genealogy with other well-known Hanbali scholars, all except one (Say. Jilani) heretofore unknown as Sufis. The links in this genealogy are, in descending order:
Abdul Qadir Jilani (d. 561 H.)
Abu ‘Umar bin Qudama (d. 607 H.)
Muwaffaq ad-Din bin Qudama (d. 620 H.)
Ibn Abi ‘Umar bin Qudama (d. 682 H.)
Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 H.)
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751 H.)
Ibn Rajab (d. 795 H.)
(Both Abu ‘Umar b. Qudama and his brother Muwaffaq received the khirqa directly from Abdul Qadir Jilani himself.) Further corroboration of two links separating him from ‘Abdul Qadir Jilani comes from Ibn Taymiyya himself, as quoted in a manuscript of the work al-Mas’ala at-Tabriziyya (manuscripts, Damascus, 1186 H):
“labistu al-khiraqata mubarakata lish-Shaikh ‘Abdul Qadir wa bayni wa baynahu ‘than” “I wore the blessed Sufi cloak of ‘Abdul Qadir, there being between him and me two.”
Ibn Taymiyya is quoted by Yusuf ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi, affirming his Sufi affiliation in more than one Sufi order:
“Have worn the Sufi cloak [khirqata at-Tasawwuf] of a number of shaikhs belonging to various tariqas [min turuqi jama’atin min ash-shyukhi], among them the Shaikh ‘Abdul Qadir al-Jiliani, whose tariqa is the greatest of the well-known ones.”
Further on he continues: “The greatest tariqa [ajallu-t-turuqi] is that of my master [sayyidi], ‘Abdul Qadir al-Jilani, May Allah have mercy on him.”
[Found in “Al-Hadi” manuscript in Princeton Library, collection folio 154a, 169b, 171b-172a and Damascus University, copy of original Arabic manuscript, 985H.: also mentioned in “at-Taylani”, manuscript Chester Beatty 3296 (*) in Dublin, folio 67a.]
Additional evidence of Ibn Taymiyya’s connection to the Qadiri silsila (lineage) is found in his lengthy commentary of the seminal Sufi work by his grand shaikh, ‘Abdul Qadir Jilani, entitled “Futuh al-Ghaby.” [This is found in a Princeton manuscript, uncatalogued, also in Leipzig University Library, Arabic manuscript #223, and Istanbul University, Turkish translation, “Futuh ulGayb Hakkinda Yorum”]
The essence of this commentary on “Futuh al-Ghaib” is to show that Sufism, when orthodox, is completely in consonance with the Qur’an and sunnah and that the consensus of the community. A Tasawwuf not based on the revealed law is heretical. In his commentary, Ibn Taymiyya upholds ‘ilham’ or Sufi inspiration, as evidence stronger than weak analogy [qiyas], or a weak tradition [hadith], or istis-hab cited by those who are immersed in fiqh, or divergences of the law [khilaf], or the principles and sources of the law [usul-al-fiqh]. HE places inspiration [ilham] on a level of legally valid evidence on which to base a preference for one action against another when all other sources fail.
The perfection of the soul, says Ibn Taymiyya, does not consist in mere knowledge. On the contrary, along with the knowledge concerning Allah, there must necessarily be love [mahabba] of Allah, worship of Allah, and the turning back to Him in repentance. Real tawhid consists in worshiping no one but Allah, and worship calls for perfect love [kamat al-hubb][, perfect veneration [kamal at-ta’zim], perfect hope, fear, reverence, and respect [kamal ar-raja’ wal-khishya wal-ijlal wal-ikram].
Insh’Allah there will be more to come.
There are a number of reasons why many different groups (especially those who want division and discord) among Muslims would keep this information hidden.
#1) Sunni Muslims who belong to Sufi groups and associated with the Ashari theological school don’t want people to know Ibn Taymiyyah who was Athari in his school was a Sufi. This gives the impression that Sufism is a monopoly of those who follow the Maturdidi or Ashari theological position.
#2) Those Sunni Muslims who belong to the theological schools of the Maturdidi and Ashari and also follow Sufi tariqat have high esteem for Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (who was Athari in creed) don’t want people to connect the dots. The reason being is it takes the wind out of the sails of those who make takfir upon the Atharis. They dare not do this with Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani.
#3) Those who say they follow the ‘Salafi Manhaj‘ -they rely heavily upon Ibn Taimiyya and they are harsh in their critique of Sufism and Tassawuf in general. They would not want any of their followers to even get the slightest whiff that Ibn Taimiyya belonged to a Sufi order.
#4) It is a useful tool in the heads of those who have machinations upon Muslim lands and have a vested interest in keeping the divide going among Muslims; especially Sunni Muslims (the largest group).
If you enjoyed this please feel free to read part 2.
“Do not mix truth with falsehood and do not deliberately hide the truth.” (Qur’an 2:42)
﷽
Those who have not read part 1 may be interested to read that here:
Before I begin this part 2 I would like to begin with the conclusion from part 1.
There are a number of reasons why many different groups (especially those who want division and discord) among Muslims would keep this information hidden.
#1) Sunni Muslims who belong to Sufi groups and associated with the Ashari theological school don’t want people to know Ibn Taymiyya who was Athari in his school was a Sufi. This gives the impression that Sufism is a monopoly of those who follow the Maturdidi or Ashari theological positions.
#2) Those Sunni Muslims who belong to the theological schools of the Maturdidi and Ashari and also follow Sufi tariqat have high esteem for Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (who was Athari in creed) don’t want people to connect the dots. The reason being is it takes the wind out of the sails of those who make takfir upon the Atharis. They dare not do this with Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani!
#3) Those who say they follow the ‘Salafi Manhaj‘ -they rely heavily upon Ibn Taimiyya and they are harsh in their critique of Sufism and Tassawuf in general. They would not want any of their followers to even get the slightest whiff that Ibn Taimiyya belonged to a Sufi order.
#4) It is a useful tool in the heads of those who have machinations upon Muslim lands and have a vested interest in keeping the divide going among Muslims; especially Sunni Muslims (the largest group).
IBN TAYMIYYA’S DISCUSSION OF TASAWWUF IN HIS MAJMU’A FATAWA
What Ibn Taymiyya Says About the Term ‘Tasawwuf’?
Here we will mention what Imam Ibn Taymiya, mentioned about the definition of Tasawwuf, from Volume 11, “At-Taswassuf” of “Majmu’a Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya al-Kubra, ” Dar Ar-Rahmah, Cairo:
“Alhamdulillah, the pronunciation of the word Tasawwuf has been thoroughly discussed. From those who spoke about Tasawwuf were not just the Imams and Shaikhs, but also included were Ahmad bin Hanbal, Abi Sulayman ad-Daarani, As-Sirr as-Saqati, al-Junayd al-Bahgdadi, Hasan al-Basri, Ma’auruf al-Karkhi, Abdul Qadir Jilani, Bayazid al-Bistami [one of the grand Shaykhs of the Naqshbandi Tariqat] and many others. This is a term that was given to those who were dealing with that kind of science [tazkiyyat an-nafs and Ihsan].”
Imam Ibn Taymiyya says:
“Tassawuf has realities and states of experience which they talk about in their science. Some of it is that the Sufi is that one who purifies himself from anything which distracts him from the remembrance of Allah and who will be so filled up with the knowledge of the heart and knowledge of the mind to the point that the value of gold and stones will be the same to him. And Tasawwuf is safeguarding the precious meanings and leaving behind the call to fame and vanity in order to reach the state of Truthfulness, because the best of humans after the prophets are the Siddiqeen, as Allah mentioned them in the verse:
“(And all who obey Allah and the Apostle) are in the company of those whom is the grace of Allah: of the prophets, the sincere lovers of truth, the martyrs and the righteous; Ah! What a beautiful fellowship.” (an-Nisa’, 69,70)
Ibn Taymiyya continues: “as-Sufi hua fil-haqiqa naw’un min as-siddiqeen. Fahua as-siddiq alladhee iktassa bil-zuhadiwal-‘ibadada.” which translates:
“And the Sufi is, in reality, a kind of Siddiq (Truthful One), that Siddiq who specialized in zuhd and worship.”
He continues about the Sufis,
“Some people criticized the Sufiyya and Tasawwuf and they said they were innovators, out of the Sunnah, but the truth is they are striving in Allah’s obedience [mujtahidin fi ta’at-illahi], as others of Allah’s People strove in Allah’s obedience. So from them, you will find the Foremost in Nearness in virtue of his striving [as-saabiq ul-muqarrab bi hasab ijtihadhi]. And some of them are from the People of the Right hand [ Ahl al-Yameen mentioned in Qur’an in Surah Waqiah], but slower in their progress. For both kinds, they might make ijtihad and in that case, they might be correct and they might be wrong. And from both types, some of them might make sin and repent. And this is the origin of Tasawwuf. And after that origin, it ha been spread and (tasha’aabat wa tanawa’at) has its mainline and its branches. And it has become three kinds:
1.) Sufiyyat il-Haqa’iq-the True Sufis
2.) Sufiyyat il-Arzaaq -the Professional Sufis (Those who use Sufism for personal gain)
3.) Sufiyyat il-Rasm -The Caricature Sufis. (Sufi by appearance only).”
IMAM IBN TAYMIYYA ABOUT SAINTS AND SAINTHOOD
Imam Ibn Taymiyya mentions in volume 11, page 190 of Majmu’a Fatawi Shaikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyya , edition published in Egypt by Dar ar-Rahma:
“A servant of Allah ‘azza wa-Jal’, cannot be considered a saint unless he is a true believer. Allah mentions in the Qur’an:
“Now surely the friends of Allah-they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve. Those who believe and guarded (against evil):” (Yunus, 61,62)
He then quotes from the famous hadith from Bukhari:
“My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him.”
Imam Ibn Taymiyya About Miracles Of Saints
In his book al-Mukhtasar al-Fatawa al-Masriyya, published by al-Madani Publishing House,1980, page 603:
“The miracles of saints are absolutely true and correct, by the acceptance of all Muslim scholars. And the Qur’an has pointed to it in different places, and the Hadith of the Prophet (s) have mentioned it, and whoever denies the miraculous power of saints are only people who are innovators and their followers.”
He continues in Majmu’a Fatawai Ibn Taymiyya:
“What is considered as a miracle for a saint is that sometimes the saint might hear something that others do not hear and they see something that others do not see, while not in a sleeping state, but in a woken state of vision. And he can know something others cannot know, through revelation or inspiration.”
All that Imam Ibn Taymiyya says about the subject of Tasawwuf is found in a large book (volume 11) consisting of 704 pages only about Tasawwuf. And we would like to mention briefly what he said on page 314, about the hadith Qudsi [i.e. related form Allah Himself]:
Verily Allah ta’ala has said: ‘Whosoever shows enmity to a wali (friend) of Mine, then I have declared war against him.”
“Which means that Allah is expressing: I will seek revenge against anyone who comes against My saints like an aggressive lion.'”
He continues on p. 314 quoting Prophet’s saying about the saints: “You are the martyrs of Allah on Earth.”
Imam Ibn Taymiyya About The Unveiling Of Appearances
He said: “Allah Almighty will unveil to his saint’s states that have never been given before and give them support without measure…If that saint will begin to speak form the things of the unseen, past, or present or future it is considered from “Bab al’ilm al-khaariq” the miraculous unseen knowledge…..Anything that a saint does which is form unveiling to people or to listeners or curing or healing or teaching knowledge, it is accepted….and we have to thank Allah for it.”
Imam Ibn Taymiyya Mentions Some Great Shaikhs of Sufism
And we wish to mention some of the shaikhs, who Imam Ibn Taymiyya accepted from the well-known Sufi shaikhs. This is found in his volume entitled ‘Ilm as-Sulook [The Science of Travelling the Way to Allah], which consist of the whole volume 10 of Majmu’a Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya which is 775 pages in length, all of which is about the knowledge of the ways of true Sufism, the Science of Traveling to Allah, [‘ilm us-sulook].
On page 516, the third paragraph he says:
“The great Sufi shaikhs are the best shaykhs to be known and accepted, such as Bayazid al-Bistami [a grand shaikh of the Golden Chain of the Naqshabandi Tariqat], Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani, Junayd bin Muhammad [the most well-known Sufi]. Hasan-al-Basri, al-Fudayl ibn al-Ayyad, Ibrahim bin al-Adham [very famous Sufi, known as Sultan of the Ascetics], Abi Sulayman ad-Daarani,
Ma’ruf’al-Karkhi[a well-known Sufi], Siri-as-Saqati, Shaikh Hammad, Shaikh Abdul Bayyan.”
And Ibn Taymiyya continues:
“Those great Sufi people were the leaders of humanity and they were calling to what is right and forbidding what is wrong.”
In Majmu’a Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya , published by Dar ar-Rahmat, Cairo, Vol, 11, page 497. Book of Tassuwuf), Ibn Taymiyya says:
“You have to know that the rightly -guided shaikhs must be taken as guides and examples in the Din, as they are following in the footsteps of the Prophets and Messengers. And the Way (tariqat) of those shaikhs is to call people to Allah’s Divine Presence and obedience to the Prophet.”
Here we find Ibn Taymiyya calling for people to take a guide and mentioning that each guide has his own method (tariqat) in calling people to the Prophet’s ways.
Ibn Taymiyya says on page 499 of the same volume:
“And the shaikhs whom we need to take as guides are our examples that we have to follow, as when on the Hajj, (the pilgrimage) one needs a guide [daleel] to reach the Ka’aba, these shaikhs our guide [daleel] to Allah and our Prophet (s).”
Ibn Taymiyya quotes from Bayazid al-Bistami, who said, on page 510, Volume 10:
“….the great Sufi shaikh Bayazid al-Bistami and the famous story about him when he saw Allah in a vision (kashf) and said to Him: ‘ O Allah what is the way to You?’ and Allah responded ‘Leave yourself and come to Me.'”
Ibn Taymiyya continues quoting Bayazid al-Bistami, “I shed my self as a snake sheds its skin.” This quotation is an indication of the need for zuhd (self-denial or abstention from the worldly life), as that was the path followed by Bayazid al-Bistami.
So we see from the above quotes, that Ibn Taymiyya was accepting many shaikhs by quoting them and urging people to follow guides to show the way to obey Allah and to obey the Prophet (s).
Imam Ibn Taymiyya Explains Those Who Are Speaking About Fana’
In Book 2, volume 2, pages 396-397 of Majumu’a Fatawi Ibn Taymiyya, published by Dar ar-Rahmat, Cairo, Ibn Taymiyya speaks about the subject of fana’ also known is Sufism as annihilation, He said,
“This state of love is the state of many people that are from the people of Love of Allah ‘azza wa jall, they are the people of the love of Allah and the People of the Will (al-Irada) of Allah (it is typical of many of the people who love Allah and seek Him.) Because that person has vanished in his lover, in Allah ‘azza wa jall-through the intensity of the love, because He vanished in Allah’s love, not his own ego’s love. And he will recall Allah, not recalling himself, he would remember Allah not remembering himself, visualizing Allah [yastashhid], not visualization himself, existing in Allah, not in the existence of himself. When he reaches that stage, he no longer feels his own existence. And that is why he says in this state, ‘Ana al-Haqq” ( I am the Truth), or “Subhanee. (Glory to Me!)” And he will say “maa fil jubba ill-Allah” (there is nothing in this cloak except Allah) because he is drunk in the love of Allah and this is a pleasure and happiness that he cannot control.”
Further on Ibn Taymiyya says:
“This [matter] has in it Haqq and there is in it Batil. But when someone will enter a state with his fervor intense love (‘ishq) to Allah, he will enter a state of absentmindedness, and when he enters the state of absentmindedness, he will find himself as if he is accepting the [concept] ittihad. I do not consider this a sin. Because that person is excused and no one may punish him as he is not aware of what he is doing. Because the pen doe snot condemns the crazy except when he is restored to sanity. And when that person is in that state and he was wrong in what he did, he will be under Allah’s address:
“Rabbana laa tuakhidhna iin-nasseena aw ak-htaana” “O Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make mistakes.” (Baqara, 286)
“And Allah says in other verse, “wa laa junaaha ‘alwaykum fimma akhtaatum bihi” “there is no blame on you if you unintentionally do a mistake.”
On page 339, in Volume 10, he says:
“There is a story of two men who were so respectful and loved each other very much. One of them fell in the water [of the sea] and immediately the other threw himself behind him. Then the first, one who was sinking asked, “what made you throw yourself here?” He said, “I vanished in you. And when I vanished in you I thought you were me and I was you.”
And further on he continues:
“As long as he is not drunk through something that is prohibited, it is accepted, but if it were prohibited, (the intention was bad) then he is not excused.”
And he continues (vol 2,, page 397):
“And because of that [situation] many of the saints, like ‘Abdul Qadir Jilani, have an excuse, because they are in a state of love (‘ishq).”
That subject is also mentioned in a whole chapter in detail from page 337 page 343, entitled: al-Fana’ alladhee yujad fi kalam as-sufiyya yuffassar bi-thalathat umur.
This title means: “the Word of Annihilation found in Sufism explained in Three Ways.” This chapter describes in detail the concept of fana’.
This is the conclusion of the 2 part series. It is now up to you the reader to do your own research and reflection on this matter.
Say, “My Lord has only forbidden immoralities – what is apparent of them and what is concealed – and sin, and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He has not sent down authority, and that you say about Allah that which you do not know.” (Qur’an 7:33)
﷽
Once I was approached by a Salafi Muslim in a Masjid who asked me, “Brother where is Allah?” I thought this was an extraordinary question to ask but I asked him “What time it was“. He seemed puzzled but told me the current time. I thereby responded, “Allah is in London, England!”
He rapidly started to stroke his beard rapidly repeating “istaghfirullah!'” “‘istaghfirullah!” “Allah forgive you!” “Allah forgive you!”
This seemed like very neurotic behavior so I offered the following mutawatir hadith.
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (saw) as saying:
“Allah descends every night to the lowest heaven when one-third of the first part of the night is over and says: I am the Lord; I am the Lord: who is there to supplicate Me so that I answer him? Who is there to beg of Me so that I grant him? Who is there to beg forgiveness from Me so that I forgive him? He continues like this till the day breaks.”
I don’t see what was so wrong with saying that Allah was in London, England considering that it was around 4:45 a.m London time (which would be the last third of the night).
I guess that was not the answer he was expecting. He was visibly upset as he said, “But brother Allah is in the highest heaven.” “What?!” I responded. I thought this was very strange for how could Allah be in London England and in heaven at the same time! Surely this man does not believe that Allah is multi-present? Could it be that he believed that Allah (swt) was in many places simultaneously?
“Who said Allah is in heaven?” I asked.
“Firaun (Pharoah) said Allah is in heaven.” the brother offered.
“Where does he say this?” I demanded!
The brother quoted the following,
“And Fir’aun (Pharaoh) said: “O Hâmân! Build me a tower that I may arrive at the ways, The ways of the heavens, and I may look upon the Ilâh (God) of Mûsa (Moses) but verily, I think him to be a liar.”(Qur’an 40:37)
I was simply shocked by this! “Brother,” I said, “I do not think we need to be taking our Aqidah (belief) from Fir’aun (Pharaoh)! We do not need to build a tower of babel to reach heaven.“
This was a real conversation that happened between me and a Malay Salafi brother in a Masjid in Singapore. Needless to say, I feigned ignorance of the subject and admittedly baited the brother because I am all too familiar with these topics.
However, keep in mind he did approach me first.
However, I did advise him that in the future he may wish to use the hadith of the blind woman pointing upwards into heaven or when asked, ‘Who said Allah is in heaven‘ perhaps he could say, ‘Allah himself says this.’ It is also advisable to simply use the verse of the Qur’an “The Beneficent One, Who is established on the Throne.” (Qur’an 20:5)
I am quite sure that our Salafi brothers continue to improve their techniques.
Yet the problem remains. The issue of Allah (swt) presumably being over the throne and descending down into the lowest part of the earth every night of course (in a way that befits his majesty) …..of course.
Now the Ashari and Maturidi among our Sunni brothers are quite sensible on this issue. However, those Sunni Muslims from the Salafi, Hanbali, Athari can get quite agitated over this very sensitive issue.
So sensitive that they tell you to just shut up and accept it! Blind faith!
You can’t make taqlid to a legal school but you damn well better make taqlid to their belief system!
Don’t worry yours truly has screenshots of the entire Q & A as many people make web sites, articles, and entries that disappear in a flash!
So here we go… I’ll highlight the text of interest.
Question
When asked, “Where is Allah ?” I reply “Above the seven Heavens and the Arsh” But taking the Hadith regarding that Allah descends to the lowest heaven in the latter part of the night. If someone asks where is Allah (swt) and they state He is the latter 3rd of the night now. What reply should you give?
Another point is that some people say it is the latter part of the night all the time (somewhere on the earth at a particular point in time) From this they conclude that Allah is not above His Arsh.
Answer
Praise be to Allah.
Firstly, we have to know the ‘aqeedah (belief) of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah concerning the names and attributes of Allah. The belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah is to affirm the names and attributes which Allah has affirmed for Himself, without distorting or denying them, discussing how they are or likening them to anything else. They believe that which Allah has commanded them to believe, for Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer”
[Qur’an 42:11]
Allah has told us about Himself. He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Indeed, your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and then He rose over (Istawaa) the Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty).
Prima Qur’an comments: “The Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty)…” So now they are going to say no one knows how but then use the word ‘really’. Interesting.
[Qur’an 7:54]
“The Most Gracious (Allah) rose over (Istawaa) the (Mighty) Throne (in a manner that suits His Majesty).
[Qur’an 20:5]
and there are other ayats which mention that Allah rose over His Throne.
The rising of Allah over His Throne, which means that He Himself is High and above the Throne, is of a special nature which befits His Majesty and Might. No one knows how it is except Him.
This was proven in the saheeh Sunnah, where it is narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that Allaah descends during the last third of the night. It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Our Lord descends every night to the lowest heaven when the last third of the night remains, and He says, ‘Who will call Me that I might answer him, who will ask of Me that I might give him, who will ask My forgiveness, that I might forgive him?’” (narrated by al-Bukhaari, Kitaab al-Tawheed, 6940; Muslim, Salaat al-Musaafireen, 1262)
According to Ahl al-Sunnah, the meaning of this descent is that Allaah Himself comes down to the lowest heaven in a real sense, as befits His Majesty, and no one knows how that is except Him.
Prima-Qur’ancomments: I thought that the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunnah according to the Hanbali, Salafi, and Athari is that no one knows how? So how are they saying tongue in cheek, “comes down to the lowest heaven in a real sense, as befits His Majesty.”
They continue:
“But does the fact that Allaah comes down means that He vacates the Throne or not? Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said concerning a similar question: we say that this question is based on unnecessary and excessive questioning and that the one who asked this is not to be thanked for his question. We ask, are you keener than the Sahaabah to understand the attributes of Allah? If he says yes, we tell him, you are lying. And if he says no, we tell him, then be content with what they were content with. They did not ask the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), ‘O Messenger of Allah, when He comes down, does He vacate the Throne?’ Why do you need to ask this question? Just say, He comes down. Whether or not the Throne is vacated is not your business. You are commanded to believe the reports, especially concerning the essence of Allah and His attributes, for this matter is above rational thought.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: I have read many of Shaykh ‘Uthaymeen’s legal verdicts and this is as close to ‘Shut the hell up‘ as I have ever seen the Shaykh get. The whole of his response is about intimidation and shutting down the inquiry of the questioner.
They continue:
Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh Muhammad al-‘Uthaymeen, 1/204-205
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said concerning this matter:
“The correct view is that He descends and that He does not vacate the Throne. A person’s soul remains attached to his body night and day until he dies, but when he is asleep it ascends… It was said, night varies, and the last third of the night comes sooner in the east than in the west, so the descent of Allaah to the lowest heaven, of which His Messenger spoke, happens in the east first and then in the west…”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Whoa there Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah! Hold your horses! Are you now likening the descent/ascent of Allah (swt) to a human soul leaving the body? Furthermore are you saying that Allah (swt) has division with him self? A part of him that travels and a part of him that remains? By saying that Allah (swt) does not ‘vacate‘ the throne you are in fact establishing a ‘how’ for Allah swt! Authubillah min dhalik! Or if the Shaykh is suggesting that by his comparison to human beings that Allah (swt) can be in two places at the same time than my initial response to the brother that questioned me is not wrong at all!
They continue:
See Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn Taymiyah, 5/132
Rising over (istiwaa’) and descending are two of the practical attributes which have to do with the will of Allaah. Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah believe in that, but in this belief they avoid likening Allaah to any of His creation or discussing how He is. It cannot occur to them that Allaah’s descending is like the descending of any of His creatures or that His rising over the Throne is like the rising over of any of His creatures, because they believe that there is nothing like unto Allaah and He is the All-Hearer, All-Seer. They know on rational grounds that there is a great difference between the Creator and His creatures, in their essence, attributes and actions. It cannot occur to them to ask how He descends, or how He rose over His Throne. The point is that they do not ask how His attributes are; they believe that there is a ‘how’, but it is unknown, so we can never imagine how it is.
Prima Qur’an comments: Respected Shaykh Taymiyah you said, ‘we can never imagine how it is’ and yet you also say in the paragraph above, A person’s soul remains attached to his body night and day until he dies, but when he is asleep it ascends.
“We know for certain that what is narrated in the Book of Allaah or the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is true and is not self-contradictory, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Do they not then consider the Qur’aan carefully? Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely, have found therein many a contradiction”
[Qur’an 4:82]
Prima Qur’an comments: Well, you see 4:82 actually is a reference to the Qur’an. It is not a reference to hadith, sunnah, fiqh, ijtihad of imams, or anything else. How you lump the sunnah in with the Qur’an is anyone’s guess.
He continues:
“Because contradictions in the reports would mean that some of them were showing others to be false, and this is impossible in the case of that which Allaah and His Messenger tell us.
Whoever imagines that there are any contradictions in the Book of Allaah or the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or between the two, it is either because of his lack of knowledge or because he has failed to understand properly or to ponder the matter correctly, so let him seek further knowledge and strive to think harder until the truth becomes clear to him. Then if the matter is still not clear to him, let him leave it to the One Who is All-Knowing and let him put a stop to his illusions and say, as those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say, “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:7 – interpretation of the meaning]. Let him know that there is no contradiction in the Qur’aan and Sunnah and no conflict between them. And Allaah knows best.”
Prima Qur’an comments: Well, you see 3:7 actually is a reference to the Qur’an. It is not a reference to hadith, sunnah, fiqh, ijtihad of imams, or anything else. How you lump the sunnah in with the Qur’an is anyone’s guess.
He continues:
“See Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 3/237-238
Imagining that there is a conflict between Allaah’s descending to the lowest heaven and His having risen over the Throne and His being high above the heavens stems from making a comparison between the Creator and the created being. For man cannot imagine the unseen things of His creation, such as the delights of Paradise, so how can he imagine the Creator, may He be glorified and exalted, the Knower of the Unseen. So we believe in what has been narrated of His rising over (the Throne), His descending and His being High and Exalted. We affirm that (and state that it is) in a manner that befits His Majesty and Might.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: So there you have it. ‘Uthaymeen telling a person to shut up. Ibn Taymiyah basically resorted to blatant Tashbih and Tamthil. (Making resemblance and drawling parallels to) the creation.
Being accurate and circumspect in our beliefs. So the next time someone asks you, “Where is Allah?”’ in order to answer the question accurately one would need to ask the person back. “Do you believe Allah is the creator of all things?” “Do you believe Allah is the creator of space and time?”
Because apparently Allah (swt) is separate and distinct from his creation. Who said that? This website affirms that Imam Ahmad (r) said that.
“So Yoosuf bin Moosaa al-Qattaan, the Shaykh of Abu Bakr al-Khallaal, said: It was said to Abu Abdullah (Ahmad bin Hanbal): “Allaah is above the seventh heaven, over His Throne, separate and distinct (baa’in) from His creation, and His power and knowledge are in every place?” He said:
Yes, He is over His Throne, and nothing escapes His knowledge.”
If the answer is yes, you have to wonder if the throne is a creation or not. If the throne, space, and time are all creations you have to wonder at the question: “Where is Allah?” before the creation of the throne.
We also have this interesting verse. This has to be taken into consideration since some of our brothers from Ahl Sunnah say that Allah (swt) will “come in ranks with the angels.”
“So your Lord comes and also the angels in ranks..” (Qur’an 89:22)
“Lo! those who swear allegiance unto you (Muhammed), swear allegiance only unto Allah. The Hand of Allah is above their hands. So whoever breaks his oath, breaks it only to his soul’s hurt; while whoever keeps his covenant with Allah, on him will He bestow immense reward.” (Qur’an 48:10)
We also have to take into account this hadith:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet (saw) said, “The people will be thrown into the (Hell) Fire and it will say: “Are there any more (to come)?’ (50.30) till Allah puts His Foot over it and it will say, ‘Qati! Qati! (Enough Enough!)'”
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHERE IS ALLAH AND WHEN IS ALLAH?
So what does all this mean? Especially if it is admitted that Allah (swt) is separate and distinct from his creation?
It means that the true answer of an Athari, someone who takes the apparent meaning of a text, that the true answer to the question “Where is Allah?” is to respond by saying:
Allah is as he is before space/time. While also being over the throne, while also coming down in the third part of the night (depending upon the time) and coming with rows of his angels. Allah’s foot is on the hellfire. His hand is over their hands. All of that in a way that befits his majesty.
Because here is the point. I challenge anyone to show me where the Blessed Messenger (saw) or any of the companions disputed any of those points above?
Why is Allah (swt) being over the throne: The Default Answer to the Question-Where is Allah?
Why is ‘Allah being over the throne’ THE DEFAULT POSITION?
Again I challenge anyone to show me where the Blessed Messenger (saw) or the companions made ‘above the throne’ as the default position to the exclusion of the other text/positions? Thus, making everything else like ‘coming down’ or ‘existing as he was before creation’ or ‘coming in rows’ relational to that?
Because keep in mind the person is asking you, “Where is Allah?” They are not asking you, “When is Allah?” They are not asking you ‘Where is Allah now?” Because ‘now‘ does not apply to Allah (swt).
Who gave them the authority to make ‘the throne’ the default position? So yes, when someone asks, “Where is Allah?” You could reply, “London England” depending upon what time of day/night it is where you are.
Those who say that Allah (swt) is over the throne bi dhati (in essence) have made a reprehensible innovation because we have nothing reliably transmitted to us on this account.
This is the state of these people who want to police the beliefs of the Muslims and do actually approach people in the Masjid and ask random people, “Where is Allah?” With beliefs like this no wonder, they go around asking such a question, because it certainly seems they have lost their Lord. If only Allah (swt) was always in the dhirk of their minds and and in their hearts they would not need to ask this. They are searching for Allah (swt).
“Do they not consider the Qur’an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.” (Qur’an 4:82)
﷽
Now if I was to follow that particular aqidah view I would have to be at least be consistent with myself and consistent with the text of the Qur’an. So again we have nothing stating that x/y is the default place for Allah (swt).
The correct view if we are to take the verses as they and apply a consistent methodology would be to say that Allah (swt) exist in a set [4,0 & 0,4 & 3,4 & 4,3 & 3,5 & 5,3 etc.…]
We describe Him (swt) by what has been authenticated that he described himself with. And we affirm for Him (swt) what the Prophet (saw) has affirmed for Him in his authentic Sunnah. As for those that say that we affirm for Allah what He has affirmed for Himself. They wanted from that to believe in the literal text and pass it as it came. For example, when He (Allah)-Great and Glorious God says:
“The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established.” (Qur’an 20:5) For this ayat (verse) when taken literally implies that Allah has a position, and he is above the throne, he says like this. This is the literal meaning.
And when I discussed with one of them regarding this,. I asked him, “Do you always stick to the literal meaning?”
He said, “Yes I do stick to the literal always, I don’t differ nor do I alter.” I said, “Let’s agree to stick to the literal meaning and I will agree on this ruling till a certain time, but I hope that you’ll stick to it and don’t change your words. Now me and you have both agreed on the same madhab and the same opinion.
Which is to say: The affirmation and passing of the ayats (verses) like they came, and taking the literal meanings, and building the belief upon it. (the opinion).
“Good”, he said, “Good”. I said, “Then this ayat (verse), Allah affirms a position for himself which is above the throne {The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established.} But in another ayat(verse) Allah says, “Indeed, my Lord is on a path [that is] straight.” (Qur’an 11:56)
Is the straight path the same as the throne or a different thing? Without doubt it’s another place, then this is a 2nd position. And you must affirm the literal meaning.
In a third ayat, Our Lord, Great and Glorious God says: “There are not three in a private conversation but that He is the fourth of them, nor are there five but that He is the sixth of them-and no less than that and no more except that He is with them.” (Qur’an 58:7)
This is a third place, different from the throne and different from the straight path.
And in a fourth ayat (verse), He (Allah) Great and Glorious God says about his Prophet Musa (as) ”No! Indeed, with me is my Lord; He will guide me.” Qur’an 26:62 and Musa (as) was on the beach of the Red Sea when he said this.
And in a fifth ayat, Allah tells us about our Prophet (saw) that he said when he was in Ghar Thawr (a cave that Muhammed-saw hid in)
“Have no fear, for Allah is with us.” (Qur’an 9:40)
And Allah tells us about his Khalil (Friend), Ibrahim (as) that he said: “I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!” (Qur’an 37:99)
And he (Allah) Great and Glorious God says in another ayat (verse) “But there he finds Allah, Who settles his account in full.” (Qur’an 24:39)
And he says in another ayat (verse) He says: “There is no creature but that He holds it by its forelock.” (Qur’an 11:56)
And the Prophet (saw) says in his Sunnah “A slave becomes nearest to his Lord when he is in prostration.” Source: (https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:1428)
And he says as well mentioning about Allah “Did you not know that my servant so and so was ill and yet you did not visit him? Did you not know that if you had visited him you would have found me with him?” Source: (https://sunnah.com/muslim:2569)
“When any one of you prays, he must not spit in front of him, for Allah is in front of him when he is engaged in prayer.” Source: (https://sunnah.com/bukhari:416)
Which of these literal meanings will you take? Now I am following your madhab.
On the throne? Or on the straight path, or is he the fourth of the three or the sixth of the fifth or in Ghar Thour, or on the beach of the Red Sea or in or where? Or in the prostration position?
He said: “All of these are not taken literally except {The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established.}”
I said: “Then you broke your ruling.” “You broke your ruling.”
Anyhow, taking the literal meaning falsifies the fact that the source of the Qur’an is from Allah. It falsifies that, why?
Because Allah says, “Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly fund in it many inconsistencies.”(Qur’an 4:82) -and taking the literal meanings leads to that.
Sticking to the literal meaning leads to this inconsistency, because Allah Great and Glorious God affirms a hand for himself, and two hands, and affirms more than that..
{Allah’s hand is over theirs.}-Qur’an 48:10 {Rather, both his hands are extended}-Qur’an 5:64 {Do they not see that We have created for them from what Our hands have made, grazing livestock} –Qur’an 36:71
Which of these literal meanings will you take?
{sailing under Our ‘watchful’ Eyes} –Qur’an 54:14 { so that you would be brought up under My ‘watchful’ Eye.} –Qur’an 20:39 This is singular and that is plural, and lowest plural is 3 some say.
So, which of these literal meaning will you take? {they would have certainly found in it many inconsistencies.}
Taking the literal meaning is a ruling that is broken and false but actually rotten and sluggish. It’s not looked upon and not depended upon. And it’s throwed to the side of the walls. The same is in the sunnah as well.
Those that take the path of affirming the attributes by affirming and passing them like they came and took the literal meaning have contradicted this ruling of theirs and have heavily crushed it and they have left it crumbled and fragmented and have not left a peaceful (part) of it ever!
And there’s nothing which implies that as much as the act of some when he came to the hadith “Do not curse Time, for it is Allah Who is Time.” Is it not like this?
He said: “No this hadith is not taken by the literal meaning.” (For it is Allah Who is Time) Else its literal meaning implies the divinity of time! Does it not?
Also, “I become the hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his leg with which he walks.” -taking the literal meaning leads to the belief of divine indwelling, is that not the case?
“Verily, those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, the Most Beneficent (Allah) will bestow love for them (in the hearts of the believers).” (Qur’an 19:96)
﷽
Ibn Taymiyya al Harrani in his as–Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah when he comments about the above ayat in relation to Ali ibn Abi Talib that:
“Allah (swt) has told that He will place on the believers and those that preform good, love. And this is a true promise from him. Especially for the Caliphs Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar Ibn Al Khattab (ra) for the general amount of companions loved them and they were the best periods of Islam. Ali was not like that, as a large number of companions (sahabah) and followers (tab’ieen) hated him, cursed him and fought him.”
Source: (منهاج السنة النبوية في نقض كلام الشيعة والقدريةMinhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah fi Naqd Kalam al-Shi’a wa al-Qadariyyah)
The implication (though not explicitly stated by Ibn Taymiyya) was that Ali was not of those who worked deeds of righteousness.
Ibn Taymiyya continues:
“They love and venerate him, while Abu Bakr and Umar – may God be pleased with them – have been hated and cursed by the Rafidah (Rejectors), the Nusayriyyah, the Ghulat (Extremists), and the Ismailis. However, it is known that those who loved those two (1) are better and more numerous, and that those who hated them are further from Islam and fewer.”
“This contradicts the case of Ali, for those who hated and fought him are better than those who hated Abu Bakr and Umar. In fact, the faction of Uthman, who love him and hate Ali, even if they are innovators and wrongdoers, are more knowledgeable and religious than the faction of Ali who love him and hate Uthman, and they are greater in jihad and justice. Thus, it is clear that the affection mandated for the three [first Caliphs] is greater.”
“And if it is said: ‘Claims of divinity and prophethood have been made about Ali (2),’ it is replied: ‘All the Khawarij considered him a disbeliever and the Marwaniyyah hated him. And these are better than the Rafidah who curse Abu Bakr and Umar – may God be pleased with them – let alone the Extremists (3).'”
Source: [Chapter: The Thirteenth Proof “You are only a warner, and for every people there is a guide.”]
Prima Quran 