SubhaanAllah, at about 38:15 , that's exactly what I was thinking. When I heard these ayat as a convert, in the English language, it was the overall meaning of the ayat that moved you. As new Muslims no one reflects on the sifat and starts question or being overly cautious, they just take it as is and are effected and moved by it's meaning.
Just wanted to say whoever did the edits with the summary at the bottom did an amazing job! May Allah reward them. Also it’s such a beautiful discussion that rarely happens on this topic from two different schools of thoughts in terms of Aqa’id. May Allah reward both ustaadhs.
Great discussion, it's past time to end the sectarianism with different schools of aqeeda. Inshallah Dr. Hatem's approach to the Athari creed can be picked up by the popular Salafi movement that has a much different and divisive approach than his.
Two scholars I have so much respect for. Not only for their knowledge but for especially for their humility and their intention and effort in keeping the ummah united. May Allah swt accept. May Allah swt guide us to the understanding most pleasing to Him and increase us all in nearness to Him ameen. May Allah swt preserve all our scholars and their families 🤲🏻
Dhaahir refers to what is apparent and does not neccessarily refer to what is 'literal'. When we say 'literal', this is where the problem lies because the tendency is to think of what you and I mean in everyday English speech i.e. the physical human entity or action. However, we all know: "...There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer." (Ash-Shura, 42:11). Atharis affirm the apparent (not literal) meanings of the names and attributes of Allah(S.W.T), without describing the modality i.e. how they are like (bi laa kayf). Example of Tashbih would be saying that the yad of Allah is like the yad of fulan. If we translate dhaahir as 'literal', what follows is the other way of saying it i.e. the yad of Allah is (literally) like the yad of fulan. These 2 statements are NOT what Atharis mean when they affirm the ayaat of sifaat and it would be unjust to insinuate as such. At the same time, Atharis do not say that these attributes are merely metaphorical and therefore mean something else, OR have no meanings. This is because Allah S.W.T is Most Knowledgeable of Himself and therefore He is the best at describing Himself. The Quran is in plain/clear Arabic, not English. Atharis affirm the apparent meanings without delving any further - the aql is limited.
That sounds like a contradiction to me. The apparent meaning of hand is a limb or something that is a part of a whole (like hand of a clock), so then the taking the apparent, takes us into the realm of tajsim. How do you make sense of this?
@@justneedlife2001 Actually, the answer lies in your question. 1)Are you able to point out the biceps or triceps in the 'hand' of the clock? What about its palm or fingers? 2) The clock has a 'face' too. Are you able to point out its nose, or cheek bones or lips? I'm presuming you will say there is no equivalence for 1) or 2) respectively. Remember that this is us human beings comparing things within the creation, and already there is no equivalence; so what more if we were to compare: the creation to Allah (S.W.T), the Creator? - Certainly, there is NO similitude for Him (S.W.T). The point here is that we are using the same words such as 'face' and 'hand' for 2 different entities i.e. humans and clocks, each with very different REALITIES respectively. The EXACT REALITY of Allah's attributes of 'yad', 'wajh' etc are unknown to us, although the same words are used by Allah (S.W.T) to describe Himself in the Quran and Hadeeth. Hence, if there is an immediate tendency to explain the ayaah of sifaat metaphorically when one comes across them, it is likely because implicitly one has committed tashbeeh in his mind. For example, 'yad' should not denote a limb or what we understand in a corporeal sense i.e. hand in the flesh and blood. This should NOT be the case because as explained above, the exact reality of Allah's attributes are unlike that of the creation. Additionally, do we not agree that 'seeing' and 'hearing' are actions of the creation as well? However, with regards to Allah seeing and hearing us, we are able to (quite easily) affirm them whilst NOT likening these actions to that of creation. I mean, we simply do not attempt to imagine how this (seeing and hearing of Allah) is done; is the seeing done with the eye's retina, cornea etc OR if for hearing, is it via the ear canal and eardrums etc? If we were to think as such, this would clearly entail likening Allah to creation, resulting in tajsim. Consequently, we would therefore have to deny Allah the attribute of seeing and hearing, and this is simply impossible! The point here once again is that the exact reality of how Allah sees and hears is unknown to us, but we can't say that Allah seeing us and hearing us are just metaphorical only. So, just as His attributes of seeing and hearing are real (not metaphorical), the same applies to His attributes of 'yad', 'wajh' etc. Hence, the verse: ...There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer (42:11) In sum, 1)we affirm all the sifaat(attributes) of Allah (S.W.T) as he affirmed for Himself in the Qur'an and saheeh hadeeth. 2)we say the attributes of Allah are in a way befitting of his perfection and majesty(كما يليق بجلاله), and we do not liken them to creation. In-shaa Allah, akhi Muhammad Ahmad, you will see there is no contradiction. There is just a need to adopt a certain method in understanding.
@@ashah4034 but there is an equivalence. The hand of the clock and the hand of the human do not have 2 distinct realities. They are not the same, but they absolutely do have similarities. They both have color, texture, length, height, depth. Those are all “how’s” if you will. That’s why the Ashaira say that Allah doesn’t have a kayf as opposed to saying we don’t know the kayf. Kayf is a comparative word. For example, I have a phone and you have a phone. All I know is that what we both have are phones. I know the exact reality of my phone (for example it’s an iPhone) but I don’t know the exact reality of your phone(maybe it’s a Samsung, maybe another android).But FOR SURE, to be a phone, it has to have a screen, and a battery, and other specifications. That’s the issue with saying “we don’t know the how”. Because it negates being the same, but doesn’t negate being similar.
@@ashah4034 Also, with regards to seeing and hearing, those are nouns that are meanings. They are abstract as opposed to concrete. For example, if I were to ask you to draw a hand, you could do it for me easily. But if I were to say draw sight, you wouldn’t be able to. That’s because it’s a meaning; it refers to our experience.
Dr Hatem: We don’t affirm or deny direction/space for Allah. Dr Shadee: Would that not allow for Allah existing in creation? Space is in creation, so how can He be in it? Dr Hatem: We are saying He is not inside His Creation. Dr Shadee: But that’s a negation of spacial existence/direction. 👌🏼
@@anokata9929 this is not to be taken in the sense of direction but in the sense of Exaltation. We accept the verses from the Quran and the statements of the Prophet [peace be upon him] how they were intended and we leave the meaning of them to Allāh. This is why it’s important to understand the verses and act on how Ulema of the past spoke about them. They negated Allāh being in a literal direction. They also negated place and movement for Allāh. We already have statements of the ulema of the past so modern day interpretations of Allāh being confined to a location/direction/place are not to be accepted. Ibn In al-Jawzi-may Allah ta’Ala have mercy upon him-said: "whoever says 'He rose with His Essence' has made Him [Allah) the object of sense perception." [Dafa Shubh al-Tashbih, p. 102.] Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi said in his book Al- Uluw, after citing the statement of Yahya b. 'Ammar: "Nay, we say that He is, with His Essence, above the Throne and His knowledge encompasses everything": "Your statement with His Essence is from your own bag"' [Al ‘Uluw p263] imam Badr al-Din b. Jama'a- may Allah have mercy upon him- said: Whoever believes that the [ISTAWA] with respect to Him [Allah], the Exalted, is understood like the qualities of the contingent beings and says: "He rose with His Essence" or says: "He rose in reality [haqiqatan]," then he has innovated this extraneous expression that is neither affirmed in the Sunna nor reported from any of the Imams that are followed. [īdah -al Dalīl p107] Imam ibn' Abd al-Barr - may Allah have mercy upon him-said "And a group ascribed to the sunna said that He, the Exalted descends with His Essence! This statement is rejected, because He, Exalted is His mention, is not a locus for movement and He has nothing from the signs (characteristics) of the creation." [Al-Istidhkar, 8:153] He also said in his refutation against someone who said that “ He descends with His Essence” "This is rejected Llaysa bi-shayin] according to the people of understanding among Ahl al-Sunna because it is a modality [kayfiyya], and they flee from that because it is only suitable for something that is directly encompassed, and Allah, the Exalted, is transcendent above that. [Al-Tamhid,7:143.] Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib رضي الله عنه is reported to have said , كان- الله- ولا مكان، وهو الان على ما- عليه- كان , “Allah was without place, and He is now as He was [then].” ((الفرق بين الفرق لأبي منصور البغدادي [ ص / 333 ] )) Imam Ahmad Ibn Salamah, Abu Ja^far at-Tahawiyy, who was born in the year 237 after Hijrah, wrote a very famous book called al-^Aqidah at-Tahawiyyah. He mentioned that the content of his book is an explantion of the creed of Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama^ah, which is the creed of Imam Abu Hanifah, who died in the year 150 after Hijrah, and his two companions, Imam Abu Yusuf al-Qadi and Imam Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybaniyy and others. He said in his book: قال الإمامُ أَبو جَعْفَرِ الطَّحَاوِىُّ السَّلَفىُّ: "تَعَالى عن الحُدُودِ والغَاياتِ والأَركانِ والأَعضَاء والأَدَوَاتِ. لا تَحوِيهِ الجِهَاتُ السّتُّ كَسَائِرِ المُبْتَدَعَاتِ". which means: > Such is the saying of Imam Abu Ja^far who is among the heads of Salaf. Abu Ja^far explicitly stated that Allah is clear of being contained by the six directions. The six directions are above, below, ahead, behind, right, and left. Qadi Abu Ya’la al-Hanbali says, “Indeed, Allah Most High is not to be described with [residing in a] place.” (Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih, P: 43) Also the great Mufassir Ibn al-Jawziy al-Hanbaliy said in his book "Daf^ Shubah at-Tashbih" page 58: "The obligation upon us is to believe that the self of Allah ta^ala is not contained in a place, and He is not attributed with change nor movement". - And Ibn al-Jawziy also said: "Some people lied when they heard about the Sifat (attributes of Allah) and interpreted them according to the physical meanings, such as those who claimed that Allah literally descends from the sky and moves from one place to another. This is an ill understanding, because the one who moves would be from a place to a place, and that necessitates that the place is bigger than him and that requires movement, and all of that is impossible to be attributed to Allah the Exalted".
@@ReturningRuh It doesn't make any sense. There is no proof at all to take the meaning out of the word. The Salafs never did that. This an assumption. There are thousands of Hadiths that proofs Allah is above us. Do you want to take the Ma'na of 1000+ Hadiths or what? Couldn't our messenger spread the Message in clear arabic? Couldn't Allah spread his message in clear arabic? It's a very dangerous belief and it's playing with Allahs words, just because your Aql can't accept it. That's why Sheikh Ibnul Mubarik rh. said that people started to prefere the Aql over the Naql and that's one of the reason we have now sects. Also Ibn Jawzi is not Hujjah for Islam. I can name you people like Imam Barbarhari who strictly followed Imam Ahmad and was even his companion. He wrote Sharh as Sunnah and the true belief of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'ah.
@@anokata9929 you keep going around a circle in faulty understanding. Same typical argument used by Salafis. Your interpretation of Quran and Ahadith is not a Hujjah. Your interpretation of Barbahari is not a Hujjah. just because “Above” is used it’s ijma that it doesn’t mean directionality. You won’t ever find a quote from the salaf saying so. This is why when you gather all the Ulema of Ahlus Sunnah and your Aqeedah on another scale then you find your scale to be nothing in comparison. Your salafi teachers deceived you by bringing quotes from Quran, Ahadith, and ulema and adding their own interpretations to make you believe in a faulty Aqeedah. If it’s easy for some to bring forth quotes and twist them with interpretations of falsehood then imagine the Dajjal.
Shaykh, Are you going to respond to MALM regarding the issue of Isa AS (and Ibn Ashur) ? I am sure he would be willing to have a dialouge with You on mindtrap.
What does he mean "tHe eArLy aSchArIs" we never changed just because someone allowed Tawil there is no other approach of the whole Theological school we do Tafweed al Manaa.
Tafweed al Manaa was invented many years after the prophet and the golden generation. The prophet, the sahaba, tabi, tabi'i and the 4 a'imma confirmed the attributes and the meaning
@@OnkelKurac 😂 Then why our prophet described the Hands of Allah, when nobody knows the meaning? How can our prophet describe something, when he doesn't know the meaning? You guys have same Aqeedah like the Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila
The prophet and the 3 generation after him never used Kalam. Same with the 4 A'imma (Imam Ahmad, Shafii, Malik, Hanafi). They never used Kalam. Our deen is for everyone, even for laymans. A easy understanding Aqeedah for everyone, without greece influences of philosophy. That's why the slave girl passed the Aqeedah "exam" in front of the best teachers, our prophet mohammed. Also the 4 A'imma spoke bad about Ilm-ul-Kalam and clearly warned against it. They clearly refuted the Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila. Both of them didn't believe that Allah is above the 7 heavens, above his throne in his majestic way. Both believed that Allah doesnt have a hand in his majestic way which befits his majesty. The 4 a'imma clearly refuted them. The Ashariah share similiar beliefs with the Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila as you can see.
Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) requested that she be brought, and then asked her, "Where is Allah?" and she said, "In the sky (Fi al-sama)"; whereupon he asked her, "Who am I?" and she said, "You are the Messenger of Allah"; at which he said, Free her, "for she is a believer" (Sahih Muslim, 5 vols. Cairo 1376/1956. Reprint. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1403/1983, 1.382: 538). Imam Nawawi says of this hadith: This is one of the "hadiths of the attributes," about which scholars have two positions. The first is to have faith in it without discussing its meaning, while believing of Allah Most High that "there is nothing whatsoever like unto Him" (Qur'an 42:11), and that He is exalted above having any of the attributes of His creatures. The second is to figuratively explain it in a fitting way, scholars who hold this position adducing that the point of the hadith was to test the slave girl: Was she a monotheist, who affirmed that the Creator, the Disposer, the Doer, is Allah alone and that He is the one called upon when a person making supplication (du'a) faces the sky--just as those performing the prayer (salat) face the Kaaba, since the sky is the qibla of those who supplicate, as the Kaaba is the qibla of those who perform the prayer--or was she a worshipper of the idols which they placed in front of themselves? So when she said, In the sky, it was plain that she was not an idol worshipper (Sahih Muslim bi Sharh al-Nawawi. 18 vols. Cairo 1349/1930. Reprint (18 vols. in 9). Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1401/1981, 5.24). Imam al-Qurtubi, the famous Qur'anic exegete of the seventh/thirteenth century, says: The hadiths on this subject are numerous, rigorously authenticated (sahih), and widely known, and indicate the exaltedness of Allah, being undeniable by anyone except an atheist or obstinate ignoramus. Their meaning is to dignify Allah and exalt Him above all that is base and low, to characterize Him by exaltedness and greatness, not by being in places, particular directions, or within limits, for these are the qualities of physical bodies (al-Jami li ahkam al-Qur'an. 20 vols. Cairo 1387/1967. Reprint (20 vols in 10). Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, n.d.,18.216).
al-Jawzi (d. 597/1201), who addressed his fellow Hanbalis in his Daf shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih [Rebuttal of the insinuations of anthropomorphism at the hands of divine transcendence] with the words: If you had said, "We but read the hadiths and remain silent," no one would have condemned you. What is shameful is that you interpret them literally. Do not surrreptiously introduce into the madhhab of this righteous, early Muslim man [Ahmad ibn Hanbal] that which is not of it. You have clothed this madhhab in shameful disgrace, until it can hardly be said "Hanbali" any more without saying anthropomorphist (Daf shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih. Cairo n.d. Reprint. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawfiqiyya, 1396/1976, 2829).
@@ReturningRuh Imam Nawawi did mistakes regarding the attributes of Allah. Same with Imam Hajr. As i said read Sharh as Sunnah of Imam Barbarhari, who was a companion of Imam Ahmad. He lived many many years before the people you quoted. 👍🏻
@@ReturningRuh The Hadith is clear as the Sun. The Prophet asked the slave girl "where is Allah"? Because it underlines the importance of Allahs attribute to be above everything. If the slavegirl would've make a mistake, our prophet would've corrected her. However he even said she has Iman! Allahu Akbar! A slave girl passed the Aqeedah Test in front of the best Teacher, rasulAllah! The funny thing is, that this slave girl would've been called Mujassima or Kafir by Ahlul Kalam. What a irony. The Hadith is so clear and there is no room for interpretation left. We take it as it is. Allah is above the heavens, alhamdullilah. :)
@@anokata9929 you say he made mistakes but that’s your interpretation. If you say he made mistakes in the attributes of Allāh then you would have to consider him a deviant due to his Aqeedah. All of a sudden we have someone from 1443 AH calling an Alim of the past mistaken on the basis of your faulty understanding of Ayahs and Ahadith and Quotes of the Salaf. You think that Imam Nawawi and the other ulema of Ahlus Sunnah didnt know about Barbahari? All of a sudden you’re the only one who knows about Barbahari. I’d rather follow the ulema and their understanding than your understanding.
Disappointing clip....It started off well with both sides responding politely but also frankly outlining their nuanced differences. However, when it came to the issue of negating directionality and space for Allah, Dr. Hatem clearly outlined his position (similar to IT) that he would not negate those things. However, Dr. Shadee fell short of being clear and categorical there on whether he considers Dr. Hatem's silence on the matter as something that falls under the accepted form of difference of opinion within the Ahl al Sunnah. This is important because there hasn't been any Ash'ari till date that has considered it not necessary to negate the above two things. This discussion fell short of clearly outlining both sides of the opinion on the matter and if the intention was to not discuss the differences then there was no need to even start talking about it.
Because Ashari and Maturidi theologies are not the only two schools in Ahl Sunna. The original Hanbali creed is also accepted. And their position on mutashabihaat is to recite them and not comment on them.
Thank you for considering my comment as worth engaging. May be, you can elaborate more on the point that you're making. If my understanding is correct, there is a difference between the Hanbali/Athari creed and the Salafi creed. 1) Hanbali/Athari creed: Reciting the mutashibat and affirming them whilst NEGATING the dhahir. For instance, they affirm istawa but also add that it doesn't means that Allah is literally (with His essence) over the Throne. They negate direction and space for the Dhaat of Allah. Their madhhab is Tafwid whilst negating anything that necessitates tajsim. 2) Salafi Taymi paradigm: Allah exists in the upward direction and literally descends down. As for jism, there are different approaches: some stay silent while others negate. Their madhhab is often either affirming things that are tajsim or taking a non-committal stance on things that lead to tajsim. Dr. Hatem clearly says that he takes a non-commital position on attributing movement, directionality and spatial located-ness to Allah. This is like taking a non-commital stance to something that leads to kufr according to Asharis. So, I fail to understand how Dr. Hatem's stance can be categorised as something that Asharis would consider within the scope of Ahl al Sunnah despite disagreeing with it. My point was that Dr. Shadee failed to clearly outline that Dr. Hatem's view is heresy according to the Asharis.
@@abumuawiyah2283 The Hanbali creed which Ash'aris accept is that which involves tanzih. This is the only stipulation. The tanzih. Hence they say Munazzihat al-Hanabila.
@@SafinaSociety What does affirming Tanzih mean according to both camps? There is no one- Salafi Taymi or Hanbali- who'd not affirm that Allah is unlike His creation. The problem arises in the qualification of what both parties understand from that statement. Not dwelling into matters of Kalam or speculative theology is not same as saying that I take a non-comittal stance on whether Allah can be attributed with a Jism or directionality. I am willing to stand corrected so could you please share some evidence from the Ashari camp that they accept someone taking a non-committal stance on above matters- directionality, spatial located-ness etc.? You can take your time but I'd appreciate if you can help me with some evidence because what you are saying is not the narrative that I have heard about the 'accepted Hanbalis' from the Ashari perspective but I am willing to learn.
Anokata nope not even near he had the Aqidah of Abu Hanifa the Same had Imam Maturidi show me one difference between imam Maturidi imam Tahawi and Imam Abu Hanifa ya jahil nobody had ur Wahhabi mujassim Aqidah
@@OnkelKurac Abu Hanifa made Takfir on those who denied that Allah is above the throne. Stop talking rubbish. You guys are closer to the Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila. Literally use the same Kalam and same arguments regarding the attributes of Allah like them. Abu Hanifa, Imam Ahmad, Imam Shafii and Imam Malik, all four of them spoke against Ilm-Ul-Kalam and refused to accept it. Enjoy your greece philsophy Aqeedah. Ahlul Socrates member
SubhaanAllah, at about 38:15 , that's exactly what I was thinking. When I heard these ayat as a convert, in the English language, it was the overall meaning of the ayat that moved you. As new Muslims no one reflects on the sifat and starts question or being overly cautious, they just take it as is and are effected and moved by it's meaning.
Just wanted to say whoever did the edits with the summary at the bottom did an amazing job! May Allah reward them.
Also it’s such a beautiful discussion that rarely happens on this topic from two different schools of thoughts in terms of Aqa’id. May Allah reward both ustaadhs.
Great discussion, it's past time to end the sectarianism with different schools of aqeeda. Inshallah Dr. Hatem's approach to the Athari creed can be picked up by the popular Salafi movement that has a much different and divisive approach than his.
Two scholars I have so much respect for. Not only for their knowledge but for especially for their humility and their intention and effort in keeping the ummah united. May Allah swt accept. May Allah swt guide us to the understanding most pleasing to Him and increase us all in nearness to Him ameen. May Allah swt preserve all our scholars and their families 🤲🏻
Alhamdulillah! Answered all my questions that I have . Jazakallah Khair! May Allah bless our shaykhs
Dhaahir refers to what is apparent and does not neccessarily refer to what is 'literal'.
When we say 'literal', this is where the problem lies because the tendency is to think of what you and I mean in everyday English speech i.e. the physical human entity or action. However, we all know: "...There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer." (Ash-Shura, 42:11).
Atharis affirm the apparent (not literal) meanings of the names and attributes of Allah(S.W.T), without describing the modality i.e. how they are like (bi laa kayf).
Example of Tashbih would be saying that the yad of Allah is like the yad of fulan.
If we translate dhaahir as 'literal', what follows is the other way of saying it i.e. the yad of Allah is (literally) like the yad of fulan.
These 2 statements are NOT what Atharis mean when they affirm the ayaat of sifaat and it would be unjust to insinuate as such.
At the same time, Atharis do not say that these attributes are merely metaphorical and therefore mean something else, OR have no meanings.
This is because Allah S.W.T is Most Knowledgeable of Himself and therefore He is the best at describing Himself. The Quran is in plain/clear Arabic, not English.
Atharis affirm the apparent meanings without delving any further - the aql is limited.
That sounds like a contradiction to me. The apparent meaning of hand is a limb or something that is a part of a whole (like hand of a clock), so then the taking the apparent, takes us into the realm of tajsim. How do you make sense of this?
@@justneedlife2001
Actually, the answer lies in your question.
1)Are you able to point out the biceps or triceps in the 'hand' of the clock? What about its palm or fingers?
2) The clock has a 'face' too. Are you able to point out its nose, or cheek bones or lips?
I'm presuming you will say there is no equivalence for 1) or 2) respectively.
Remember that this is us human beings comparing things within the creation, and already there is no equivalence; so what more if we were to compare: the creation to Allah (S.W.T), the Creator? - Certainly, there is NO similitude for Him (S.W.T).
The point here is that we are using the same words such as 'face' and 'hand' for 2 different entities i.e. humans and clocks, each with very different REALITIES respectively.
The EXACT REALITY of Allah's attributes of 'yad', 'wajh' etc are unknown to us, although the same words are used by Allah (S.W.T) to describe Himself in the Quran and Hadeeth.
Hence, if there is an immediate tendency to explain the ayaah of sifaat metaphorically when one comes across them, it is likely because implicitly one has committed tashbeeh in his mind.
For example, 'yad' should not denote a limb or what we understand in a corporeal sense i.e. hand in the flesh and blood. This should NOT be the case because as explained above, the exact reality of Allah's attributes are unlike that of the creation.
Additionally, do we not agree that 'seeing' and 'hearing' are actions of the creation as well?
However, with regards to Allah seeing and hearing us, we are able to (quite easily) affirm them whilst NOT likening these actions to that of creation. I mean, we simply do not attempt to imagine how this (seeing and hearing of Allah) is done; is the seeing done with the eye's retina, cornea etc OR if for hearing, is it via the ear canal and eardrums etc? If we were to think as such, this would clearly entail likening Allah to creation, resulting in tajsim. Consequently, we would therefore have to deny Allah the attribute of seeing and hearing, and this is simply impossible!
The point here once again is that the exact reality of how Allah sees and hears is unknown to us, but we can't say that Allah seeing us and hearing us are just metaphorical only. So, just as His attributes of seeing and hearing are real (not metaphorical), the same applies to His attributes of 'yad', 'wajh' etc. Hence, the verse:
...There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer (42:11)
In sum,
1)we affirm all the sifaat(attributes) of Allah (S.W.T) as he affirmed for Himself in the Qur'an and saheeh hadeeth.
2)we say the attributes of Allah are in a way befitting of his perfection and majesty(كما يليق بجلاله), and we do not liken them to creation.
In-shaa Allah, akhi Muhammad Ahmad, you will see there is no contradiction. There is just a need to adopt a certain method in understanding.
@@ashah4034 MashaAllah, Nice Explanation.
@@ashah4034 but there is an equivalence. The hand of the clock and the hand of the human do not have 2 distinct realities. They are not the same, but they absolutely do have similarities. They both have color, texture, length, height, depth. Those are all “how’s” if you will. That’s why the Ashaira say that Allah doesn’t have a kayf as opposed to saying we don’t know the kayf. Kayf is a comparative word. For example, I have a phone and you have a phone. All I know is that what we both have are phones. I know the exact reality of my phone (for example it’s an iPhone) but I don’t know the exact reality of your phone(maybe it’s a Samsung, maybe another android).But FOR SURE, to be a phone, it has to have a screen, and a battery, and other specifications. That’s the issue with saying “we don’t know the how”. Because it negates being the same, but doesn’t negate being similar.
@@ashah4034 Also, with regards to seeing and hearing, those are nouns that are meanings. They are abstract as opposed to concrete. For example, if I were to ask you to draw a hand, you could do it for me easily. But if I were to say draw sight, you wouldn’t be able to. That’s because it’s a meaning; it refers to our experience.
Fruitful discussion. Barakallahu feekuma.
Dr Hatem: We don’t affirm or deny direction/space for Allah.
Dr Shadee: Would that not allow for Allah existing in creation? Space is in creation, so how can He be in it?
Dr Hatem: We are saying He is not inside His Creation.
Dr Shadee: But that’s a negation of spacial existence/direction. 👌🏼
Did this guy refuse to deny direction to Allah
Allah is above everything, above the 7 heavens and above the throne as the Quran and many hadiths states. Quran and Hadith > Aql
@@anokata9929 this is not to be taken in the sense of direction but in the sense of Exaltation.
We accept the verses from the Quran and the statements of the Prophet [peace be upon him] how they were intended and we leave the meaning of them to Allāh. This is why it’s important to understand the verses and act on how Ulema of the past spoke about them. They negated Allāh being in a literal direction. They also negated place and movement for Allāh. We already have statements of the ulema of the past so modern day interpretations of Allāh being confined to a location/direction/place are not to be accepted.
Ibn In al-Jawzi-may
Allah ta’Ala have mercy upon him-said:
"whoever says 'He rose with His Essence' has made Him [Allah) the object of sense perception."
[Dafa Shubh al-Tashbih, p. 102.]
Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi said in his book Al- Uluw, after citing the
statement of Yahya b. 'Ammar:
"Nay, we say that He is, with His
Essence, above the Throne and His knowledge encompasses everything":
"Your statement with His Essence
is from your own bag"'
[Al ‘Uluw p263]
imam Badr al-Din b. Jama'a- may Allah have mercy upon him-
said:
Whoever believes that the [ISTAWA] with respect to Him [Allah], the Exalted, is understood like the qualities of the contingent beings and says: "He rose with His
Essence" or says: "He rose in reality [haqiqatan]," then he has innovated this extraneous expression that is neither
affirmed in the Sunna nor reported from any of the Imams that are followed.
[īdah -al Dalīl p107]
Imam ibn' Abd al-Barr - may Allah have mercy upon him-said
"And a group ascribed to the sunna said that He, the Exalted descends with His Essence! This statement is rejected, because He, Exalted is His mention, is not a locus for movement and He
has nothing from the signs (characteristics) of the creation."
[Al-Istidhkar, 8:153]
He also said in his refutation against someone who said that “ He
descends with His Essence”
"This is rejected Llaysa bi-shayin]
according to the people of understanding among Ahl al-Sunna because it is a modality [kayfiyya], and they flee from that because
it is only suitable for something that is directly encompassed, and Allah, the Exalted, is transcendent above that.
[Al-Tamhid,7:143.]
Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib رضي الله عنه is reported to have said
,
كان- الله- ولا مكان، وهو الان على ما- عليه- كان
,
“Allah was without place, and He is now as He was [then].” ((الفرق بين الفرق لأبي منصور البغدادي [ ص / 333 ] ))
Imam Ahmad Ibn Salamah, Abu Ja^far at-Tahawiyy, who was born in the year 237 after Hijrah, wrote a very famous book called al-^Aqidah at-Tahawiyyah. He mentioned that the content of his book is an explantion of the creed of Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama^ah, which is the creed of Imam Abu Hanifah, who died in the year 150 after Hijrah, and his two companions, Imam Abu Yusuf al-Qadi and Imam Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybaniyy and others. He said in his book:
قال الإمامُ أَبو جَعْفَرِ الطَّحَاوِىُّ السَّلَفىُّ: "تَعَالى عن الحُدُودِ والغَاياتِ والأَركانِ والأَعضَاء والأَدَوَاتِ. لا تَحوِيهِ الجِهَاتُ السّتُّ كَسَائِرِ المُبْتَدَعَاتِ".
which means: > Such is the saying of Imam Abu Ja^far who is among the heads of Salaf. Abu Ja^far explicitly stated that Allah is clear of being contained by the six directions. The six directions are above, below, ahead, behind, right, and left.
Qadi Abu Ya’la al-Hanbali says, “Indeed, Allah Most High is not to be described with [residing in a] place.” (Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih, P: 43)
Also the great Mufassir Ibn al-Jawziy al-Hanbaliy said in his book "Daf^ Shubah at-Tashbih" page 58: "The obligation upon us is to believe that the self of Allah ta^ala is not contained in a place, and He is not attributed with change nor movement".
- And Ibn al-Jawziy also said: "Some people lied when they heard about the Sifat (attributes of Allah) and interpreted them according to the physical meanings, such as those who claimed that Allah literally descends from the sky and moves from one place to another. This is an ill understanding, because the one who moves would be from a place to a place, and that necessitates that the place is bigger than him and that requires movement, and all of that is impossible to be attributed to Allah the Exalted".
@@ReturningRuh It doesn't make any sense. There is no proof at all to take the meaning out of the word. The Salafs never did that. This an assumption. There are thousands of Hadiths that proofs Allah is above us. Do you want to take the Ma'na of 1000+ Hadiths or what? Couldn't our messenger spread the Message in clear arabic? Couldn't Allah spread his message in clear arabic? It's a very dangerous belief and it's playing with Allahs words, just because your Aql can't accept it. That's why Sheikh Ibnul Mubarik rh. said that people started to prefere the Aql over the Naql and that's one of the reason we have now sects. Also Ibn Jawzi is not Hujjah for Islam. I can name you people like Imam Barbarhari who strictly followed Imam Ahmad and was even his companion. He wrote Sharh as Sunnah and the true belief of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'ah.
@@anokata9929 you keep going around a circle in faulty understanding. Same typical argument used by Salafis. Your interpretation of Quran and Ahadith is not a Hujjah. Your interpretation of Barbahari is not a Hujjah. just because “Above” is used it’s ijma that it doesn’t mean directionality. You won’t ever find a quote from the salaf saying so. This is why when you gather all the Ulema of Ahlus Sunnah and your Aqeedah on another scale then you find your scale to be nothing in comparison. Your salafi teachers deceived you by bringing quotes from Quran, Ahadith, and ulema and adding their own interpretations to make you believe in a faulty Aqeedah. If it’s easy for some to bring forth quotes and twist them with interpretations of falsehood then imagine the Dajjal.
Can you do this kind of series with the other 3 madhabs too ?
Shaykh, Are you going to respond to MALM regarding the issue of Isa AS (and Ibn Ashur) ?
I am sure he would be willing to have a dialouge with You on mindtrap.
What does he mean "tHe eArLy aSchArIs" we never changed just because someone allowed Tawil there is no other approach of the whole Theological school we do Tafweed al Manaa.
Tafweed al Manaa was invented many years after the prophet and the golden generation. The prophet, the sahaba, tabi, tabi'i and the 4 a'imma confirmed the attributes and the meaning
Anokata nope jahil
@@OnkelKurac 😂 Then why our prophet described the Hands of Allah, when nobody knows the meaning? How can our prophet describe something, when he doesn't know the meaning? You guys have same Aqeedah like the Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila
Anokata read a sharh Maybe ya jahil who you think you Are read a Book and Stop listening to UA-cam preachers
@@OnkelKurac You are following Ilm-Ul-Kalam. Stop talking to me.
I need a link for the nasheed at the end😍😍😍😍😍😍
The prophet and the 3 generation after him never used Kalam. Same with the 4 A'imma (Imam Ahmad, Shafii, Malik, Hanafi). They never used Kalam. Our deen is for everyone, even for laymans. A easy understanding Aqeedah for everyone, without greece influences of philosophy. That's why the slave girl passed the Aqeedah "exam" in front of the best teachers, our prophet mohammed. Also the 4 A'imma spoke bad about Ilm-ul-Kalam and clearly warned against it. They clearly refuted the Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila. Both of them didn't believe that Allah is above the 7 heavens, above his throne in his majestic way. Both believed that Allah doesnt have a hand in his majestic way which befits his majesty. The 4 a'imma clearly refuted them. The Ashariah share similiar beliefs with the Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila as you can see.
Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) requested that she be brought, and then asked her, "Where is Allah?" and she said, "In the sky (Fi al-sama)"; whereupon he asked her, "Who am I?" and she said, "You are the Messenger of Allah"; at which he said, Free her, "for she is a believer" (Sahih Muslim, 5 vols. Cairo 1376/1956. Reprint. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1403/1983, 1.382: 538). Imam Nawawi says of this hadith:
This is one of the "hadiths of the attributes," about which scholars have two positions. The first is to have faith in it without discussing its meaning, while believing of Allah Most High that "there is nothing whatsoever like unto Him" (Qur'an 42:11), and that He is exalted above having any of the attributes of His creatures. The second is to figuratively explain it in a fitting way, scholars who hold this position adducing that the point of the hadith was to test the slave girl: Was she a monotheist, who affirmed that the Creator, the Disposer, the Doer, is Allah alone and that He is the one called upon when a person making supplication (du'a) faces the sky--just as those performing the prayer (salat) face the Kaaba, since the sky is the qibla of those who supplicate, as the Kaaba is the qibla of those who perform the prayer--or was she a worshipper of the idols which they placed in front of themselves? So when she said, In the sky, it was plain that she was not an idol worshipper (Sahih Muslim bi Sharh al-Nawawi. 18 vols. Cairo 1349/1930. Reprint (18 vols. in 9). Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1401/1981, 5.24).
Imam al-Qurtubi, the famous Qur'anic exegete of the seventh/thirteenth century, says:
The hadiths on this subject are numerous, rigorously authenticated (sahih), and widely known, and indicate the exaltedness of Allah, being undeniable by anyone except an atheist or obstinate ignoramus. Their meaning is to dignify Allah and exalt Him above all that is base and low, to characterize Him by exaltedness and greatness, not by being in places, particular directions, or within limits, for these are the qualities of physical bodies (al-Jami li ahkam al-Qur'an. 20 vols. Cairo 1387/1967. Reprint (20 vols in 10). Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, n.d.,18.216).
al-Jawzi (d. 597/1201), who addressed his fellow Hanbalis in his Daf shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih [Rebuttal of the insinuations of anthropomorphism at the hands of divine transcendence] with the words:
If you had said, "We but read the hadiths and remain silent," no one would have condemned you. What is shameful is that you interpret them literally. Do not surrreptiously introduce into the madhhab of this righteous, early Muslim man [Ahmad ibn Hanbal] that which is not of it. You have clothed this madhhab in shameful disgrace, until it can hardly be said "Hanbali" any more without saying anthropomorphist (Daf shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih. Cairo n.d. Reprint. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawfiqiyya, 1396/1976, 2829).
@@ReturningRuh Imam Nawawi did mistakes regarding the attributes of Allah. Same with Imam Hajr. As i said read Sharh as Sunnah of Imam Barbarhari, who was a companion of Imam Ahmad. He lived many many years before the people you quoted. 👍🏻
@@ReturningRuh The Hadith is clear as the Sun. The Prophet asked the slave girl "where is Allah"? Because it underlines the importance of Allahs attribute to be above everything. If the slavegirl would've make a mistake, our prophet would've corrected her. However he even said she has Iman! Allahu Akbar! A slave girl passed the Aqeedah Test in front of the best Teacher, rasulAllah! The funny thing is, that this slave girl would've been called Mujassima or Kafir by Ahlul Kalam. What a irony. The Hadith is so clear and there is no room for interpretation left. We take it as it is. Allah is above the heavens, alhamdullilah. :)
@@anokata9929 you say he made mistakes but that’s your interpretation. If you say he made mistakes in the attributes of Allāh then you would have to consider him a deviant due to his Aqeedah. All of a sudden we have someone from 1443 AH calling an Alim of the past mistaken on the basis of your faulty understanding of Ayahs and Ahadith and Quotes of the Salaf. You think that Imam Nawawi and the other ulema of Ahlus Sunnah didnt know about Barbahari? All of a sudden you’re the only one who knows about Barbahari. I’d rather follow the ulema and their understanding than your understanding.
I don’t understand why sh. Hatem is relativist as a Muslim.
Disappointing clip....It started off well with both sides responding politely but also frankly outlining their nuanced differences. However, when it came to the issue of negating directionality and space for Allah, Dr. Hatem clearly outlined his position (similar to IT) that he would not negate those things. However, Dr. Shadee fell short of being clear and categorical there on whether he considers Dr. Hatem's silence on the matter as something that falls under the accepted form of difference of opinion within the Ahl al Sunnah. This is important because there hasn't been any Ash'ari till date that has considered it not necessary to negate the above two things. This discussion fell short of clearly outlining both sides of the opinion on the matter and if the intention was to not discuss the differences then there was no need to even start talking about it.
Because Ashari and Maturidi theologies are not the only two schools in Ahl Sunna. The original Hanbali creed is also accepted. And their position on mutashabihaat is to recite them and not comment on them.
Thank you for considering my comment as worth engaging. May be, you can elaborate more on the point that you're making.
If my understanding is correct, there is a difference between the Hanbali/Athari creed and the Salafi creed.
1) Hanbali/Athari creed: Reciting the mutashibat and affirming them whilst NEGATING the dhahir. For instance, they affirm istawa but also add that it doesn't means that Allah is literally (with His essence) over the Throne. They negate direction and space for the Dhaat of Allah. Their madhhab is Tafwid whilst negating anything that necessitates tajsim.
2) Salafi Taymi paradigm: Allah exists in the upward direction and literally descends down. As for jism, there are different approaches: some stay silent while others negate. Their madhhab is often either affirming things that are tajsim or taking a non-committal stance on things that lead to tajsim.
Dr. Hatem clearly says that he takes a non-commital position on attributing movement, directionality and spatial located-ness to Allah. This is like taking a non-commital stance to something that leads to kufr according to Asharis. So, I fail to understand how Dr. Hatem's stance can be categorised as something that Asharis would consider within the scope of Ahl al Sunnah despite disagreeing with it. My point was that Dr. Shadee failed to clearly outline that Dr. Hatem's view is heresy according to the Asharis.
@@abumuawiyah2283 The Hanbali creed which Ash'aris accept is that which involves tanzih. This is the only stipulation. The tanzih. Hence they say Munazzihat al-Hanabila.
@@SafinaSociety What does affirming Tanzih mean according to both camps?
There is no one- Salafi Taymi or Hanbali- who'd not affirm that Allah is unlike His creation. The problem arises in the qualification of what both parties understand from that statement. Not dwelling into matters of Kalam or speculative theology is not same as saying that I take a non-comittal stance on whether Allah can be attributed with a Jism or directionality.
I am willing to stand corrected so could you please share some evidence from the Ashari camp that they accept someone taking a non-committal stance on above matters- directionality, spatial located-ness etc.? You can take your time but I'd appreciate if you can help me with some evidence because what you are saying is not the narrative that I have heard about the 'accepted Hanbalis' from the Ashari perspective but I am willing to learn.
@@abumuawiyah2283 The tanzih is affirming that Allah does not consist of parts and is not in the universe.
why did you cut 10:35-10:39 ?
what did the shaykh say?
It appears to just be an error in the final production.
ua-cam.com/video/x1wnmk3CKBY/v-deo.htmlsi=t7O14v6yXz3g6h2P
On the “qadr mushtarak”
48:29 how can tahawi benefit you... All these aqidah books are useless unless you want sectarianism.
?
Imam Tahawi had Salafi/Athari Aqeedah
Anokata nope not even near he had the Aqidah of Abu Hanifa the Same had Imam Maturidi show me one difference between imam Maturidi imam Tahawi and Imam Abu Hanifa ya jahil nobody had ur Wahhabi mujassim Aqidah
@@OnkelKurac Abu Hanifa made Takfir on those who denied that Allah is above the throne. Stop talking rubbish. You guys are closer to the Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila. Literally use the same Kalam and same arguments regarding the attributes of Allah like them. Abu Hanifa, Imam Ahmad, Imam Shafii and Imam Malik, all four of them spoke against Ilm-Ul-Kalam and refused to accept it. Enjoy your greece philsophy Aqeedah. Ahlul Socrates member
@@sillybeans929 Fear Allah