Demmzy15:
Sorry, looks like you don't understand me. You claimed or said he's a Mujassim, I need proves on how he's a Mujassim, what did he say or do that made him a Mujassim?

Brother, I got your point and the link I gave you treated your question among others. However, Sheik ibn Taymiyyah believed Allah is a "body" with hands, face, legs haqiqi (real). And he believed He can move from one place to another, and it was reported that he demonstrated the bogus hadith of Abu Hurairah which says Allah used to come down to the first heavens in later part of night; Ibn Taymiyyah demonstrated that saying "like this"; he then moved from the minbar to the floor. You need to read his Majmu'a Fatawa, amongst many other books authored by him.

He also believe in some other weird things. Allamah al-Albani in his Silsilah Sahiha vol. 1, pg.220, for example writes:

"Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah's mercy be upon him had long statement in answering the philosophers and tried to prove to them that Genus is eternal, and during that he produced statements that the mind cannot understand and the hearts cannot accept...Verily his statement is not acceptable, nay it should be rejected according to hadith, and we wish that Ibn Taymiyyah did not indulge himself in that topic."

# Sunni Alim, Sayyid Hassan al-Saqqaf wrote a lot about Ibn Taymiyyah's heresy. Sunni Aimmah of old, people like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ibn Hajar al-Makki, al-Subkhi, Al-Nabahani among others have written books to counter and expose Ibn Taymiyyah. While various Muslims countries like Egypt, Syria, Jordan etc have banned his books, only the countries headed by Wahabist continue to publish his books.

AlBaqir:


Brother, I got your point and the link I gave you treated your question among others. However, Sheik ibn Taymiyyah believed Allah is a "body" with hands, face, legs haqiqi (real). And he believed He can move from one place to another, and it was reported that he demonstrated the bogus hadith of Abu Hurairah which says Allah used to come down to the first heavens in later part of night; Ibn Taymiyyah demonstrated that saying "like this"; he then moved from the minbar to the floor. You need to read his Majmu'a Fatawa, amongst many other books authored by him.

He also believe in some other weird things. Allamah al-Albani in his Silsilah Sahiha vol. 1, pg.220, for example writes:

"Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah's mercy be upon him had long statement in answering the philosophers and tried to prove to them that Genus is eternal, and during that he produced statements that the mind cannot understand and the hearts cannot accept...Verily his statement is not acceptable, nay it should be rejected according to hadith, and we wish that Ibn Taymiyyah did not indulge himself in that topic."

# Sunni Alim, Sayyid Hassan al-Saqqaf wrote a lot about Ibn Taymiyyah's heresy. Sunni Aimmah of old, people like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ibn Hajar al-Makki, al-Subkhi, Al-Nabahani among others have written books to counter and expose Ibn Taymiyyah. While various Muslims countries like Egypt, Syria, Jordan etc have banned his books, only the countries headed by Wahabist continue to publish his books.

Perfection belongs to Allah alone.
What you have stated only emphasizes the sincerity of the scholars of sunnah and how they shunned dogmatism.

We give scholars excuses for their mistakes especially if they didn't find anyone to explain to them during their lifetime. Only a deviant will overlook a thousand virtues for just a single error.

Even Allah will not hold people accountable for things that they did out of Ignorance especially when they didn't have access to explanation.

Surah Al-Isra, Verse 15:
مَّنِ اهْتَدَىٰ فَإِنَّمَا يَهْتَدِي لِنَفْسِهِ وَمَن ضَلَّ فَإِنَّمَا يَضِلُّ عَلَيْهَا وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَىٰ وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا

Whoever goes right, then he goes right only for the benefit of his ownself. And whoever goes astray, then he goes astray to his own loss. No one laden with burdens can bear another's burden. And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)
(English - Mohsin Khan)

via iQuran

So tell me if anyone explained these matters to him during his lifetime before you can hold him ransom for it.

This kind of excuse that we give Ibn Taymiyyah is the Same excuse Ibn Taymiyyah gave Imam Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusiyy for his Dhohiriyy ideology.

Even those that you are quoting too have their faults which are known but people will be excused for their errors if;

# They have many other virtues that overwhelm their error

# If they didn't find anyone to explain the matte to them before their death.
These two conditions are derived from the hadith of Hatib when he tried to leaked some of the Prophet's to the disbelievers of the Quraysh clan.

However we do not follow them in their mistakes, rather we clarify it to the people and that doesn't mean we have tarnished their reputation in anyway because perfection belongs to Allah alone.


As for your statement that Ibn Taymiyyah described how Allah descends, then this is a big lie, in three ways;

# Ibn Taymiyyah was in prison when Ibn Battuta -the great and famous traveler who narrated the incidence- entered Damascus. As the scholars of history researched.

#Ibn Battuta is known to narrate strange events that are contradictory to the intellect.

# Ibn Taymiyyah's words in his books are indisputably against such creed and this is manifest in his students like Ibn Katheer, Ibn Qoyyim, Imam Dhahabiyy etc and those who were influenced by his teachings such Ibn AbdulWahhaab, Ibn Uthymeen, Imam Albany etc.

As for saying that Ibn Taymiyyah gave Allah attributes of humans then this is a lie.

We affirm for Allah whatever attributes he affirms for Himself and we negate from Him whatever He negates from Himself.

Ponder on the following verse;

Surah Ash-Shura, Verse 11:
فَاطِرُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ جَعَلَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا وَمِنَ الْأَنْعَامِ أَزْوَاجًا يَذْرَؤُكُمْ فِيهِ لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ

The Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you mates from yourselves, and for the cattle (also) mates. By this means He creates you (in the wombs). There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.
(English - Mohsin Khan)

via iQuran

# So Allah clearly negates every like for Himself
but also at the same time

#affirms attributes for Himself.

In this verse Allah affirms the attributes of sight and hearing. So we affirm them for Him and this doesn't liken Him to humans because it is only the name that is the same but the essence of His sight and Hearing are different from ours in two ways;

# Our sight and hearing have temporal limitation; There was a time when we had no sight and there will be a time when we will have no sight but Allah's sight and hearing don't

#Our sight and hearing have spatial limitation; for Instance I can't hear what's going on in the next street but Allah's attribute is not like that.

So upon this basis you should build your understanding of the attributes of Allah.

Newnas:
As for saying that Ibn Taymiyyah gave Allah attributes of humans then this is a lie.

We affirm for Allah whatever attributes he affirms for Himself and we negate from Him whatever He negates from Himself.

# So why then do you deny His presence wherever we may be [surah Mujadalah: 7]? Why do you choose to interpret the verse as "His knowledge" while He clearly says "He"?

# Why do you give him attribute of "movement with time limit" from one heaven to the other at later part of the night?

That's why we say the Wahabi ideology is inconsistent dribbling and wobbling between literalism, tafwid and Tawil.

Jazakumullah Khayran @Newnas, Just love to add this, and let us see how open-minded AlBaqir is...

Shaykhul Islam Abul Abbas ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

And who would say: Knowledge of Allah is like my knowledge, or power of Allah is like my power, or His speech is like my speech, or his will is like my will, or His love, Pleasure, Anger are like my love, pleasure, anger. Or his Istiwa on the Throne is like my Istiwa, or His descending is like my descending or His coming is like my coming. Or something like this, he would make tashbih of Allah and liken Him to His creation. Allah is away from what they say, and he (the one who would say such things) IS MISGUIDED, UGLY (HABITH), MUBTIL, AND KAFIR!


Source: Majmaul Fatawa 11/482

sino:
Jazakumullah Khayran @Newnas, Just love to add this, and let us see how open-minded AlBaqir is...

Shaykhul Islam Abul Abbas ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

And who would say: Knowledge of Allah is like my knowledge, or power of Allah is like my power, or His speech is like my speech, or his will is like my will, or His love, Pleasure, Anger are like my love, pleasure, anger. Or his Istiwa on the Throne is like my Istiwa, or His descending is like my descending or His coming is like my coming. Or something like this, he would make tashbih of Allah and liken Him to His creation. Allah is away from what they say, and he (the one who would say such things) IS MISGUIDED, UGLY (HABITH), MUBTIL, AND KAFIR!


Source: Majmaul Fatawa 11/482

Do you know how many jail term your Mujassim, Nasibi and Takfiri Sheik (Ibn Taymiyyah) bagged before "admitting" apparently those statements? I believe you, its many jail term. Ibn Taymiyyah is a full blown heretic though sometimes devil speaks the truth.

AlBaqir:


Do you know how many jail term your Mujassim, Nasibi and Takfiri Sheik (Ibn Taymiyyah) bagged before "admitting" apparently those statements? I believe you, its many jail term. Ibn Taymiyyah is a full blown heretic though sometimes devil speaks the truth.

Bros, I thought you claimed to be open-minded?! it seems you don't even know what open-mindedness is all about...anyways, your above vituperation no move me, you people say worst things about the mothers of the believers, the wives of our beloved prophet (SAW), you denigrate the closest companions of the Prophet (SAW), what else should surprise me?! I guess you do not fully grasp the implication of these ways and actions peculiar to shi'ism (especially twelvers), I hope its not going to be too late before you realize the error in your ways, and I sincerely hope you are not doing all these for worldly gains...

Remember, we all would return to Allah (SWT) to give account of our deeds....

sino:
Jazakumullah Khayran @Newnas, Just love to add this, and let us see how open-minded AlBaqir is...

Shaykhul Islam Abul Abbas ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

And who would say: Knowledge of Allah is like my knowledge, or power of Allah is like my power, or His speech is like my speech, or his will is like my will, or His love, Pleasure, Anger are like my love, pleasure, anger. Or his Istiwa on the Throne is like my Istiwa, or His descending is like my descending or His coming is like my coming. Or something like this, he would make tashbih of Allah and liken Him to His creation. Allah is away from what they say, and he (the one who would say such things) IS MISGUIDED, UGLY (HABITH), MUBTIL, AND KAFIR!


Source: Majmaul Fatawa 11/482

Aameen wa iyyaak
بارك الله فيك

sino:


Bros, I thought you claimed to be open-minded?! it seems you don't even know what open-mindedness is all about...anyways, your above vituperation no move me, you people say worst things about the mothers of the believers, the wives of our beloved prophet (SAW), you denigrate the closest companions of the Prophet (SAW), what else should surprise me?! I guess you do not fully grasp the implication of these ways and actions peculiar to shi'ism (especially twelvers), I hope its not going to be too late before you realize the error in your ways, and I sincerely hope you are not doing all these for worldly gains...

Remember, we all would return to Allah (SWT) to give account of our deeds....

See diversions. From Abu Hurairah to Ibn Taymiyyah, now to Shia maligning Aisha.

Try your might and be helped by men and jinn! [1]. Surah Tahrim will never be erased from the Quran. [2]. Aishah's testimonies of her plot against the prophet documented by Sahihain will never be forgotten. [3]. Her role in causing seditions after the demise of her Husband, rasulullah - salallahu alayhi wa Ahli - will never be forgotten. [4]. And her confession that she innovated after the demise of her husband stand firm. [5]. Her deliberate distortion of history because of jealous of others etc

All these are what you wish never to be discuss about her. And you never stop praising her and pretend there is no bad side of her. Whoever bring out her bad sides become labeled as abuser of prophet's wives!

# She remain Umm al-mumineen as other wives of Rasulullah. This is a verdict of our Lord in His glorious Book. We respect her just like we are commanded to respect our mothers even if they are polytheists only that we can not follow or obey their wrong ways. A true Umm al-mu'mineena (mother of the believer) will not harm, hurt and kill her spiritual sons.

# No doubt there is a group within the Shi'i ta'aifah, the Yasiriyah or the Yawasir [under Habib Yasir], who has made it obligatory in cursing her (and her father and Umar) publicly esp on their satellite tvs. Using this evil minority to behead the shi'i majority is like affirming ISIS, ISIL, al-Qaeda etc who "professes" the manhaj of Ahlu Sunnah esp Salafiyyah as true Ahlu sunnah or Salafiyyah.

# We have Sahih ahadith which confirmed, for example, that Imam Ali (alayhi Salam) maintained her dignity even after her evil role at the battle of Jamal. It is just natural that we can not love and respect her as much as we respect and love other wives of the Prophet who proved to be "mother of believers" in truth.

Demmzy15, trust me brother, I don't have time or expanding my resource for Ibn Taymiyyah. Much have been said and written already about him by Ahlu Sunnah ulama, esp those of his zaman. I can only urge you to read your books written by your Shuyukh about him. Ibn Taymiyyah remain a full blown heretic, at least in my world.

AlBaqir:
Demmzy15, trust me brother, I don't have time or expanding my resource for Ibn Taymiyyah. Much have been said and written already about him by Ahlu Sunnah ulama, esp those of his zaman. I can only urge you to read your books written by your Shuyukh about him. Ibn Taymiyyah remain a full blown heretic, at least in my world.

Like I said before, there is no one who is free of faults, so if they spoke about him he is not the first.

Then, even those who were speaking about him, when the issues were followed, Ibn Taymiyyah was found to have been the correct person.

Contemporaries always have issues with one another, from the time of the companions, because they are all human. It should not be a leverage for us to start tarnishing their image.

The strange thing about you is that when you find ibn taymiyyah's statement to favour your argument you quickly quote him and label him Imam, Allaamah etc.
This hypocritic double standerd is a general characteristic of deviants. And you will find it all deviants!!!

Newnas:


The strange thing about you is that when you find ibn taymiyyah's statement to favour your argument you quickly quote him and label him Imam, Allaamah etc.
This hypocritic double standerd is a general characteristic of deviants. And you will find it all deviants!!!

# If you have eye to see at all, you will see as part of my comments that I said "...though devil speaks the truth sometimes"

# As for quoting him sometimes, the onus is on you being his follower to accept his wording. That is hujja against you not me. After all if I quote any of my Shuyukh, you do not give a damn about them. So I can only use against you what you believe in.

# I have NEVER refer to Sheik Ibn Taymiyyah as "Imam or Allamah". You can quote it out if such exist. However calling him "sheik" is a courtesy I think he deserved it in his own right. Besides what you intend by "sheik" matters a lot. Your thought is "sheikul Islam" which is never mine. Wherever you got that from, you bring forth your dalil.

AlBaqir:
Demmzy15, trust me brother, I don't have time or expanding my resource for Ibn Taymiyyah. Much have been said and written already about him by Ahlu Sunnah ulama, esp those of his zaman. I can only urge you to read your books written by your Shuyukh about him. Ibn Taymiyyah remain a full blown heretic, at least in my world.

I believe you can also (at least) agree that he was a great scholar, isnt?

I dont have problem with the Sheik at all. What i have problem with is those who revere him so much and hold on to his view and yet, condemn other muslims when they hold the views of their scholars. Sheik ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah (ra) was not aslaf. He came way after them. I definitely respect his life and struggles.

Empiree:
I believe you can also (at least) agree that he was a great scholar, isnt?

I dont have problem with the Sheik at all. What i have problem with is those who revere him so much and hold on to his view and yet, condemn other muslims when they hold the views of their scholars. Sheik ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah (ra) was not aslaf. He came way after them. I definitely respect his life and struggles.

You see my brother, you know how the Christians accuse us of worshipping the messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam because we are always mentioning him such that it's as if he is the only prophet ever sent.

Just the same way people accuse the people of sunnah for always mentioning Imam Ibn Taymiyyah.

You and I know that the messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam was given several virtues which other prophets did not have, so this our special love for him is not a result of partisanship rather it is a result of the special spiritual virtues that Allah gave him above other prophets.

Surah Al-Jumua, Verse 4:
ذَٰلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ

That is the Grace of Allah, which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allah is the Owner of Mighty Grace.
(English - Mohsin Khan)

via iQuran

Similar to that - but in a lesser degree- is how we honour Shaykhul Islam and always mention him. Because -I swear to Allah the Lord of the worlds- Imam Ibn Taymiyyah has been blessed with virtues which you won't find with most scholars.

Just as we all agree that the most authentic book ever written by a human is Soheeh Bukharee, not by random selection but after serious intense scholastic scrutiny, the same way Ibn Taymiyyah has been shown to be exceptional. If you think it's false then present a scholar that you think is equal to him.

If you read any of his books, you will know what I am saying. One of his students said "I have never seen anyone like him and neither has he met anyone like himself"


Tell the shia to mention one of their sheikhs that measures a tenth of Ibn Taymiyyah, in fact a hundredth in fact a thousandth of him.
Ibn Taymiyyah is a marvel, his memory and wisdom is beyond the class of most scholars.

Secondly, Allah has made for every field a specialist and scrutinizer, In the aspects of fiqh and aqeedah Ibn Taymiyyah is a muhaqqiq.

Just as we give preference to the Imams Bukharee, Muslim, Ahmad etc in hadith and the Imams Suyooti, Ibn Katheer and Ibn Jareer preference in tafseer and history, Ibn Taymiyyah is one of the references in Aqeedah and fiqh.

AlBaqir:
Demmzy15, trust me brother, I don't have time or expanding my resource for Ibn Taymiyyah. Much have been said and written already about him by Ahlu Sunnah ulama, esp those of his zaman. I can only urge you to read your books written by your Shuyukh about him. Ibn Taymiyyah remain a full blown heretic, at least in my world.

Being labeled a full blown heretic in your deviant shia world is a pleasure to the people of guidance

Newnas:


You see my brother, you know how the Christians accuse us of worshipping the messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam because we are always mentioning him such that it's as if he is the only prophet ever sent.

Just the same way people accuse the people of sunnah for always mentioning Imam Ibn Taymiyyah.

You and I know that the messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam was given several virtues which other prophets did not have, so this our special love for him is not a result of partisanship rather it is a result of the special spiritual virtues that Allah gave him above other prophets.

Surah Al-Jumua, Verse 4:
ذَٰلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ

That is the Grace of Allah, which He bestows on whom He wills. And Allah is the Owner of Mighty Grace.
(English - Mohsin Khan)

via iQuran

Similar to that - but in a lesser degree- is how we honour Shaykhul Islam and always mention him. Because -I swear to Allah the Lord of the worlds- Imam Ibn Taymiyyah has been blessed with virtues which you won't find with most scholars.

Just as we all agree that the most authentic book ever written by a human is Soheeh Bukharee, not by random selection but after serious intense scholastic scrutiny, the same way Ibn Taymiyyah has been shown to be exceptional. If you think it's false then present a scholar that you think is equal to him.

If you read any of his books, you will know what I am saying. One of his students said "I have never seen anyone like him and neither has he met anyone like him"

Tell the shia to mention one of their sheikhs that measures a tenth of Ibn Taymiyyah, in fact a hundredth in fact a thousandth of him.
Ibn Taymiyyah is a marvel, his memory and wisdom is beyond the class of most scholars.

Secondly, Allah has made for every field a specialist and scrutinizer, In the aspects of fiqh and aqeedah Ibn Taymiyyah is a muhaqqiq.

Just as we give preference to the Imams Bukharee, Muslim, Ahmad etc in hadith and the Imams Suyooti, Ibn Katheer and Ibn Jareer preference in tafseer and history, Ibn Taymiyyah is one of the references in Aqeedah and fiqh.

I don't have problems with all his qualities you mentioned. Even funny is you said it's your (those who revere him) love for him that make you mention his names. Isn't what sufis do as well. ..honoring their shuyuk like Hamad Tijani, Abdul Qadri jilani etc and then you accuse them of eleaving their waliy?. Sheik islam ibn Tayimiyah was waliy in his own way. Others praised by sufis are auliya of Allah in their own way. Why accusing each other?

Empiree:
I don't have problems with all his qualities you mentioned. Even funny is you said it's your (those who revere him) love for him that make you mention his names. Isn't what sufis do as well. ..honoring their shuyuk like Hamad Tijani, Abdul Qadri jilani etc and then you accuse them of eleaving their waliy?. Sheik islam ibn Tayimiyah was waliy in his own way. Others praised by sufis are auliya of Allah in their own way. Why accusing each other?

The two loves are different in a number of ways;
The most important of the differences is that the people of sunnah do not go into extreme in their such that we raise people above their deserved status, taking them as intermediaries in calling Allah, and don't follow them when they err.

You need to learn about Ibn Taymiyyah.

^ My point here is not about intermediaries. I am talking about respecting each other's shuyuk. For instance, most sufis respect Ibn Tayimiyah, Bin Baz, Sheik ibn uthaymeen etc when they're quoted even though they disagree with some of their views.

But when Sufi (for instance) also quote their shuyuk like Ahamad Tijani, Abdul Qadri Jilani, Sheik Adam al-ilory etc, our salafi brothers are quick to say "those are MUBTADI", deviants etc That's my point. You people speak like there is nothing good in any other views except yours. I dont buy that whatsoever.

And of-course, i know about ibn Taymiyah (ra). Sheik Abdul Qadri Jilani(ra) even came over 100yrs before him and they are both Hanbali madhhab.

AlBaqir:
As-Salam alaykum

Imam Muslim records:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (s) as saying:

Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, [size=15pt]created Adam in His image[/size] with His length of sixty cubits*, and as He created him He told him to greet that group, and that was a party of angels sitting there, and listen to the response that they give him, for it would form his greeting and that of his offspring. He then went away and said: Peace be upon you! They (the angels) said: May there be peace upon you and the Mercy of Allah, and they made an addition of" Mercy of Allah". So he who would get into Paradise would get in the form of Adam, his length being sixty cubits, then the people who followed him continued to diminish in size up to this day."
http://sunnah.com/muslim/53
Ref: Sahih Muslim 2841
In-book reference : Book 53, Hadith 32
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 40, Hadith 6809

* Imam Ahmad added from another way by Sa'eed ibn al-Musayyab that Abu Hurairah had said: "...and seven cubits wide" {[Musnad Ahmad, vol.2, pg.315; al-Qastalani in his al-Irshad as-Sari, vol.7, pg 90.

This is exactly what the Bible says in the book of Genesis 1:27 which reads:

So God created mankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female he created them.

Quran, al-Furqan (criterion between truth and falsehood)

“(Allah is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: [size=15pt]there is nothing whatever like unto Him[/size] and He is the One that hears and sees (all things). To Him belong the keys of the heavens and the earth: He enlarges and restricts the Sustenance to whom He will: for He knows full well all things.” [Quran 42:11-12]

# If Adam was sixty cubits long, so he must be, according to the conformity of his organs, seventeen and one seventh cubits wide. If his width was seven cubits, his length must be twenty-four and a half cubits, because the width of the normal man equals two sevenths of his length. Why did Abu Hurayra say that Adam was sixty cubits long and seven cubits width? Did Adam have an unconformable structure and a disfigured form? Certainly not! Allah (S.w.T.) said: (Certainly we created man in the best make) 95:4

what is meant by Adam (Allah bless him) being created in “his image” is a direct creation that did not take place through the passage of embryological stages. Further, it indicates that Adam (Allah bless him) was characterized by the same “image” or form on earth as he was in paradise, without any change until his death.

And Allah alone knows best

IBN TAYMIYYAH AND JEWISH AQIDAH
In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful


According to Salafīsm, the Old Testament of the Bible has portrayed Allāh in a perfectly correct manner. Everything recorded about Him in it is true, and every Salafī must believe it as part of his ‘aqīdah. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, for instance, says in his Dar-u Ta’ārruḍ al-‘Aql wa al-Naql (Riyadh: Dār al-Kunūz al-Adabiyyah; 1391 H) [annotator: Muḥammad Rashād Sālim], vol. 3, p. 9:
http://islamport.com/w/tym/Web/3223/512.htm


"Then He said: {Those We have given the Book know it has been sent down from your Lord with truth} [6:114]. This is because the Old Testament corresponds with the Qur’ān. Whosoever examines the Torah and the Gospel in the hands of the Ahl al-Kitāb, he will know with absolute certainty that this and this are from the same niche, especially in the areas of al-Tawḥīd (Monotheism), and the al-Asmā (Divine Names) and al-Ṣifāt (the Divine Attributes). This is because the Torah corresponds with the Qur’ān, agreeing with it in a way that leaves no room for doubt. This is part of what makes it clear that what is in the Torah from those is NOT part of the distortions which the Qur’ān rejects. Rather, it is part of the truth which it confirms. This is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his Ṣaḥābah, were not denying the Ṣifāt (Divine Attributes) in the Torah, and they did not consider them part of what the Jews distorted, and did not fault them for them, saying “This is tashbīh (anthropomorphism) or tajsīm (divine corporeality)” as many deniers fault them, saying “This is part of what they distorted.” By contrast, whenever they mentioned anything from them, the Messenger used to confirm them, as he confirmed them in the report of the priest, as it is in the Two Ṣaḥīḥs from ‘Abd Allāh b. Mas’ūd as well as in other than that."



In simpler words, the “God” of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and the “Allāh” of the Qur’ān are one and the same. Moreover, all the descriptions and attributes given to God in the Bible are correct Descriptions and Attributes of Allāh. Likewise, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and the Ṣaḥābah all believed in al-Tawḥīd, al-Asmā and al-Ṣifāt as recorded in the Bible. As a practical demonstration of this, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah even approvingly quotes the New Testament to prove that Allāh is “our Father Who is in heaven,” in his Majmū’ Fatāwā, vol. 5, p. 406:
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/260.html

'And in the Gospel, it is recorded that the Messiah, peace be upon him, said: “Do not swear with the sky, for it is the Chair of Allāh.” And he said to the disciples: “If you forgive the people, your Father Who is in heaven will forgive you all.”


The student and successor of Ibn Taymiyyah, Imām Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, in his al-Ṣawā’iq al-Mursalah (Riyadh: Dār al-‘Āṣimah; 3rd edition, 1418 H) [annotator: Dr. ‘Alī b. Muḥammad al-Dakhīl Allāh], vol. 3, p. 1044, affirms his teacher, almost verbatim:
http://islamport.com/w/qym/Web/3175/897.htm

"Then He said: {Those We have given the Book know it has been sent down from your Lord with truth, so on no account be among the doubters} [6:114]. This is because the Old Testament corresponds with the Qur’ān. Whosoever examines it, he will know with certainty that this and this are from the same niche, especially in the areas of al-Tawḥīd, and the al-Asmā and al-Ṣifāt. This is because the Torah corresponds with the Qur’ān in those, agreeing with it. This proves that what is in the Torah from those is NOT part of the distortions which Allāh rejects. Rather, it is part of the truth which testifies for the Qur’ān and confirms it. This is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not deny the Ṣifāt that are in the Torah, and he did not fault them (i.e. the Jews) for them, and he did not call them tashbīh (anthropomorphism) or tajsīm (divine corporeality) or tamthīl, as many deniers do, saying “The Jews are an Ummah who believe in tashbīh and tajsīm.” But, there is no sin for them in that, because they interpreted what is in the Torah.'


So, let us quote Genesis 1:26-27 about how He allegedly looks:


"Then God said, "Let us make humans in our image, IN OUR LIKENESS. Let them rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the domestic animals all over the earth, and all the animals that crawl on the earth." So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female".


Therefore, in the Biblical doctrine of the Shaykh, human beings are similar to Allāh in appearance. However, in the ‘aqīdah of Muslims, there is nothing like our Lord (42:11):

"The Bringer into Being of the heavens and the earth: He has given you mates from among yourselves, and given mates to the livestock, in that way multiplying you. NOTHING is like Him. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing."

cc: Sino, Dammzy15, Newnas,

albaqir might love this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWzpUIqUzc


and this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_MPEy6Ng18

Empiree:
albaqir might love this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWzpUIqUzc

He's talking kufr. He meant I should follow whatever Umar, Abubakar, Uthman or whoever said even if it contradicted the Sunnah of the Prophet. That's an absolute kufr. Let me cite you an example:

Imam Ahmad documents:

Abd Allāh (b. Aḥmad) – my father (Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal) – Muḥammad b. Ja’far – Shu’bah – al-Ḥakam – ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn – Marwān b. alḤakam:

I witnessed ‘Alī and ‘Uthmān, may Allāh be pleased with them both, between Makkah and Madīnah. ‘Uthmān was forbidding (people) from Ḥajj al-Tamattu’, and from joining them both (Ḥajj and ‘Umrah) together (during the Ḥajj season). When ‘Alī, may Allāh be pleased with him, said that, he took the iḥrām for both of them (i.e. Ḥajj and ‘Umrah), and said, “Labaik bi ‘Umrah wa Ḥajj”. So, ‘Uthmān, may Allāh be pleased with him, said, “You saw me forbidding the people from it, and yet you are performing it.” He (‘Alī) replied, “I will never abandon the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, on the word of anyone from mankind."

Ref: Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnāūṭ], vol. 1, p. 135, # 1139.

So, I should follow Uthman because he was a Sahabi and khalifah? La haola wala quwata illah billah.

Empiree:

and this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_MPEy6Ng18

Another outright kufr. Where exactly does the holy Prophet ever command us to follow any sahabah let alone the so-called four Aimmah (Malik, Shafi'i, Hanbal and Ahmad)? Rather deviants have deliberately boycotted the command of the Prophet when he declares:

"O mankind! I have left behind over you that which if you hold fast to it you will never go astray: the Book of Allāh and my offspring, my Ahl al-Bayt."

It is an outright misguidance by not following the offspring of the Prophet, the Ahlulbayt. So, both Sheik Mumtazamul haq and those who he is challenging are in outright misguidance.

^ I knew you would misunderstood point he raised. But i understand why you go against those kalifat. Point here is, it's not about following those kalifat. He's simply addressing the people who called themselves "salafis" who claim we should not follow anyone blindly. That only the prophet(s) should be followed. But it's impossible to know the prophet without knowing and following Aimmah and kulafar rashidun etc

His point is it is impossible not to follow someone blindly. Like Sunnis generally believe in whatever is written in Sahih Bukhari etc

AlBaqir:
IBN TAYMIYYAH AND JEWISH AQIDAH
In the Name of Allāh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful


According to Salafīsm, the Old Testament of the Bible has portrayed Allāh in a perfectly correct manner. Everything recorded about Him in it is true, and every Salafī must believe it as part of his ‘aqīdah. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, for instance, says in his Dar-u Ta’ārruḍ al-‘Aql wa al-Naql (Riyadh: Dār al-Kunūz al-Adabiyyah; 1391 H) [annotator: Muḥammad Rashād Sālim], vol. 3, p. 9:
http://islamport.com/w/tym/Web/3223/512.htm


"Then He said: {Those We have given the Book know it has been sent down from your Lord with truth} [6:114]. This is because the Old Testament corresponds with the Qur’ān. Whosoever examines the Torah and the Gospel in the hands of the Ahl al-Kitāb, he will know with absolute certainty that this and this are from the same niche, especially in the areas of al-Tawḥīd (Monotheism), and the al-Asmā (Divine Names) and al-Ṣifāt (the Divine Attributes). This is because the Torah corresponds with the Qur’ān, agreeing with it in a way that leaves no room for doubt. This is part of what makes it clear that what is in the Torah from those is NOT part of the distortions which the Qur’ān rejects. Rather, it is part of the truth which it confirms. This is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his Ṣaḥābah, were not denying the Ṣifāt (Divine Attributes) in the Torah, and they did not consider them part of what the Jews distorted, and did not fault them for them, saying “This is tashbīh (anthropomorphism) or tajsīm (divine corporeality)” as many deniers fault them, saying “This is part of what they distorted.” By contrast, whenever they mentioned anything from them, the Messenger used to confirm them, as he confirmed them in the report of the priest, as it is in the Two Ṣaḥīḥs from ‘Abd Allāh b. Mas’ūd as well as in other than that."



In simpler words, the “God” of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and the “Allāh” of the Qur’ān are one and the same. Moreover, all the descriptions and attributes given to God in the Bible are correct Descriptions and Attributes of Allāh. Likewise, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and the Ṣaḥābah all believed in al-Tawḥīd, al-Asmā and al-Ṣifāt as recorded in the Bible. As a practical demonstration of this, Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah even approvingly quotes the New Testament to prove that Allāh is “our Father Who is in heaven,” in his Majmū’ Fatāwā, vol. 5, p. 406:
http://islamport.com/d/3/tym/1/40/260.html

'And in the Gospel, it is recorded that the Messiah, peace be upon him, said: “Do not swear with the sky, for it is the Chair of Allāh.” And he said to the disciples: “If you forgive the people, your Father Who is in heaven will forgive you all.”


The student and successor of Ibn Taymiyyah, Imām Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, in his al-Ṣawā’iq al-Mursalah (Riyadh: Dār al-‘Āṣimah; 3rd edition, 1418 H) [annotator: Dr. ‘Alī b. Muḥammad al-Dakhīl Allāh], vol. 3, p. 1044, affirms his teacher, almost verbatim:
http://islamport.com/w/qym/Web/3175/897.htm

"Then He said: {Those We have given the Book know it has been sent down from your Lord with truth, so on no account be among the doubters} [6:114]. This is because the Old Testament corresponds with the Qur’ān. Whosoever examines it, he will know with certainty that this and this are from the same niche, especially in the areas of al-Tawḥīd, and the al-Asmā and al-Ṣifāt. This is because the Torah corresponds with the Qur’ān in those, agreeing with it. This proves that what is in the Torah from those is NOT part of the distortions which Allāh rejects. Rather, it is part of the truth which testifies for the Qur’ān and confirms it. This is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not deny the Ṣifāt that are in the Torah, and he did not fault them (i.e. the Jews) for them, and he did not call them tashbīh (anthropomorphism) or tajsīm (divine corporeality) or tamthīl, as many deniers do, saying “The Jews are an Ummah who believe in tashbīh and tajsīm.” But, there is no sin for them in that, because they interpreted what is in the Torah.'


So, let us quote Genesis 1:26-27 about how He allegedly looks:


"Then God said, "Let us make humans in our image, IN OUR LIKENESS. Let them rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the domestic animals all over the earth, and all the animals that crawl on the earth." So God created humans in his image. In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female".


Therefore, in the Biblical doctrine of the Shaykh, human beings are similar to Allāh in appearance. However, in the ‘aqīdah of Muslims, there is nothing like our Lord (42:11):

"The Bringer into Being of the heavens and the earth: He has given you mates from among yourselves, and given mates to the livestock, in that way multiplying you. NOTHING is like Him. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing."

cc: Sino, Dammzy15, Newnas,

I tried to figure out what you are trying to prove, but I couldn’t see anything. You seem to be confused…

I believe you and your shi’a people would argue at length in proving to the Christians how God is one in the Bible, especially in the old testament (Torah) or don’t you? You would also quote Jesus (as) praying to God, by calling God, Father, hence proving Jesus (As) is not God.

Let me now “confuse” you more, the word Rabb, is used in the Qur’an to refer to Allah (SWT), but it is also used in Arabic to mean Father e.g, Rabbu-l-‘aa`ilah (father of the family)…So does it change the fact that Rabb as used in the Qur’an is referring to Allah (SWT)?! And does saying father as used in the Bible connote biological father?! Please look up other meaning of Rabb to assuage your ignorance…

Now answer the following questions (and this is in regards to your second point)

Did Allah (SWT) not use face in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use hands in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use shin in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use eyes in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use speak/speech in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use listen and hearing in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use knowing in the Qur’an?
And etc…

So if indeed Allah (SWT) used the above in the Infallible Qur’an for Himself, as being his attributes, and then again all the above can also be used to describe any human being, then what is your problem?! Did Allah (SWT) ask you and your shi’a sect to look for alternative words to explain these clear words?! Did the Prophet (SAW) explain these words differently than what is apparent?! Provide clear and authentic proofs if you are indeed truthful!

Indeed, there is none like Him, and we believe this to be true, just as we believe all that Allah (SWT) used in the Qur’an and authentic narrations to describe Himself (Suhannahu wa ta’aala) as also true.

Bro, stop fighting yourself, it is very simple; even a layman grasps this concept without trouble.

sino:


Now answer the following questions (and this is in regards to your second point)

Did Allah (SWT) not use face in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use hands in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use shin in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use eyes in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use speak/speech in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use listen and hearing in the Qur’an?
Did Allah (SWT) not use knowing in the Qur’an?
And etc…

So if indeed Allah (SWT) used the above in the Infallible Qur’an for Himself, as being his attributes, and then again all the above can also be used to describe any human being, then what is your problem?! Did Allah (SWT) ask you and your shi’a sect to look for alternative words to explain these clear words?! Did the Prophet (SAW) explain these words differently than what is apparent?! Provide clear and authentic proofs if you are indeed truthful!

That's why we say your Wahabi ideology is inconsistent dribbling and wobbling between literalism, tafwid (leaving the meaning as it is) and Tawil (interpretation out of literal meaning).

Now consider the following noble ayah:

1. Surah ar-Rahman: 26-27 says:

"Everything on it will perish

And there will endure for ever the FACE of your Lord, the Lord of glory and honor."

* So, only His face will remain?! What about His Hands, Legs, Body that He used to describe Himself (in the Quran and hadith)? Were they all going to be perish except His face.

2. Sura Mujadalah: 7

"Do you not see that Allah knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth? Nowhere is there a secret counsel between three persons but He is the fourth of them, nor (between) five but He is the sixth of them, nor less than that nor more but He is with them wheresoever they are; then He will inform them of what they did on the day of resurrection: surely Allah is Cognizant of all things."

* "He" absolutely denote His Person, His Essence as Quran in several ayah elucidate. So, Why do your manhaj choose to interpret this ayah out of its literal meaning that it does not mean Allah in His Person is everywhere rather it means "His knowledge" is everywhere?

3. Surah Maidah verse 64 says:

"The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth. ..."

* Why cant we use your tafwid and literal senses for this ayah? That is He says "Hands" that means He has hand, not even one but "many". The hand in this ayah never mean literal or tafwid. It means being miser. And if the hand is stretched, it means generosity. The underlined statement in the ayah clarifies. why did your Imam do the Tawil (interpretation) of the ayah moving away from its literal or tafwid meaning? Interestingly, here is one of your literalist Aimmah.

Imam Ibn Kathir writes in his Tafsir:

'Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas commented on Allah's statement,

{The Jews say, "Allah's Hand is tied up."} "They do not mean that Allah's Hand is literally tied up. Rather, they mean that He is a miser and does not spend from what He has. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him.'' Similar was reported from Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Qatadah, As-Suddi and Ad-Dahhak.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=759&Itemid=60


5. Al-’Isrā:72
"{And whoever remains blind in this (world) will be blind in the Hereafter as well, distracted from the path} "

*Should we will leave this ayah as it is literally or interpret out of its literal meaning? For example, the Sheik Ibn Baz, who was blind in this world, will he also blind in the next world?

In madrasat Ahlulbayt, we do not leave mutashabihat (allegorical) verses in their literal meaning rather we do tawil (interpretation) of them. Allah says, "{[We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom]}". Just like every language, Arabic has figures of speech - simile, metaphor etc, and it is use in the Quran. We interpret the allegorical verses by the guidance of the Muhkam (clear) verses because they (the clear verses) are the foundation of the Quran {[surah Ahli Imran:7]}. Hand, Face, Hearing, Seeing, Presence, Sitting or Standing (on Ar'sh) are part of Mutashabihat ayah that can never be left with literal meaning.

sino:


Indeed, there is none like Him, and we believe this to be true, just as we believe all that Allah (SWT) used in the Qur’an and authentic narrations to describe Himself (Suhannahu wa ta’aala) as also true.

@underline, Really? Then why this below@underline:

sino:


So if indeed Allah (SWT) used the above in the Infallible Qur’an for Himself, as being his attributes, and then again all the above can also be used to describe any human being

In madrasat Ahlulbayt, "there is no like of Him" means both in His Essence and His attributes. He, the most High, describe Himself to us with those attributes in order that we (whose knowledge and perception is limited) might have glimpse of understanding of Him. He is beyond what we can ever think of. He is Olú-odù-marè.

Wa Salam alaykum

AlBaqir:


That's why we say your Wahabi ideology is inconsistent dribbling and wobbling between literalism, tafwid (leaving the meaning as it is) and Tawil (interpretation out of literal meaning).

Now consider the following noble ayah:

1. Surah ar-Rahman: 26-27 says:

"Everything on it will perish

And there will endure for ever the FACE of your Lord, the Lord of glory and honor."

* So, only His face will remain?! What about His Hands, Legs, Body that He used to describe Himself (in the Quran and hadith)? Were they all going to be perish except His face.

2. Sura Mujadalah: 7

"Do you not see that Allah knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth? Nowhere is there a secret counsel between three persons but He is the fourth of them, nor (between) five but He is the sixth of them, nor less than that nor more but He is with them wheresoever they are; then He will inform them of what they did on the day of resurrection: surely Allah is Cognizant of all things."

* "He" absolutely denote His Person, His Essence as Quran in several ayah elucidate. So, Why do your manhaj choose to interpret this ayah out of its literal meaning that it does not mean Allah in His Person is everywhere rather it means "His knowledge" is everywhere?

3. Surah Maidah verse 64 says:

"The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth. ..."

* Why cant we use your tafwid and literal senses for this ayah? That is He says "Hands" that means He has hand, not even one but "many". The hand in this ayah never mean literal or tafwid. It means being miser. And if the hand is stretched, it means generosity. The underlined statement in the ayah clarifies. why did your Imam do the Tawil (interpretation) of the ayah moving away from its literal or tafwid meaning? Interestingly, here is one of your literalist Aimmah.

Imam Ibn Kathir writes in his Tafsir:

'Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas commented on Allah's statement,

{The Jews say, "Allah's Hand is tied up."} "They do not mean that Allah's Hand is literally tied up. Rather, they mean that He is a miser and does not spend from what He has. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him.'' Similar was reported from Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Qatadah, As-Suddi and Ad-Dahhak.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=759&Itemid=60


5. Al-’Isrā:72
"{And whoever remains blind in this (world) will be blind in the Hereafter as well, distracted from the path} "

*Should we will leave this ayah as it is literally or interpret out of its literal meaning? For example, the Sheik Ibn Baz, who was blind in this world, will he also blind in the next world?

In madrasat Ahlulbayt, we do not leave mutashabihat (allegorical) verses in their literal meaning rather we do tawil (interpretation) of them. Allah says, "{[We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom]}". Just like every language, Arabic has figures of speech - simile, metaphor etc, and it is use in the Quran. We interpret the allegorical verses by the guidance of the Muhkam (clear) verses because they (the clear verses) are the foundation of the Quran {[surah Ahli Imran:7]}. Hand, Face, Hearing, Seeing, Presence, Sitting or Standing (on Ar'sh) are part of Mutashabihat ayah that can never be left with literal meaning.

The people of the Qiblah divided into several opinions when it comes to dealing with the Names & Attributes of Allah especially those with anthropomorphic implications: Affirming them (Ithbaat), Interpreting them (Ta’weel) and Withholding (Tawaqquf).

Those who interpret are several groups:

1-Groups that denied all of Allah’s names and attributes. [e.g. Jahmiyyah, Falaasifah (Philosophers), Baatiniyyah (Esoteric groups like Qaraamitah), Ghulaat-ul-Soufiyyah (Extremist Soufies)].

For example, they won’t describe Allah as Knower, instead they say “He is not ignorant” nor will they describe Him as Living, they will say “He is not dead”. They have other creative ways and views as well about how to reject Allah’s attributes.

As far as Allah’s Names, they will tell you that we cannot accept His Names as that would entail Tashbeeh (Likening Allah to His creation). For instance, if we call Allah “The Powerful” then we have likened Him to others of His creatures who are described as powerful, if we call him “The Merciful” then we’ve likened Him to merciful creatures like our Prophet (saw).

In this group some groups are Waaqifah, meaning they stop and neither confirm nor deny. For example the Qaraamitah will tell you: “We cannot say He is Merciful or He isn’t” As affirming Mercy for Him is Tashbeeh (likening Allah to His creation) and denying it is likening Allah to the non-existence.

Another example are Al-Laa Adriyyah (Agnostics) who don’t affirm or deny, for example they say: “We cannot say whether He’s alive nor dead” and “We cannot say whether He exists or He doesn’t” We simply do not know. Thus they are ignorant.

2-Groups that affirmed Allah’s names but denied his attributes. They gave various interpretations to attributes they thought likened The Creator to His creatures. [e.g. Mu`tazillah, Zaydiyyah (Zaydi Shia), Muta’akhireen al-Ithnaa-`Ashariyyah (Late Imami Shia), al-Dhaahiriyyah, some of the Khawaarij]

An example of their methods when it comes to Allah’s attributes: {And your Lord has come and the angels, rank upon rank} [89:22] They explained: The verse means the “command” of your Lord has come. Not that He came or attributed to himself the act of “coming”.

As far as Allah’s Names, they will accept them but just as names without meaning for the most part, so they will say “He is the knower without knowledge” meaning Allah is Knower with¬out being characterized by any attribute of knowledge. This is because they believe that Allah’s attributes cannot be distinct from Him as that would create two eternal beings, Allah and Allah’s knowledge which is independent from Him. The difference here is, when they say Allah is The Knower, they don’t mean that He possesses knowledge, as that would mean knowledge is a separate entity but they mean that His knowledge is His essence.

Another example, they will say that Allah is “The Powerful” without power. Affirming the name and denying the attribute, for if they say “Powerful with a power” that means the power is either created and therefore Allah was not powerful before it was created, they say Allah cannot change over time and this is why we reject it. They will say, if Allah’s power was not created that means it is as ancient as Allah, this leads us to believe in the multiplicity of beginningless entities, Allah and His power which in turn negates His Oneness.

3-Groups that affirmed His names and a few of his attributes while interpreting the rest. (e.g. Kullaabiyah, Ashaa`irah, Maatureediyyah).
Similar to the group above them with the difference that they affirmed around seven of Allah’s attributes: Life, Knowledge, Will, Hearing, Seeing, Speech and Power.

For example, if we look at the verse mentioning Allah’s “hands”: {[Allah] said, “O Iblees, what prevented you from prostrating to that which I created with My hands? Were you arrogant [then], or were you [already] among the haughty?”} [38:75]

They will say: Hands here mean powers. Or they will say: Attributing something to Allah is only in order to glorify Him, just as Allah says “My House” as referring to the Ka`bah although it is a creature, then these “My Hands” can also be a creature of Allah. Or they will say: Attributing hands in the language to something does not necessarily mean that thing possesses physical body-parts, for example: {falsehood does not come to it from between its hands nor from behind it.} [41:42] This doesn’t mean the book has hands but the Arabic expression means “from in front of it”. They will list various interpretations to deny the attribution of body-parts to Allah.

As for Allah’s Names, they affirmed them and explained them and their attributes. They did not just affirm the names as empty words without meaning or depth such as some of the previous groups. For example, they would affirm “The Merciful” and discuss Allah’s attribute of mercy, and they would affirm “The Just” then discuss Allah’s justice. However, if the name entails attributing something to Allah which they disbelieve in, for example “The High” means Allah is attributing a location to Himself, so they will give the name a different interpretation such as: Having a high honor and whatnot. Another example “The Light”, instead of accepting it as is, they interpreted it as meaning: The guide.

4-Groups that affirmed Allah’s names and attributes in a way that suites his majesty without asking questions. [Jumhour-ul-Salaf, Ahlul-Hadeeth, Jumhour-ul-Hanaabilah (Most Hanbalis)]

They affirm all names and attributes as they are without likening Allah to His creations. For example they will say: Allah exists and human-beings also exist but this does not mean that our existence is like Allah’s existence, for Allah Has always been in existence and shall remain eternal whereas humans have been brought into existence by Allah and they shall perish by His order.

Another example is that they will say: We affirm Allah describing Himself as powerful even though certain humans are described as powerful, such as Alexander or Genghis Khan, this does not mean that Allah is like His creation since His power differs in nature than their power which is limited by physical strength and whatever authority they have over armies for a duration of their short existence. Allah’s power however is absolute, it transcends all, is beyond imagination and He has complete control over the universe and its creation.

As for what may imply likening Allah to His creatures, for example in this verse:

{They measure not God with His true measure. The earth altogether shall be His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens shall be rolled up in His right hand. Glory be to Him! High be He exalted above that they associate!} [39:67]

Or this

{Surely your Lord is God, who created the heavens and the earth in six days — then sat Himself upon the Throne, covering the day with the night it pursues urgently — and the sun, and the moon, and the stars subservient, by His command. Verily, His are the creation and the command. Blessed be God, the Lord of all Being} [7:54]

Their way of dealing with such texts is: {We believe in it; all is from our Lord} [3:7]

They will say: We believe in this text and we do not ask “How?” We affirm what Allah affirms for Himself in a way that suites His majesty and only He knows the truth of all things. This is why they will consider things like “hands” to be an attribute and pass by such texts without asking any questions.

This group will also rely on prophetic-traditions and reports from the first generations (al-Salaf) to interpret similar texts if available.

5-Groups that refuse to address the texts. [Jama`ah min al-Salaf]

They withhold their own opinions and will not make any interpretations, they will also refuse to comment on any texts where the Creator attributes to Himself a matter possessed by the creation. They pass through such texts without diving into the meaning, leaving the matter completely up to Allah out of fear of His punishment.

Several groups of Muslims refused to address the texts for different reasons.

6-Groups that affirm the names and attributes of Allah literally in a physical way. [Qudama’-ul-Raafidah (Early Imami Shia), Al-Sabaa’iyyah (Followers of Ibn Saba’), Ba`d Ghulaat-ul-Soufiyyah (Some Extremist Soufies), Ba`d Ghulaat Ahlul-Hadeeth]

Some from the extremists of the people of Hadith in order to refute the Jahmiyyah and heretics of their time opposed them by diving into anthropomorphism.

Among the more extreme Soufi circles, some affirmed everything for Allah since they view that Allah and His creations are one and the same, they believed in Wahdat-ul-Wujoud or the Unity of Being. While this belief remains controversial among them to this day yet the Soufis were not the first to announce such anthropomorphic beliefs, they were beaten to it by the Shia who announced such beliefs during the life of `Ali ibn abi Talib.

The first of them were groups established by a Jewish convert called `Abdullah Ibn Saba’, they believed in Tajseem and claimed Allah was a man (`Ali ibn abi Talib), they also claimed al-Bada’ for God, meaning that Allah may be ignorant of a matter and change His judgement based on what He observes from later events, this is also considered Tashbeeh. Other Shia groups were influenced and ended up committing Tashbeeh, they accepted the texts in a physical way, thus literally reducing Allah to a body as we will read below. They also likened their own saints to Allah in many ways and attributed to them godly qualities as is seen from their books and writings to this day.

AlBaqir, which group do you belong to? And which group did your earlier Imami shi’ah belong to?! Talk about profound inconsistencies…the reasons why your sect is known as a reactionary, never what Islam teaches…

AlBaqir:
@underline, Really? Then why this below@underline:


In madrasat Ahlulbayt, "there is no like of Him" means both in His Essence and His attributes. He, the most High, describe Himself to us with those attributes in order that we (whose knowledge and perception is limited) might have glimpse of understanding of Him. He is beyond what we can ever think of. He is Olú-odù-marè.

Wa Salam alaykum

What were the beliefs of the early leaders of your sect AlBaqir?! Well let’s do some reading…

We will go through a brief overview of some beliefs held by early leaders of the Imamiyyah as written in the book “Maqaalat-ul-Tashbeeh” by Jabir bin Idris, refer to his book for more detailed sources.

Shia leader Bayan bin Sam`an al-Tamimi said that Allah is a man made from light in the image of a human, then he shall perish except for His face. He also claimed that a godly part was incarnated inside `Ali and it united with him an this godly spirit transmigrated from Imam to Imam until it reached Bayan himself. [Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/66, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 216, al-Tabsir fil-Din 119, Khitat al-Maqrizi 3/596, Minhaj-ul-Sunnah 2/502, I`tiqadat Firaq al Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 87]

Another Shia leader called al-Mughirah bin Sa`id al-Koufi who claimed God was Muhammad bin `Ali, that he knew the unseen and that he had sent him as his messenger. Al-Mughirah and his followers went to such extremes that they claimed their Lord was a man from light wearing a crown on his head, that he had body parts as any man does, that he has insides and a heart filled with wisdom, they also said Allah’s body is based on the alphabetical letters, that “Aliph” represents the legs, “`Ayn” represents the eyes and “Haa'” is a great matter which he could not even mention. [Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/69, al-Fasl li ibn Hazm 5/43, al-Ma`arif 623, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/176, al-Tabsir fil-Din 119, al-Kamil li ibn al-Athir 4/230, Minhaj al-Sunnah 1/260, Khitat al-Maqrizi 3/296, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 118, I`tiqadat Firaq al-Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 88, Mizan al-I`tidal 4/160, Lisan al-Mizan 7/23]

Another Shia leader called abu Mansour al-Mustanir al-`Ijli claimed he was the successor to Muhammad bin `Ali. He said `Ali ibn abi Talib was a lump that descended from the heavens and said that `Ali was god. He then claimed he was god’s son and that he was made to ascend to the heavens and threatened to choke all his enemies. [Al-Fasl 5/45, Firaq al-Shia 38, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/75, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 212, al-Ma`arif 623, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/179, al-Khitat 3/297]
ِ
Another Shia leader was abu al-Khattab al-Asadi who claimed Ja`far bin Muhammad was a god and his followers established pilgrimage in Ja`far’s name. He was a polytheist who said al-Hasan and al-Husayn were god’s children then he claimed god-hood for the prophets, the household and himself. [Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 223, al-Fasl 5/48, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/179, Minhaj al-Sunnah 2/506]

Another Shia leader is `Abdullah bin Mu`awiyah bin Ja`far bin abi Talib, a greedy descendant of Ja`far al-Tayyar who sought authority. His followers went to extremes and said that god’s soul was transmitted to Adam (as) then it moved from prophet to prophet until it ended with the Imams and finally `Abdullah bin Mu`awiyah. They said that `Abdullah knew the unseen and that Allah was a light embedded into `Abdullah. [Tarikh ibn Khaldoun 3/121, Mizan al-I`tidal 3/363, Firaq al-Shia 31, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/67, al-Khitat 3/396, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 222, al-Tabsir 125]

Another Shia leader called Dawoud al-Jawaribi al-Rafidi said Allah was a carcass made from blood, flesh, bones and a head of thick black hair but He doesn’t resemble any other man. He did not believe God had a beard or genitals and refused to answer anyone who mentions them. [Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah li ibn abi al-Hadid 1/294, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/183, al-Milal 1/105, al-Bid’ wal-Tarikh lil Maqdisi 5/140]
Another Shia leader was Zurarah ibn A`yun whose followers believed in Bada’ and that Allah’s attributes were created or are emergent and that they are of the nature of the attributes of the creations. In other words, they claimed Allah was not all-hearing, all-seeing and almighty until He created those things for Himself. [al-Tabsir fil-Din 119, Minhaj al-Sunnah 2/395, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/111, Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 76, Al-A`lam lil Zarkali 3/43]

Another Shia leader called Hisham bin al-Hakam al-Koufi said Allah is a body of equal height, width and depth. He said that his god can move at times and remain idle at others, he also claimed his god has friction with the throne and that it fits him perfectly. [Al-Tanbih wal-Radd `ala Ahl al-Ahwa’ 36, Sharh al-Nahj 1/294, al-Ghuniyah lil-Jaylani 1/93, Al-Burhan fi `Aqa’id ahl al-Adyan 72, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 71, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/106, al-Tabsir 120, al-Milal 1/184, Minhaj al-Sunnah 1/71]

Another Shia leader called Hisham bin Salim al-Jawaliqi said Allah is not a body but is black light in the image of a human, he possesses five senses, is composed of a hand, a foot and an eye but not made from flesh and blood. [Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/108, Al-Milal 1/185, I`tiqadat Firaq al-Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 95, Sharh al-Nahj 1/194, Minhaj al-Sunnah 2/218,al-Khitat 3/293]

Another Shia leader called Yunus bin `Abdul-Rahman al-Qummi, the servant of `Ali bin Yaqtin, he said Allah’s upper body is hollow while the lower half is full. He also said that the angels carry Allah and that they are able to do so even if He is too great the same way a rooster’s small thin legs can support its larger body. [Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq 76, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/110, al-Milal wal-Nihal 1/188, I`tiqadat Firaq al-Muslimin wal-Mushrikin 98]

Another Shia leader called abu Ja`far al-Ahwal (known as Shaytan-ul-Taq) he claimed Allah does not know a matter until it occurs and that His knowledge is emergent. He believed Allah is light in the image of a godly-man. [Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah 1/294, Al-Tabsir fil-Din 121, Maqalat al-Islamiyin 1/111, Al-Milal 1/187]

Shia leader al-Shareef al-Murtada says in “Rasa’il al-Murtada”:
[The greatest amount of (Shia) Fiqh, rather all of it, reaches us through chains containing a Waqifi, a Ghaali (extremist), a Khattabi or a Qummi who believes in Jabr and Tashbeeh. The Qummies, all of them -with the exception of Ibn Babuwayh – until just yesterday were all Mushabbihah and Mujabbirah, their books and works are a testimony to this.]

After learning all of this, one ponder as to when did the Imami Shia reject such beliefs and move to the other side of the spectrum? Ibn Taymiyyah answers this in “Minhaj-ul-Sunnah”:

[Towards the end of the third century, some of the Shia began to embrace the opinions of the Mu`tazilah such as Ibn al-Nawbakhti the author of “Al-Araa’ wal-Diyanaat” and his likes, then after them came al-Mufid bin al-Nu`man and his followers. This is why you will find that the authors who wrote about the beliefs of sects did not mention that the Shia agreed with the Mu`tazilah about Tawheed and `Adl except when talking about the late Shia, as for their early predecessors they were only known for Tajseem.]

Shia leader al-Shareef al-Murtada himself found this problematic so he had to ask his teacher al-Mufid about it as he wrote in “al-Hikayat”:
[I (al-Murtada) keep hearing the Mu`tazilah claim that our (Shia) predecessors were all upon Tashbeeh. I also hear the same from al-`Aamah (Sunnies) who are Mushabbihah. Then I see a group from the Imami scholars of Hadith agreeing with them about this story and saying: “We (Shia) have taken the rejection of Tashbeeh from the Mu`tazillah.” I would love if you refute this for me.]

Now I understand the reasons for failing to grasp my explanations from the “where is Allah” thread and the one here…Imagine the revelations about your sect and to now imagine your effrontery to attack and accuse the Sunnis of anthropomorphism and corporeality?!…If I were you, I would have immediately renounce belonging to a sect with leaders having such beliefs…One can only just imagine the amount of falsehood they introduced and spread amongst the people, no wonder you guys are never consistent. I bet they didn't tell you about all these during your training?!

Source:http://twelvershia.net/2016/02/27/tashbeeh/

^ haha awon eleyi n copy-paste. I hail. Sino its you and I discussing. Really my brother, I am tired of discussing with you while you cannot respond directly based on your opponent's submission. Brother I wanna read your own understanding not copying and dump. Honestly I don't even bother to read though those that will read it will read no doubt.

AlBaqir:
^ haha awon eleyi n copy-paste. I hail. Sino its you and I discussing. Really my brother, I am tired of discussing with you while you cannot respond directly based on your opponent's submission. Brother I wanna read your own understanding not copying and dump. Honestly I don't even bother to read though those that will read it will read no doubt.

Bro, I had presented my understanding previously, especially on the “where is Allah…” thread (https://www.nairaland.com/2570530/where-allah-intellectual-discourse/1), but you kept confusing my submissions just because you have preconceived opinions about my beliefs. I can’t help you understand this simple concept. I presented my “copy and paste” just so people can understand what is available in terms of beliefs types and forms in regards to Allah’s names and attributes i.e the classification into groups by the author of the article.

Again if you had been patient to read, the group 4 colored in green, describes in brief what my beliefs are and shows how to approach the names and attributes of Allah (SWT), as well as other allegorical verses in the Qur’an. It is quite simple and puts a believing heart at peace. No trying to be smart and claiming intellectualism or some “esoteric” understanding and knowledge.

Now do not run away dear AlBaqir, the second part of my “copy and paste” exposes the inconsistencies in shi’ism, your predecessors were anthropomorphist, they believed in corporeality. Since you lots of later generations now feel like having the superior understanding after abandoning the ways of your predecessors and following yet another strange ideology of the mutazilah, it is then pertinent that I present the truth, showing the world (okay, Nairaland Muslims ) who the real anthropomorphist were/are, and those who got their beliefs from philosophers and deviant sects, but still would want to attribute these strange beliefs to the ahl-l-bayt. One needs to ask; did the earlier shi’ah not know or study from the madrasat of the ahl-l-bayt before penning down blasphemous hogwash?!

Let me also point out that in your books are narrations from infallibles that describes Allah (SWT) with such words that are clear, it baffles the mind that these infallibles used these clear words to describe Allah (SWT) and did not find it necessary to do ta’weel (as you (AlBaqir) insist we must do) so as to show/affirm that Allah (SWT) does not resemble His creations…I’ll post a few here, others can be found on the site already indicated above.


1/126 of al-Kafi:

[`Ali bin Muhammad, from Sahl bin Ziyad, from Muhammad bin `Isa, he said: I wrote to abi al-Hasan `Ali bin Muhammad (as): May Allah take my soul in your service, O my master, it is narrated to us that Allah is in one place and not in another place on the Throne resting. He comes down to the sky above the earth every night during the last half of the night. It is narrated that He comes down at the ninth evening of the month of Dhul-Hijjah and then He returns back to His place. Certain individuals among your servants have said that if He would be found in certain places and not in other places the air must have come in contact with Him and would surround Him because air is a thin form of body that surrounds everything proportionate to its size. How then the air would surround Allah, the Most Holy and the Most High, According to this assumption? The Imam (as) replied in writing: “He has the knowledge of this. He is the best One in determining all things. You must, However, note that His being in the sky over the earth is just as Him being on the Throne. All things to Him are the same in the matters of His knowledge and power, domination and control.”

Also narrated from him, from Muhammad bin Ja`far al-Koufi, from Muhammad bin `Isa like it.]

This narration is important as we see the Imam accepting the text of the narration as it is and saying “Allah knows best how this takes place.”

This was affirmed by the commentators of al-Kafi.

`Ali Akbar Ghifari said in his commentary:

[His (as) saying: “He has the knowledge of this” meaning knowledge of how His descent takes place Glory be to Him and you (Shia) are not responsible for knowing how it happens.]

Notice how the Imam agrees with the narration of nuzul (descent) of Allah (SWT) (which you AlBaqir had mocked since it was from Abu Hurayrah in sunni books), but we already know your escape route is that the narration is weak, right? SMH

Note also how the Imam affirms the belief of the ahlu Sunnah by stating that Allah (SWT) has the knowledge of this i.e descent no need for us to be troubling ourselves with the "howness" or negating and denying it or looking for another word to interpret descent?! Now you were saying something about madrasat of ahl-l-bayt again?!

Here is another one AlBaqir

Also in Tahdheeb al-Ahkaam 3/3 #3, Majlisi graded “Sahih” in Malaadh-ul-Akhiyar 4/636:

[From him, from Muhammad bin Yahya, from `Abdullah bin Muhammad, from `Ali bin al-Hakam, from Abban, from abi `Abdillah (as), he said: Friday has its sanctity and right, do not waste a thing from Allah’s worship (etc…) If you are able to spend (that day) in prayer and supplication then do so because your Lord descends in the beginning of every Friday evening to the worldly sky to increase the rewards (etc…)]

Now lets see some quite interesting narrations:

Two narrations from Kitab-ul-Tawheed by Saduq pg.154-155:

3. [I was told by Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad bin al-Walid (rah), we were told by Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Saffar, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Isa, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin abi Nasr, from al-Husayn bin Musa, from `Ubayd bin Zurarah, from abi `Abdillah (as): I asked him about Allah’s words {Upon the day when the leg shall be bared, and they shall be summoned to bow themselves} He (as) lifted his lower garment and exposed his leg while his hand was on his head, then he said: “Praise be to the Lord most high.”]

2. [My father (rah) told me, Sa`d bin`Abdullah told us, from Ibrahim bin Hashim, from Ibn Faddal, from abi Jamilah, from Muhammad bin `Ali al-Halabi, from abi `Abdillah (as) about His words {Upon the day when the leg shall be bared} He (as) said: “May The Almighty be glorified.” then he (as) pointed to his leg and lifted the lower garment exposing it (etc…)]

al-Kafi 4/28:

[Some of our companions, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Khalid, from Isma`il bin Mihran, from Sayf bin `Umayrah, from abi `Abdillah (as), he said: Forgive the people of goodness their mistakes and shortcomings for Allah’s palm is over them like such” And he gestured with his hand as if shading something.]

al-Kafi 2/7:

[`Ali bin Ibrahim, from his father, from ibn abi `Umayr, from Ibn Udhaynah, from Zurarah, that a man asked aba Ja`far (as) about the verse And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam – from their loins – their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes, we have testified.”} He (as) said in front of his father: My father told me that Allah took a fist full of dust from which He created Adam (as), then poured pure water (etc…) then He rubbed it thoroughly until they emerged like atoms from His right and left]

NB: I expect the usual, “don’t quote shi’a books without grading”, and “the narrations are weak!” And you are “tired of my “copy and paste””…Excuses, A sect whose beliefs are as a result of excuses and reactionary tendencies…SMH

^ Sino, on a more serious note because am fed up of you mixing issues and not making direct replies. Which one exactly do you personally subscribe to: Literalism, Tafwid or Tawil of Allegorical verses of the Quran? Do you use them all as per situations? Or you stick to one? Whatever your or mine choice is each of us is on his own.