Doctrinal Benefits By Zuhayr Al Maliki | فوائد العقيدة لزهير المالكي
19.04.202511:08
Announcement:
The next two works will be this:
Translating a sharh of wasitiyyah, then translating Abdullah ar rajhi hamawiyyah sharh, besides that more some minor essays.
May Allāh allow the ummah to benefit from them.
The next two works will be this:
Translating a sharh of wasitiyyah, then translating Abdullah ar rajhi hamawiyyah sharh, besides that more some minor essays.
May Allāh allow the ummah to benefit from them.
转发自:
Ibn al-Layth
08.04.202516:39
Did Ibn Taymiyyah deny majāz? Translation of Shaykh Ahmad Issam al-Najjar's article
https://telegra.ph/Did-Ibn-Taymiyyah-deny-maj%C4%81z-Translation-of-Shaykh-Ahmad-Issam-al-Najjars-article-04-08
https://telegra.ph/Did-Ibn-Taymiyyah-deny-maj%C4%81z-Translation-of-Shaykh-Ahmad-Issam-al-Najjars-article-04-08
19.03.202511:10
I say: As for the term "apparent" (ẓāhir), it is not used in the Qur'an in the sense of speech itself being literal, but it appears in contexts like "And avoid the outer sin and the inner sin" (Qur'an 6:120), which is more about action than speech. However, when people focus too much on the word "apparent," they can misunderstand the approach of the Qur'an. The Sunnah clarifies that Allah’s words can sometimes be understood in a way other than their apparent meaning, but turning Allah’s speech into an overcomplicated system of apparent and allegorical interpretations is a heretical innovation in religion introduced by the ash'ariah and mutazaliah.
Ibn Taymiyyah in his Fatawa al-Dimashqiya, he states:
When a word is used in a metaphorical sense, it may be made clear by contextual evidence. For example, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) referred to the horse of Abu Talha as "a sea" or described Khalid ibn al-Walid as "a sword from the swords of Allah" (indicating his power and bravery), or when he told Uthman that "Allah will clothe you in a garment", these are all instances of metaphorical usage clarified by context.
What I said here is found in numerous books: Sharh kitab al luma'at al i'tiqad of Yusuf ghafees, Dr. Abd al-Majīd ibn Muḥammad al-Waʿlān "Kitāb al-Daʿawā al-Muʿāṣirah al-Munāwi'ah li-Da'wah", "Kitāb Tawḍīḥ al-Maqāṣid Sharḥ Nūnīyah Ibn al-Qayyim al-Kāfīyah al-Shāfīyah" of Dr. Aḥmad ibn ʿĪsá. And scholars like Ibn abi izz in his sharh al tahawiyyah.
Ibn Taymiyyah in his Fatawa al-Dimashqiya, he states:
"Know that the one who does not understand the implications of words and does not realize that the meaning of a word may be understood in different ways—sometimes based on its linguistic, customary, or legal usage, whether in single words or in phrases—may find themselves confused. Sometimes the meaning depends on the way words are combined, which can change their meaning, and sometimes it depends on contextual clues that make the meaning metaphorical. Additionally, the context of the speaker, the listener, and the situation in which the speech occurs can clarify the intended meaning of a word, or show that the word is being used metaphorically. If none of these contexts is clear, then one may be misled. However, if no context accompanies the word, and the meaning is clarified by another separate piece of evidence, then the word is taken to mean something contrary to its apparent meaning, such as when a general statement is made but later restricted by another clear piece of evidence."
When a word is used in a metaphorical sense, it may be made clear by contextual evidence. For example, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) referred to the horse of Abu Talha as "a sea" or described Khalid ibn al-Walid as "a sword from the swords of Allah" (indicating his power and bravery), or when he told Uthman that "Allah will clothe you in a garment", these are all instances of metaphorical usage clarified by context.
What I said here is found in numerous books: Sharh kitab al luma'at al i'tiqad of Yusuf ghafees, Dr. Abd al-Majīd ibn Muḥammad al-Waʿlān "Kitāb al-Daʿawā al-Muʿāṣirah al-Munāwi'ah li-Da'wah", "Kitāb Tawḍīḥ al-Maqāṣid Sharḥ Nūnīyah Ibn al-Qayyim al-Kāfīyah al-Shāfīyah" of Dr. Aḥmad ibn ʿĪsá. And scholars like Ibn abi izz in his sharh al tahawiyyah.
18.03.202516:31
Benefit: The Ruler’s Disbelief Does Not Automatically Justify Revolting Against Him: Just because a ruler falls into disbelief does not mean it is automatically permissible to rise against him. There are five conditions that must be met before such action can be considered:
1 - Clear and undeniable disbelief – The ruler must commit open and explicit disbelief for which there is clear proof from Allah.
2 - Establishing evidence against him – He must be made aware of the truth, and the proof must be presented to him.
3 - Having the ability to remove him – There must be real power to overthrow him, not just an emotional desire to do so.
4 - Being able to replace him with a qualified Muslim ruler – Simply removing the current leader without a viable alternative can lead to chaos.
5 - Ensuring that the consequences of rebellion are not worse than his rule – If revolting leads to greater harm, it is not permissible.
Ibn Taymiyyah said:
1 - Clear and undeniable disbelief – The ruler must commit open and explicit disbelief for which there is clear proof from Allah.
2 - Establishing evidence against him – He must be made aware of the truth, and the proof must be presented to him.
3 - Having the ability to remove him – There must be real power to overthrow him, not just an emotional desire to do so.
4 - Being able to replace him with a qualified Muslim ruler – Simply removing the current leader without a viable alternative can lead to chaos.
5 - Ensuring that the consequences of rebellion are not worse than his rule – If revolting leads to greater harm, it is not permissible.
Ibn Taymiyyah said:
"If a believer is in a land where he is weak, or in a time when he is weak, he must follow the verse about patience and forgiveness towards those who harm Allah and His Messenger, whether they are from the People of the Book or the polytheists. But as for those who have strength, they must act upon the verse commanding the fight against the leaders of disbelief who attack the religion, and the verse about fighting the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah in submission." (Al-Sarim al-Maslul, 2/413)
11.03.202519:02
Relevant to this discussion of mufawwidah and their categorization ^
10.03.202520:51
17.04.202521:33
Announcement:
I finished the book, there will be newer editions just fixing whatever writing mistakes I will find and aesthetic mistakes.
I am excited to release my longest study yet, 205 pages.
May Allah bless whoever benefits from it.
I finished the book, there will be newer editions just fixing whatever writing mistakes I will find and aesthetic mistakes.
I am excited to release my longest study yet, 205 pages.
May Allah bless whoever benefits from it.
07.04.202509:46
Did Imām Aḥmad Really Do Ta’wīl on Allah's Coming? Unpacking the Truth About The Narration.
This is a response to a often used narration of Imam Ahmad seemingly doing tawil on Allah's coming! The article will be a response to the claim from three perspectives, shedding light onto the narration.
This is a response to a often used narration of Imam Ahmad seemingly doing tawil on Allah's coming! The article will be a response to the claim from three perspectives, shedding light onto the narration.
19.03.202510:28
18.03.202514:40
11.03.202518:55
There are some scientific errors to note regarding what Muḥammad Maḥmūd Āl Khiḍayr said first:
☞ Not all mufawwidah did this not all of them did tawil when it came to sifaat, there were particular groups and people like abu yala who accepted the zahir (apparent meaning) but were inconsistent in it's usage as noted by ibn taymiyyah in his discussions regarding abu yala.
☞ Second scientific error: not all mufawwidah said the apparent is impossible especially amongst the hanbaliah who did tafweed, Abu al-Fadl al-Tamimi for example said istiwa' was taken by it's zahir by some of the students of Ahmad this implies he accepted the possibility of taking istiwa' upon it's apparent as for whether the transmission of Abu al-Fadl al-Tamimi was right, then that is another topic.
☞ Not all mufawwidah did this not all of them did tawil when it came to sifaat, there were particular groups and people like abu yala who accepted the zahir (apparent meaning) but were inconsistent in it's usage as noted by ibn taymiyyah in his discussions regarding abu yala.
☞ Second scientific error: not all mufawwidah said the apparent is impossible especially amongst the hanbaliah who did tafweed, Abu al-Fadl al-Tamimi for example said istiwa' was taken by it's zahir by some of the students of Ahmad this implies he accepted the possibility of taking istiwa' upon it's apparent as for whether the transmission of Abu al-Fadl al-Tamimi was right, then that is another topic.
10.03.202517:27
16.04.202520:51
A glance at some of the topics covered within the book, so far it's 129 pages, the final version may be around 160-200's.
24.03.202513:51
I say: Al-Awza‘i made this statement after the emergence of Jahm’s views, which denied that Allah is above His Throne and rejected His attributes. He wanted people to know that the belief of the early scholars was the complete opposite of this.
Abu Bakr al-Khallal narrated in Kitab al-Sunnah that Al-Awza‘i said: Makhul and al-Zuhri were asked about the interpretation of hadiths regarding Allah’s attributes, and they replied: "Let them pass as they came."
Al-Khallal also reported that Al-Walid ibn Muslim said: "I asked Malik ibn Anas, Sufyan al-Thawri, Al-Layth ibn Sa‘d, and Al-Awza‘i about the hadiths concerning Allah’s attributes. They said: 'Let them pass as they came.' In another narration, they added: 'without asking how.'”
Their statement, "Let them pass as they came," was a response to those who denied Allah’s attributes. And their statement, "without asking how," was a response to those who likened Him to His creation. Al-Zuhri and Makhul were among the most knowledgeable scholars of their time, while the other four were leading scholars in the generation after them - alongside figures like Hammad ibn Zayd and Hammad ibn Salamah.
Many people mistakenly assume that the early scholars followed the approach of "tafwid" (leaving the meanings unknown). However, what is certain is that they were completely free from "ta'wil" (reinterpretation), and even more so from "takhyil" (claiming these attributes are mere illusions).
The statements quoted by the scholar clearly show that the early scholars did not follow the approach of tafwid. In fact, these statements are direct criticisms of both ta'wil and tafwid.
Some who support tafwid argue: "Didn’t prominent early scholars say, 'Let them pass as they came'? This means they left the meanings unknown!"
The answer is no. Those who practice tafwid claim that the apparent meaning of the text is not intended. But if they believe that the apparent meaning is not meant, then are they truly letting the text "pass as it came"? The answer is no.
When the early scholars added "without asking how," it was clear that they were distancing themselves from any form of distortion. Their rejection of likening Allah to creation is well understood. But their statement, "Let them pass as they came, without asking how," simply negates knowledge of how these attributes are. This itself proves that they did understand the basic meaning of the attributes.
If they had no knowledge of the meaning at all, they wouldn’t have needed to clarify that the how is unknown. Knowing how something is comes after knowing its basic meaning. If the basic meaning were completely unknown, there would be no need to deny knowledge of how it applies.
Abu Bakr al-Khallal narrated in Kitab al-Sunnah that Al-Awza‘i said: Makhul and al-Zuhri were asked about the interpretation of hadiths regarding Allah’s attributes, and they replied: "Let them pass as they came."
Al-Khallal also reported that Al-Walid ibn Muslim said: "I asked Malik ibn Anas, Sufyan al-Thawri, Al-Layth ibn Sa‘d, and Al-Awza‘i about the hadiths concerning Allah’s attributes. They said: 'Let them pass as they came.' In another narration, they added: 'without asking how.'”
Their statement, "Let them pass as they came," was a response to those who denied Allah’s attributes. And their statement, "without asking how," was a response to those who likened Him to His creation. Al-Zuhri and Makhul were among the most knowledgeable scholars of their time, while the other four were leading scholars in the generation after them - alongside figures like Hammad ibn Zayd and Hammad ibn Salamah.
Many people mistakenly assume that the early scholars followed the approach of "tafwid" (leaving the meanings unknown). However, what is certain is that they were completely free from "ta'wil" (reinterpretation), and even more so from "takhyil" (claiming these attributes are mere illusions).
The statements quoted by the scholar clearly show that the early scholars did not follow the approach of tafwid. In fact, these statements are direct criticisms of both ta'wil and tafwid.
Some who support tafwid argue: "Didn’t prominent early scholars say, 'Let them pass as they came'? This means they left the meanings unknown!"
The answer is no. Those who practice tafwid claim that the apparent meaning of the text is not intended. But if they believe that the apparent meaning is not meant, then are they truly letting the text "pass as it came"? The answer is no.
When the early scholars added "without asking how," it was clear that they were distancing themselves from any form of distortion. Their rejection of likening Allah to creation is well understood. But their statement, "Let them pass as they came, without asking how," simply negates knowledge of how these attributes are. This itself proves that they did understand the basic meaning of the attributes.
If they had no knowledge of the meaning at all, they wouldn’t have needed to clarify that the how is unknown. Knowing how something is comes after knowing its basic meaning. If the basic meaning were completely unknown, there would be no need to deny knowledge of how it applies.
19.03.202510:27
The Second Category: That which is apparent in the speaker’s intended meaning but is open to ta’wil (interpretation). This requires consideration of its occurrence: if its usage is consistently established in one particular way, then interpreting it contrary to its apparent meaning becomes impossible. This is because ta’wil is only applied to an instance that appears outside its analogues and is unique among them, so it is interpreted in order to be aligned with its analogues. However, interpretation is not impermissible if it is known that the speaker’s habitual speech follows a consistent pattern that conveys a meaning familiar to the listener. If, then, an instance appears that contradicts this established pattern, the listener refers it back to what is known from the speaker’s habitual and consistent usage. This is what is logically understood by minds and natural instincts and is recognized by all rational people.
An example of this is the statement of Allah, the Exalted: "ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنُ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِ ٱسْتَوَىٰ (the Most Compassionate, [Who is] established on the Throne)." (Qur’an 20:5), and "إِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضَ فِى سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍۢ ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِ (Indeed your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then established Himself on the Throne)." (Qur’an 7:54). In all its occurrences, from beginning to end, this phrase appears with this wording. Thus, interpreting istawa as istawla (took possession) is invalid. It would only be valid if the majority of its occurrences were in the form of istawla, and then a single instance deviated from its analogues and appeared with the wording istawa in that case, interpreting it as istawla would be permissible. So, be mindful of this and take it as a foundational principle regarding what is impermissible to interpret in the speech of a speaker and what is permissible to interpret.
Ibn al qayyim Ṣawāʿiq al-Mursalah, page 131-132.
An example of this is the statement of Allah, the Exalted: "ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنُ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِ ٱسْتَوَىٰ (the Most Compassionate, [Who is] established on the Throne)." (Qur’an 20:5), and "إِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِى خَلَقَ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضَ فِى سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍۢ ثُمَّ ٱسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى ٱلْعَرْشِ (Indeed your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then established Himself on the Throne)." (Qur’an 7:54). In all its occurrences, from beginning to end, this phrase appears with this wording. Thus, interpreting istawa as istawla (took possession) is invalid. It would only be valid if the majority of its occurrences were in the form of istawla, and then a single instance deviated from its analogues and appeared with the wording istawa in that case, interpreting it as istawla would be permissible. So, be mindful of this and take it as a foundational principle regarding what is impermissible to interpret in the speech of a speaker and what is permissible to interpret.
Ibn al qayyim Ṣawāʿiq al-Mursalah, page 131-132.
18.03.202514:39
"The indication of Allah’s names regarding His essence (dhat) and attributes (sifat) occurs through mutabaqah (correspondence), tadammun (implication), and iltizam (necessary entailment).
An example of this: The name "Al-Khaliq" (The Creator) indicates both Allah’s essence and the attribute of creation by mutabaqah (correspondence). It indicates His essence alone or the attribute of creation alone by tadammun (implication). And it indicates the attributes of knowledge (‘ilm) and power (qudrah) by iltizam (necessary entailment).
For this reason, when Allah mentioned the creation of the heavens and the earth, He said: "So that you may know that Allah has power over all things and that Allah has encompassed all things in knowledge." [At-Talaq: 12] The indication by iltizam is highly beneficial for the seeker of knowledge when he ponders the meaning and when Allah grants him an understanding of necessary entailment. Through this, one can derive numerous issues from a single piece of evidence."
Al-Qawāʿid al-Muthlā ibn uthaymeen, page 14.
An example of this: The name "Al-Khaliq" (The Creator) indicates both Allah’s essence and the attribute of creation by mutabaqah (correspondence). It indicates His essence alone or the attribute of creation alone by tadammun (implication). And it indicates the attributes of knowledge (‘ilm) and power (qudrah) by iltizam (necessary entailment).
For this reason, when Allah mentioned the creation of the heavens and the earth, He said: "So that you may know that Allah has power over all things and that Allah has encompassed all things in knowledge." [At-Talaq: 12] The indication by iltizam is highly beneficial for the seeker of knowledge when he ponders the meaning and when Allah grants him an understanding of necessary entailment. Through this, one can derive numerous issues from a single piece of evidence."
Al-Qawāʿid al-Muthlā ibn uthaymeen, page 14.
11.03.202518:45
Huge benefit: Editing the doctrine of Ibn qudamah ✍️:
❝Whoever examines the words of Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) in this book and others will know that he is free from this tafweedh (delegation). This is clarified by several points:
1. He delegated knowledge (ilm) in what was ambiguous, but did not make this general in all sifat (attributes) or in what might suggest tashbeeh (resemblance), as some claim.
2. He quoted from Ahmad (rahimahullah), affirming his statement: "We do not know how the essence (kawn) of that is," which makes it clear that what is delegated (mufawwad) is the kayfiyyah (how) and not the ma’na (meaning).
3. He included Hadith al-Ru’yah (the narration about seeing Allah) among what is delegated, and there is no dispute over the establishment of its ma’na (meaning); rather, the discussion is about the kayfiyyah (how) of the vision.
4. He affirmed nuzool (descent), dhihk (laughter), and ‘ajab (wonder) as sifat (attributes) established in the Sunnah, and he said: "We do not interpret it with a ta’weel (interpretation) that contradicts its zahir (apparent meaning)." So he affirmed the zahir and submitted to it, whereas the mufawwidh (one who practices tafweedh) believes that the zahir is impossible and that it must be negated, as has been mentioned before.
5. He affirmed that Allah’s kalam (speech) occurs with letters and a sound that is heard, which a mufawwidh does not say.
6. In his book, while affirming the attribute of ‘uluw (elevation), he cited Hadith al-Nuzool (the narration of descent) and quoted Ibn Abd al-Barr (rahimahullah), who said: "And in it is evidence that Allah (ta’ala) is in the heaven (fi al-sama’), above the Throne (‘ala al-‘Arsh), above the seven heavens, as the jama’ah (consensus of scholars) has said, and it is their proof against the Mu’tazilah and their claim that Allah is in every place." This reasoning affirms the ma’na (meaning) of nuzool (descent) and that it occurs from ‘uluw (above).
7 - He quoted from Ibn Abd al-Barr (rahimahullah), affirming his statement: "Ahl al-Sunnah are unanimously agreed upon affirming all the sifat (attributes) that are mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah, believing in them, and taking them upon their haqiqah (literal reality), not upon majaz (figurative interpretation). However, they do not describe the kayfiyyah (how) of any of these sifat, nor do they confine them to a limited definition. As for the people of bid‘ah (innovation)—the Jahmiyyah, the Mu‘tazilah, and all of the Khawarij—they all reject these sifat and do not take any of them upon their haqiqah. They claim that whoever affirms them is a mushabbih (one who likens Allah to creation), while in reality, they are the ones negating the true Ma‘bud (the One who is worshiped). The truth is with those who affirm what is stated in the Kitab Allah (Book of Allah) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), and these are the a’immah (leaders) of the jama‘ah (mainstream Sunni path)."
The mufawwidh (one who practices tafweedh) interprets these texts as majaz (figurative), and this is why he finds it acceptable to divert them from their zahir (apparent meaning), after first believing that this zahir is impossible to attribute to Allah.❞
- Muḥammad Maḥmūd Āl Khiḍayr sharh luma'at al i'tiqad page 115-117.
❝Whoever examines the words of Ibn Qudamah (rahimahullah) in this book and others will know that he is free from this tafweedh (delegation). This is clarified by several points:
1. He delegated knowledge (ilm) in what was ambiguous, but did not make this general in all sifat (attributes) or in what might suggest tashbeeh (resemblance), as some claim.
2. He quoted from Ahmad (rahimahullah), affirming his statement: "We do not know how the essence (kawn) of that is," which makes it clear that what is delegated (mufawwad) is the kayfiyyah (how) and not the ma’na (meaning).
3. He included Hadith al-Ru’yah (the narration about seeing Allah) among what is delegated, and there is no dispute over the establishment of its ma’na (meaning); rather, the discussion is about the kayfiyyah (how) of the vision.
4. He affirmed nuzool (descent), dhihk (laughter), and ‘ajab (wonder) as sifat (attributes) established in the Sunnah, and he said: "We do not interpret it with a ta’weel (interpretation) that contradicts its zahir (apparent meaning)." So he affirmed the zahir and submitted to it, whereas the mufawwidh (one who practices tafweedh) believes that the zahir is impossible and that it must be negated, as has been mentioned before.
5. He affirmed that Allah’s kalam (speech) occurs with letters and a sound that is heard, which a mufawwidh does not say.
6. In his book, while affirming the attribute of ‘uluw (elevation), he cited Hadith al-Nuzool (the narration of descent) and quoted Ibn Abd al-Barr (rahimahullah), who said: "And in it is evidence that Allah (ta’ala) is in the heaven (fi al-sama’), above the Throne (‘ala al-‘Arsh), above the seven heavens, as the jama’ah (consensus of scholars) has said, and it is their proof against the Mu’tazilah and their claim that Allah is in every place." This reasoning affirms the ma’na (meaning) of nuzool (descent) and that it occurs from ‘uluw (above).
7 - He quoted from Ibn Abd al-Barr (rahimahullah), affirming his statement: "Ahl al-Sunnah are unanimously agreed upon affirming all the sifat (attributes) that are mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah, believing in them, and taking them upon their haqiqah (literal reality), not upon majaz (figurative interpretation). However, they do not describe the kayfiyyah (how) of any of these sifat, nor do they confine them to a limited definition. As for the people of bid‘ah (innovation)—the Jahmiyyah, the Mu‘tazilah, and all of the Khawarij—they all reject these sifat and do not take any of them upon their haqiqah. They claim that whoever affirms them is a mushabbih (one who likens Allah to creation), while in reality, they are the ones negating the true Ma‘bud (the One who is worshiped). The truth is with those who affirm what is stated in the Kitab Allah (Book of Allah) and the Sunnah of His Messenger (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), and these are the a’immah (leaders) of the jama‘ah (mainstream Sunni path)."
The mufawwidh (one who practices tafweedh) interprets these texts as majaz (figurative), and this is why he finds it acceptable to divert them from their zahir (apparent meaning), after first believing that this zahir is impossible to attribute to Allah.❞
- Muḥammad Maḥmūd Āl Khiḍayr sharh luma'at al i'tiqad page 115-117.
10.03.202517:26
Ustadh. Ahmad Issam al Najjar in his book called "Nazariyyat al-zaman wa al-makan ‘ind Ibn Taymiyyah Bahth fi al-dalalah al-falsafiyyah wa al-shar‘iyyah wa bayan athariha fi al-bahth al-‘aqadi" "The Theory of Time and Space According to Ibn Taymiyyah: A Study of Its Philosophical and Shar‘i (legal) Significance and an Explanation of Its Impact on ‘Aqadi (doctrinal) Research." discussed the issue of place such as makan adami and wujudi in great detail however I will merely quote a short passage from page 203:
Ninth: The Term "Hayyiz" and "Mutahayyiz" should not be Attributed to Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala): The term hayyiz (space) and mutahayyiz (located) should not be used for Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) because it can imply both truth and falsehood. The word hayyiz may sometimes refer to a non-existent (non-physical) matter, and in that sense, Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) is distinct from the creation (mubāyin lil-‘ālam) and above it (fawqahu). With this meaning, it is acceptable. However, this meaning is not the linguistic meaning of mutahayyiz.
Likewise, some groups use hayyiz to mean something existent (amr wujudi), and if one says that Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) is mutahayyiz in this sense, it would imply that something exists that surrounds Him (Jalla wa ‘Ala), which is falsehood, as Allah is exalted above such a notion. Therefore, this term should only be used when necessary, with clarification and inquiry into its intended meaning—accepting the correct interpretation and rejecting the false one.
التاسع: لا يُطلق لفظ الحيز والمُتحيّز على الله سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى لكونه يحتمل حقا وباطلا، فإن الحيز قد يُراد به الأمر العدمي، وبذلك فإن الله سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى مباين للعالم وفوقه، فبهذا المعنى يُقبل، إلا أن ذلك المعنى ليس هو المعنى اللغوي للمتحيز، وكذلك فبعض الطوائف قد تعني بالحيّز أمرًا وجوديا، وعليه فإن القول بأن الله سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى مُتَحيّز بهذا المعنى يعني وجود موجود يحيط به جَلَّ وَعَلَا، والله منزه عن ذلك، فلا يُطلق اللفظ إلا عند الحاجة وبعد التفصيل والاستفسار عن المعنى، فيقبل الحق منه ويُرد الباطل.
Ninth: The Term "Hayyiz" and "Mutahayyiz" should not be Attributed to Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala): The term hayyiz (space) and mutahayyiz (located) should not be used for Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) because it can imply both truth and falsehood. The word hayyiz may sometimes refer to a non-existent (non-physical) matter, and in that sense, Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) is distinct from the creation (mubāyin lil-‘ālam) and above it (fawqahu). With this meaning, it is acceptable. However, this meaning is not the linguistic meaning of mutahayyiz.
Likewise, some groups use hayyiz to mean something existent (amr wujudi), and if one says that Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) is mutahayyiz in this sense, it would imply that something exists that surrounds Him (Jalla wa ‘Ala), which is falsehood, as Allah is exalted above such a notion. Therefore, this term should only be used when necessary, with clarification and inquiry into its intended meaning—accepting the correct interpretation and rejecting the false one.
15.04.202519:01
I apologize for not uploading for a while I have a huge project which I am working on!
Which I plan to release in the coming months so wait a while.
Which I plan to release in the coming months so wait a while.
19.03.202519:40
So Allah sent His Messenger, while the people of the earth were in greater need of his message than they are of the rain from the sky or the light of the sun that dispels the depths of darkness. Their need for his message surpasses all other needs, and their necessity for it takes precedence over all other necessities. For there is no life for the hearts, no bliss, no delight, no joy, no security, and no tranquility except through knowing their Lord, their object of worship, and their Creator by His names, attributes, and actions so that He becomes more beloved to them than anything else, and their efforts are directed toward what brings them closer to Him and nearer to His pleasure.
Abdullah Al-Ghunayman sharh al aqeedah al wasitiyyah, page 6.
Abdullah Al-Ghunayman sharh al aqeedah al wasitiyyah, page 6.
18.03.202522:44
"Seven will be shaded by Allah in His Shade on the Day when there is no shade except His Shade" - Sahih bukhari.
I say: The shade mentioned in relation to the Day of Judgment is described in different ways in the texts. Sometimes, it is attributed to the Throne, and other times, it is attributed to Allah Himself. Because of this variation, some scholars have interpreted the shade as one of Allah’s attributes, saying that He has a shade. They refer to the well-known hadith.
However, those who hold this view explain that this "shade" does not mean a literal, physical shade, but rather it refers to Allah’s mercy. They argue that a physical shade cannot be attributed to Allah, as it would imply that something exists above Him, which is impossible.
The correct view is that the shade attributed to Allah refers to the shade of His Throne, not anything else.
I say: The shade mentioned in relation to the Day of Judgment is described in different ways in the texts. Sometimes, it is attributed to the Throne, and other times, it is attributed to Allah Himself. Because of this variation, some scholars have interpreted the shade as one of Allah’s attributes, saying that He has a shade. They refer to the well-known hadith.
However, those who hold this view explain that this "shade" does not mean a literal, physical shade, but rather it refers to Allah’s mercy. They argue that a physical shade cannot be attributed to Allah, as it would imply that something exists above Him, which is impossible.
The correct view is that the shade attributed to Allah refers to the shade of His Throne, not anything else.
11.03.202520:22
11.03.202514:01
Minor benefit:
قَوْلُهُ: (وَلَا نَرَى الْخُرُوجَ عَلَى أَئِمَّتِنَا وَوُلَاةِ أُمُورِنَا، وَإِنْ جَارُوا، وَلَا نَدْعُو عَلَيْهِمْ، وَلَا نَنْزِعُ يَدًا مِنْ طَاعَتِهِمْ، وَنَرَى طَاعَتَهُمْ مِنْ طَاعَةِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ فَرِيضَةً، مَا لَمْ يَأْمُرُوا بِمَعْصِيَةٍ، وَنَدْعُو لَهُمْ بِالصَّلَاحِ وَالْمُعَافَاةِ) . ش: قَالَ تَعَالَى: {يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ} [النِّسَاءِ: ٥٩] . وَفِي الصَّحِيحِ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ: «مَنْ أَطَاعَنِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَقَدْ عَصَى اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ يُطِعِ الْأَمِيرَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي، وَمَنْ يَعْصِ الْأَمِيرَ فَقَدْ عَصَانِي» .
وَعَنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ. قَالَ: «إِنَّ خَلِيلِي أَوْصَانِي أَنْ أَسْمَعَ وَأُطِيعَ وَإِنْ كَانَ عَبْدًا حَبَشِيًّا مُجَدَّعَ الْأَطْرَافِ» . وَعِنْدَ الْبُخَارِيِّ: «وَلَوْ لِحَبَشِيٍّ كَأَنَّ رَأْسَهُ زَبِيبَةٌ» .
وَفِي ((الصَّحِيحَيْنِ)) أَيْضًا: «عَلَى الْمَرْءِ الْمُسْلِمِ السَّمْعُ وَالطَّاعَةُ فِيمَا أَحَبَّ وَكَرِهَ، إِلَّا أَنْ يُؤْمَرَ بِمَعْصِيَةٍ، فَإِنْ أُمِرَ بِمَعْصِيَةٍ فَلَا سَمْعَ وَلَا طَاعَةَ» .
❝His [Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī d. 321 AH] statement: "We do not see rebellion (khurooj) against our leaders (a'immatina) and rulers, even if they are unjust (jaru), nor do we supplicate against them, nor do we withdraw our hand from obeying them. We see that obeying them is an obligation from obeying Allah (‘azza wa jall), as long as they do not command disobedience. We supplicate for their righteousness and well-being."
☛ [Explanation explanation of ibn abi izz]: Allah the Exalted said: "O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger (rasool) and those in authority among you." (Surah an-Nisa’ 4:59)
And in the Sahih, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Whoever obeys me has obeyed Allah, and whoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allah. Whoever obeys the leader (ameer) has obeyed me, and whoever disobeys the leader has disobeyed me."
And from Abu Dharr (radiyallahu ‘anhu), he said: "Indeed, my close companion advised me to listen and obey [the ruler], even if he were an Abyssinian slave with mutilated limbs."
And in al-Bukhari: "Even if he [the ruler] were an Abyssinian whose head was like a raisin."
And in both Sahihs, "It is obligatory upon a Muslim to listen and obey in what he likes and dislikes, unless he is commanded to commit disobedience. If he is commanded with disobedience, then there is no listening and no obedience (taa‘ah).”❞
Aqeedah al tahawiyyah sharh of ibn abi izz tahqiq (edition) risalah, page 540.
قَوْلُهُ: (وَلَا نَرَى الْخُرُوجَ عَلَى أَئِمَّتِنَا وَوُلَاةِ أُمُورِنَا، وَإِنْ جَارُوا، وَلَا نَدْعُو عَلَيْهِمْ، وَلَا نَنْزِعُ يَدًا مِنْ طَاعَتِهِمْ، وَنَرَى طَاعَتَهُمْ مِنْ طَاعَةِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ فَرِيضَةً، مَا لَمْ يَأْمُرُوا بِمَعْصِيَةٍ، وَنَدْعُو لَهُمْ بِالصَّلَاحِ وَالْمُعَافَاةِ) . ش: قَالَ تَعَالَى: {يَاأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ} [النِّسَاءِ: ٥٩] . وَفِي الصَّحِيحِ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ: «مَنْ أَطَاعَنِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَقَدْ عَصَى اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ يُطِعِ الْأَمِيرَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي، وَمَنْ يَعْصِ الْأَمِيرَ فَقَدْ عَصَانِي» .
وَعَنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ. قَالَ: «إِنَّ خَلِيلِي أَوْصَانِي أَنْ أَسْمَعَ وَأُطِيعَ وَإِنْ كَانَ عَبْدًا حَبَشِيًّا مُجَدَّعَ الْأَطْرَافِ» . وَعِنْدَ الْبُخَارِيِّ: «وَلَوْ لِحَبَشِيٍّ كَأَنَّ رَأْسَهُ زَبِيبَةٌ» .
وَفِي ((الصَّحِيحَيْنِ)) أَيْضًا: «عَلَى الْمَرْءِ الْمُسْلِمِ السَّمْعُ وَالطَّاعَةُ فِيمَا أَحَبَّ وَكَرِهَ، إِلَّا أَنْ يُؤْمَرَ بِمَعْصِيَةٍ، فَإِنْ أُمِرَ بِمَعْصِيَةٍ فَلَا سَمْعَ وَلَا طَاعَةَ» .
❝His [Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad aṭ-Ṭaḥāwī d. 321 AH] statement: "We do not see rebellion (khurooj) against our leaders (a'immatina) and rulers, even if they are unjust (jaru), nor do we supplicate against them, nor do we withdraw our hand from obeying them. We see that obeying them is an obligation from obeying Allah (‘azza wa jall), as long as they do not command disobedience. We supplicate for their righteousness and well-being."
☛ [Explanation explanation of ibn abi izz]: Allah the Exalted said: "O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger (rasool) and those in authority among you." (Surah an-Nisa’ 4:59)
And in the Sahih, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "Whoever obeys me has obeyed Allah, and whoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allah. Whoever obeys the leader (ameer) has obeyed me, and whoever disobeys the leader has disobeyed me."
And from Abu Dharr (radiyallahu ‘anhu), he said: "Indeed, my close companion advised me to listen and obey [the ruler], even if he were an Abyssinian slave with mutilated limbs."
And in al-Bukhari: "Even if he [the ruler] were an Abyssinian whose head was like a raisin."
And in both Sahihs, "It is obligatory upon a Muslim to listen and obey in what he likes and dislikes, unless he is commanded to commit disobedience. If he is commanded with disobedience, then there is no listening and no obedience (taa‘ah).”❞
Aqeedah al tahawiyyah sharh of ibn abi izz tahqiq (edition) risalah, page 540.
10.03.202517:16
Ignorant ash'ariah have resorted to talking about matters they do not understand! As the argument shows in the picture they resorted to using out of context manuscripts they have no understanding of! Their arguments are a disaster this does not contradict us because:
A - Imam Ahmad throughout the book refuted the jahmiyyah who said Allah is everywhere so he is most likely referring to that, this is made clearer by this passage:
وإذا أردت أن تعلم أن الجهمي كاذب على الله حين زعم أن الله في كل مكان، ولا يكون في مكان دون مكان، فقل: أليس الله كان ولا شيء؟
And if you want to know that the jahmī is lying about Allāh when he is claiming that Allāh is everywhere, and that He is not in one place without (also) being in another place (at the same time), then say to him: “Did Allāh not exist and there was nothing along with him?”
Ar radd ala jahmiyyah page 155.
B - It's merely referring to makan wujudi, makan wujudi is a place which surrounds the bodies, Allah is far above this so this could be the intended meaning.
A - Imam Ahmad throughout the book refuted the jahmiyyah who said Allah is everywhere so he is most likely referring to that, this is made clearer by this passage:
وإذا أردت أن تعلم أن الجهمي كاذب على الله حين زعم أن الله في كل مكان، ولا يكون في مكان دون مكان، فقل: أليس الله كان ولا شيء؟
And if you want to know that the jahmī is lying about Allāh when he is claiming that Allāh is everywhere, and that He is not in one place without (also) being in another place (at the same time), then say to him: “Did Allāh not exist and there was nothing along with him?”
Ar radd ala jahmiyyah page 155.
B - It's merely referring to makan wujudi, makan wujudi is a place which surrounds the bodies, Allah is far above this so this could be the intended meaning.
显示 1 - 24 共 26
登录以解锁更多功能。