Athari tawheed “Not separate nor identical”??

[Simple thinking]

salam alaikum

 

‘Atharis’ claiming Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) “foot” or other parts are not Separate nor identical. 

 

They support the stamens above by saying things like, "For example, is your ethnicity identical to you, so let's say you're Pakistani, is you being Pakistani identical to your essence?"

 

I'm not very good in philosophy; does anyone know how to respond to this?

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

Salam

it is quite clear that the Ashari’s belief in the area of descriptive attributes is not out of the framework of one of two following matters:

1. Personifying and likening if applied to Allah, Glory to Him, in their common meanings in minds while preserving their reality,

2. Complication and ambiguity if applied to Allah, Glory to Him, in the common meanings without interpretation and explanation. People either liken or complicate, personify or blabber!

Quote

In a statement he said, “They do not represent the attributes of Allah Almighty similarly to His creation, nor do they deny what He has described Himself or His Messenger described Him lest they should nullify His Beautiful Names and Supreme Attributes.” He goes on to say, “Nobody from among the nation’s ancestors, from among the sahaba and tabiin, ever said that Allah is not in the heavens, nor is He not on the Arsh, or that He is not everywhere, nor that all places with Him are the same, nor is He inside or outside the world, connected with or separated from it, nor that it is not permissible to point at Him with fingers and the like.”5

Thereupon, Abu Zuhrah says, “Ibn Taymiyyah determines that the creed of the ancestors is to confirm whatever the Quran contains, what is high and what is low, the Almighty firming Himself on the Throne, His face, hand, love and hate and whatever the Sunnah contains of the same without interpretation and with literal appearance. Is this truly the creed of the ancestors?!

 

Quote

Rendering

A group of Asharis and others applied these characteristics to Allah, Glory to Him, while rendering their meanings to Him.

Al-Shahristani has said,

“A large group from among the ancestors confirm descriptive attributes, such as the hands and face, without interpreting them. They say, ‘We do not know the meaning of the expression such as in the verse saying: The most Merciful One is firmly seated on the Arsh, and like: … to what I have created with My hand. We are not obligated to know the explanation of these verses, but we have already been required to believe that He has no partner, something which we have already proven.”9

To this viewpoint did ar-Razi incline when he said,

“These similarities must definitely be seen as having meanings other than what they apparently convey (on the surface). We must also render their meaning to Allah Almighty, and their interpretation must not be discussed.”10

 

Quote

There is no doubt that the literal meaning of the Arsh is known to everyone without any confusion.

Ibn Faris has said, “The Arsh is one term that indicates the loftiness of something built, then it is used metaphorically. Al-Khalil (ibn Ahmed al-Farahidi, the renown linguist) has used the term ‘the king’s seat’ which is correct. Allah Almighty has said,

“… He raised his parents high on the throne” (Qur’an, 12:100).

Then it was used metaphorically: One’s command and caretaking is labeled as an arsh. If he is deposed, it is said that his arsh collapsed. Zuhair has composed this verse of poetry:

You went to the rescue of the coalitions whose arsh collapsed,
And did so to Thubyan whose feet slipped away from the sandal.”15

“Firmly seating” is known in the language; it is empowering and enabling. Al-Raghib has said the following in his Mufradat: “Firmly seated is seen in two ways: One of them is rendered to two doers and more such as: Zaid and Amr are equal in such-and-such a thing. The Almighty has said, ‘They are not equal with Allah’. The second is that a thing being straight by itself, as in the verse:

“Endowed with wisdom, he appeared (in a stately form)” (Qur’an, 53:6),

‘When you are seated stately…’, ‘… so you may seat yourselves on their backs’ and ‘… when it is firm on its stem…’ All convey the meaning of control such as in this verse:

“(Allah) the Most Gracious is firmly established on the throne (of authority)” (Qur’an, 20:5).”16

Our focus is that the firm establishment in the verse cited above does not indicate an apparent sense of sitting, on depending on something. Rather, it means control, full ability, a connotation for the expanse of His ability and management. The establishment is used in this sense in many verses of poetry. Al-Akhtal said the following verses in praise of Bishr, brother of Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan, when the latter took charge of Iraq:

Then Bishr seized control of Iraq
Without a sword or blood to shed.17

Another poet said,

When we rose and took control of them,
We left them prey to eagles and to beasts.

What is meant by the first verse is Bishr taking control of Iraq, and in the second verse there is a reference to vanquishing the foe. Height here is not physical; it is an abstract.

If all this is known, we say that if we adopt the literal meaning of the Arsh, as one would have done when he reads this verse by the most Praised One:

“… and she has a magnificent throne” (Qur’an, 27:23),

we must say that Allah, Praise is due to Him, has a throne like that of kings and sultans. It is then that the meaning of His seating Himself on it becomes possible.

But if we abandon this meaning and say that the apparent meaning is truly believing in the verse literally, which comes to mind from the verse as a whole after discerning the evidences that surround the sentence, the verse will connote His taking control of His domain in the life of this world and in the Hereafter and His management without help from anyone at all.

The sentences that occur in many verses talking about His firming Himself on the Arsh indicate that the sought meaning is the second, not the first. They confirm that the objective is His management in a way which overwhelms everything, be it minutely small or magnanimous, and that the most Praised One is the Creator and also the Administrator.

 

Quote

If you absorb what we have stated, this (phrase in the) verse must be discerned: “… to what I have created in my own hands” since the scholars of exegesis have opinions about it:

a) The hand as meaning ability

b) The hand as meaning a blessing

He gave them the meaning that Allah's power is one. So, what is the need to follow it with the phrase “with My own hand”, especially since the blessings of Allah, Praise belongs to Him, are countless, so why did He refer to His hand?

c) The hands as connoting ability and bliss; through this meaning does the previous confusion disappear.

I say that had evidences indicated that the verse shows that its apparent meaning must be taken, it would have been so, and you would not have come to know that the appearance is the connotation, rather than the individual meaning. But such evidences are not there according to us.

d) Accepting the linguistic meaning, but it indicates that the most Praised One, rather than anyone else, is the Master of His creatures. Most actions done by those who have two hands are thus done, so doing things with the hands has prevailed on all other actions that are done through other ways, so much so that even what the heart does is referred to as “It is what your hands have done”. If someone reviles someone else, so he is dealt with accordingly, it will be said to him: “This is what your hands have offered.” Even one who has lost his hands is told that his hands have committed harm and his mouth had blown (into ashes to spark fire). An example is this verse by the most Praised One:

“Do they not see that it is We Who have created with Our hands for them cattle which We have placed under their command?” (Qur'an, 36:71).

If you come to know all of this, the verse's objective becomes clear which is: The most Praised One denounces Satan saying: "Since you did not prostrate to Adam, although I created him and brought him into existence, and I know about his status and the reasons why I ordered you and the angels to prostrate to him, did you feel haughty before Me, or do you regard yourself to be among those whose status is higher than his?"

The proof that creating with the hands connotes the most Praised One undertaking the process of creation by Himself, not creating him and His other creatures through bodily organs called “hands”, is that the reason behind Satan refusing to prostrate to what the most Praise One had made had nothing to do with His creating him (Adam) with the special bodily part, the hand, so as if He had created him by something else, Satan would not have objected and refused to prostrate to him.

The criterion is objection to prostrating to what the most Praised One created without paying attention to the “tool” with which He created him.

https://www.al-islam.org/al-ilahiyyat-volume-1-sheikh-hassan-muhammad-makki-al-amili/chapter-6-descriptive-attributes

[Ashvazdanghe]

Salafi & Wahabi (Ashari) viewpoint

Attributing a Place to Allah, The Most High

Quote

Ath-Thahabi wrote a book entitled al-'Uluw lil-‘ali al-Ghaffar, and he mentioned in it many quotations that prove that this is the methodology of the Salaf.

Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafseer after mentioning the statements of those who spoke about direction:
“The first generation of the Salaf, may Allah be pleased with them, did not speak about denying the direction and they did not utter such a thing, but they and all the people uttered by proving it to Allah, as mentioned in His book and as conveyed by His Messengers. None of the Salaf denied that Allah is really (for a fact) established on His Throne.” [End of quote]

So is al-Qurtubi Kafir, as well as those from whom it was quoted that they confirmed that Allah is lying on His Throne, are they Kaafir as well?!

In the Fataawa which we referred you to previously, you will find more clarifications in this regard.

If As-Sabki had quoted the consensus that you mentioned in the question, then this is based on the belief of the Ashaa’irah, and the view of their scholars (i.e. the Ash’ari scholars) and not the consensus of the Muslim nation.

On the other hand, we have not come across the statement that you attributed to Abu Haneefah. Rather, what is quoted from him is the opposite.

Ibn Abul-'Izz, from the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, said in his explanation of the ‘Aqeedah at-Taahawiyyah:

Shaykh al-Islam Abu Isma'eel al-Ansari narrated in his book al-Faarooq, in his chain of transmission to Mutee' al-Bakhli: that he asked Abu Haneefah about those who say: "I do not know whether my Lord is in the heavens or in the earth? He said: he has disbelieved; because Allah Says (what means): {The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established.} [Quran 20:5], and His Throne is above the seven heavens. I said: If he says: Allah is on the Throne, but he says: I do not know whether the Throne is in the heavens or in the earth? He replied: He is a Kaafir (disbeliever), because he denied that Allah is in the heavens; whoever denies that Allah is in the heavens, he has disbelieved.” [End of quote]

It should be mentioned here that not everyone who says a word of Kufr becomes a Kaafir (disbeliever). There are some conditions for declaring someone as a Kaafir which we have already highlighted in Fataawa 87963 and 8106.

Finally, it should be noted that a Muslim should avoid issues or matters of misconceptions if he is not well-grounded in Islamic knowledge, otherwise his heart may be affected with them and he would not be able to get rid of them.

https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/461314/attributing-a-place-to-allah-the-most-high

Chapter 6: Descriptive Attributes

Quote

Chapter 6: Descriptive Attributes

Some logicians have classified the attributes of the most Praised One into entitative and descriptive. The first implies His well known descriptions: knowledge, power, life, etc. The second indicates what obvious verses and traditions have confirmed, such as loftiness, countenance, hands, etc. The logicians’ theory has differed in explaining this part of attributes:

Confirming with “How” and “Like”

There are those who claim that Allah, the most Praised One, has physical things such as two eyes and hands similarly to what humans have. Al-Shahristani says, “As for the anthropomorphists (those who attribute human characteristics to nonhuman objects), who are Hashwis (those who prattle about things which they themselves do not understand, i.e. sophistries), these have permitted the concept that their Lord is touched and is hand-shaken, that sincere Muslims embrace Him, Praise belongs to Him, in the life of this world and in the hereafter if they reach a degree of self-discipline and struggle to the extent of sincerity.”1

Since likening and personifying the Almighty is false according to reason and reliable texts, we do not want to waste our time discussing this theory.

Confirming without “How” and “Like”

The Ashari mentor and those who follow him apply these characteristics to Allah, Glory to Him, in the meaning with which we all are familiar. But in order to run away from likening Him to humans, they say “without like”, “without how”.

In his book titled Al-Ibana, al-Ashari says, “Allah, Glory to Him, has a face without a likeness as He has said,

‘But the Face of your Lord shall abide (forever) full of majesty, bounty and honor” (Qur’an, 55:27).

He has hands without a likeness as He has said,

‘… one whom I have created with My hands’ (Qur’an, 38:75).”2

This theory is not exclusively advocated by al-Ashari. Abu Hanifah is quoted as having said, “References in the Holy Quran to Allah Almighty having a face, a hand, a self, are His characteristics without a likeness.”

Ibn Kathir has said, “We follow the path of the righteous ancestors which is: believing in them as they have come without how or like.”3

https://www.al-islam.org/al-ilahiyyat-volume-1-sheikh-hassan-muhammad-makki-al-amili/chapter-6-descriptive-attributes

[Guest Imām Zayd al-Shahīd]

Salam alaykum

 

SubhanAllah!

Allah transcends all attribution of likeness with creation! 

*

The word foot has a literal meaning which only makes sense in a context

A literal foot only makes sense as a limited entity that enables standing up through space from the ground and motion through space across the ground - that is the context 

For a being that is prior to limitation and ground, and prior to space and therefore the conditions of standing and motion, a literal foot makes no sense and is absurd

 

Figuratively we may speak of Allah rising upon the throne or moving fast towards the believer, but these are figurative, to communicate His Majesty and His Love - to communicate the way He interacts with us

 

 

 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

On 5/2/2023 at 12:24 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salafi & Wahabi (Ashari) viewpoint

Salamun 'alaykum, 

it's not fair to put the Ash'ari creed together with that of the so called "Salafis" (=Wahhabiyya) regarding the issue of divine attributes, because there is a huge difference between the two creeds. 

The Asha'ira do not affirm any commonality in meaning or reality between the Creator and the creation and their Tafwid does not accept the possibility of Tajsim / Tashbih as a correct option. The "Salafis" in contrast do affirm a commonality between the Creator and the creation, which is what their Ibn Taymiyya called as "al-Qadar al-mushtarak" and this is clear Tashbih. 

The Ash'aris are agreed upon that Allah ta'ala is beyond time and space, while Ibn Taymiyya and his mindless followers believe in a "god", who is in time and space. So let's please be fair and not put them together. 

 

The mistake of the Asha'ira however was that they affirmed Sifat that are additional to the divine Self (Zaida 'ala al-Dhat) in order to be "different to the Mu'tazila" and did not realize what follows from this issue. Later on they themselves realized how mindless the Hanbali opponents of the Mu'tazila were and began to show very clear opposition to the Hanabila and were quite successful in this until modern times. The "Salafis" of our time revived the pagan ideas of the Hashwi Hanabila (while ignoring those among the Hanbalis, who stressed Tanzih) and tried to act as if early Sunnis all accepted their pagan ideas, which is clearly not the case, if one has studied these issues properly. 

 

As for the leaders and scholars of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), then they're agreed upon the Tanzih of Allah ta'ala - as is established by Muhkam Ayat - and they believe in divine simplicity as is famous from their words. The one who holds to their understanding is protected from deviance due to the statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) concerning them. 

Allah ta'ala says:

59:24
هُوَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْخَالِقُ ٱلْبَارِىءُ ٱلْمُصَوِّرُ لَهُ ٱلأَسْمَآءُ ٱلْحُسْنَىٰ يُسَبِّحُ لَهُ مَا فِي ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلأَرْضِ وَهُوَ ٱلْعَزِيزُ ٱلْحَكِيمُ ٢٤

He is Allāh, the Creator, the Producer, the Fashioner; to Him belong the best names. Whatever is in the heavens and earth is exalting Him. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

___

Interestingly in the Book of Allah ta'ala only the beautiful names (al-Asma al-Husna) are explicitly ascribed to Allah ta'ala and not [additional] attributes and this indicates towards divine simplicity. 

 

Edited January 26 by StrangerInThisWorld

[Eddie Mecca]

@Ashvazdanghe, salaam...the brother was asking about Athari creed...not Ash'ari creed...slow down and double-check

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

I think almost all salafy/wahabi muslims are athari and not ashari.

[Ashvazdanghe]

Salam

Ash'arism (Arabic:الأشعرية, al-Ashʿariyya) is a theological school of Sunni Islam that is based on the theological ideas of Abu l-Hasan al-Ash'ari (b. 260/873-4 d. 324/935-6). In the beginning of his scientific journey, He was Mu'tazili but after a while he was seeking a moderate way between radical rationalism of Mu'tazila and anti-rationalism of Ahl al-Hadith. His efforts resulted in acceptance of the ideas of Ahl al-Hadith along with a rational explanation for them. However, he wasn't successful in solving some basic problems of the ideas of Ahl al-Hadith like determinism (jabr).

Quote

Theoretical Ideas

Position of Reason

Main article: Ash'arism and Reason

According to al-Ash'ari, using reason to understand religious texts is necessary and it is not an aberration but it should be noticed that it is not an absolute usage and reason should be bounded to religious text, otherwise, it will misdirect. In the case of conflict between reason and text, al-Ash'ari preferred the text and believed that reason should follow the text. Although he tried to have a moderate approach, in some cases he preferred reason and in some cases he preferred text and he couldn't enforce his moderate ideas in action.^[22]

Although Ash'arism started with preventing from reason and allegorical interpretation, rational content in al-Ash'ri's works and the rational heritage in the Islamic world caused that followers of Ash'arism return to rationalism and allegorical interpretation. The great scholars like al-Baqillani, al-Juwayni, al-Ghazali, and eventually Fakhr al-Din al-Razi renewed rationalism.

 

Quote

Characteristics of Ash'arism

The characteristics that differentiate Ash'arism from other theological schools are as follows:

• God's attributes are separate from his essence,
• Human is not free in creation of his actions but he acquires them,
• The good and evil could be understood from religious teaching, not from rational reasoning,
• God will be visible (by eyes) in the hereafter,
• Sinner person is still Muslim (he doesn't lose his faith because of committing sin),
• God can forgive sinners even without their repentance and he also can punish believers,
• World is created in time (al-Huduth al-Zamani),
• The word of God (his soliloquy) is eternal but his uttered speech is not eternal,
• God's actions are not aimed to reach to especial goals,
• Ordering a duty that is beyond one's power is not wrong,
• God can lie and violate his promise,
• God has some attributes (like having hand, leg, face, etc.) but he shouldn't be likened to his creatures and the quality of attributes shouldn't be described.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Ash'arism

Atharism (Arabic: الأثرية, romanized: al-ʾAthariyya / al-aṯariyyah [æl ʔæθæˈrɪj.jæ], "archeological") is a school of theology in Sunni Islam which developed from circles of the Ahl al-Hadith, a group that rejected rationalistic theology in favor of strict textualism in interpretation the Quran and the hadith.

Adherents of Athari theology believe the zahir (apparent) meaning of the Quran and the hadith are the sole authorities in matters of aqida and Islamic jurisprudence;^[1] and that the use of rational disputation is forbidden, even if in verifying the truth.^[2] Atharis oppose the use of metaphorical interpretation regarding the anthropomorphic descriptions and attributes of God (ta'wil) and do not attempt to conceptualize the meanings of the Quran by using philosophical principles since they believe that their realities should be consigned to God and Muhammad alone (tafwid).^[3] In essence, they assert that the literal meaning of the Quran and the ḥadīth must be accepted without a "how" (i.e. "Bi-la kayfa").

Quote

Since the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars in the Hanbali school of jurisprudence has adhered to the Athari creed (ʿaqīdah), many sources refer to it as "Hanbali theology", although Western scholars of Islamic studies remark that it would be incorrect to consider Atharism and Hanbalism as synonymous, since there have been Hanbalite scholars who have explicitly rejected and opposed the Athari theology.^[18] However, others note that some Shafiʽi scholars also belonged to this theological school, while some Hanbalites in law adopted a more rationalist school in theology.^[19] Moreover, extreme forms of traditionalism had not been confined within Hanbalism, and is also part of Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanafi schools.^[20] Some authors refer to traditionalist theology as "classical Salafism" or "classic Salafiyyah" (from salaf, meaning "(pious) ancestors").^[21] Henri Lauzière has argued that, while the majority Hanbali creed was sometimes identified as "Salafi" in classical-era sources, using the corresponding nouns in this context is anachronistic.^[22]

 

Quote

Modern and contemporary era

[edit]

While Ashʿarism and Māturīdism are often called the Sunni "orthodoxy", Athari theology has thrived alongside it, laying rival claims to be the orthodox Sunni faith.^[4] In the modern era it has had a disproportionate impact on Islamic theology, having been appropriated by Wahhabi and other traditionalist Salafi currents and spread well beyond the confines of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence.^[5] The works of 19th century Sunni Yemeni theologian Muhammad Al-Shawkani (d. 1839 C.E/ 1255 A.H) has contributed heavily to the revival of traditionalist theology in the contemporary era.^[52][53]

Traditionalist scripturalism also exerts significant influence within the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, such as the Hanafite scholar Ibn Abi al-Izz's sharh on al-Tahawi's creedal treatise Al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya. This treatise would become popular amongst the adherents of the later Salafiyya movement, who regard it as a true representation of the Hanafi creed free from the influence of Māturīdī theology. Numerous contemporary Salafi scholars have produced supercommentaries and annotations on the sharh, including Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, and Saleh al-Fawzan, and it is taught as a standard text at the Islamic University of Madinah.^[54]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atharism

Edited February 9 by Ashvazdanghe