إرسال موضوع جديد الرد على الموضوع  [ 11 مشاركة ] 
نسخة للطباعة
الكاتب رسالة
 عنوان المشاركة: Salam 'aleykoum
مشاركةمرسل: الأحد فبراير 14, 2010 5:28 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الأربعاء ديسمبر 23, 2009 8:18 pm
مشاركات: 1
غير متصل
Bismillah wa Al Hamdolillah wa Calat wa Salam 'ala Sayidina Mohammadin wa Alihi At Tayibin,

Dear Brother,

I am your Brother from France, I speak a little English.

I have a lot of questions about Zaydism, frstly in my heart I Know that the Zaydism is the part the most close to the right (Haqq).

But the problem is that I don't speak arabic and I am looking to a brother who speak french and I know that in Yemen it is very difficult to find someone.

My questions concern three aspects :
about fiqh Zaydite can you give hox to make tahara and Salat
about the 'Aqida is the Madhab is very different that the achari school for example the Sifat of Allah ?
about Tazkiya an Noufous is there in this school this part of Din and if yes is there a big difference ?

Sorry for my questions.

I will wait a response incha Allah.

Salam 'aleykoum wa rahmatoullah wa barakatouh.


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: Salam 'aleykoum
مشاركةمرسل: الأحد فبراير 14, 2010 9:26 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: السبت سبتمبر 29, 2007 3:12 am
مشاركات: 305
غير متصل
Brother ibn machich God bless you, we regret not being able to French language and I have a few language Alongelzip, Zaidi doctrine is the doctrine of right and here you will find some books of faith and doctrine in Arabic viewtopic.php?f=34&t=9793

التوقيع
الروافض : هم من رفض الإمام زيد (ع) وقالوا بإمامة جعفر الصادق , ولهم نبز يعرفون به .


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: Salam 'aleykoum
مشاركةمرسل: الأحد فبراير 14, 2010 9:31 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الجمعة فبراير 29, 2008 12:44 am
مشاركات: 1048
غير متصل
http://www.zshare.net/download/64377093fd392092/

التوقيع












وليس الذئب يأكل لحم ذئب ... ويأكل بعضنا بعضا عيانا


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: Salam 'aleykoum
مشاركةمرسل: الاثنين فبراير 15, 2010 9:28 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
Salaam I don't speak french, but I can try to answer your questions in English.
For the Fiqh I have a youtube clip on the Zaydi Fiqh.





As for Siffat here is clip on it. This is a Shafi scholar, but his views are very close to the Zaydis.



The Islamic belief about Allah (swt) is that:

There is nothing like Him. He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing. He is neither body nor spirit. He does not have corporeal form or shape, or flesh or blood. He is not substance or accident. He does not have a colour or taste, smell or tactility, heat, cold, wetness, dryness, height width, or depth. He does not have joining or separation, movement or stillness. He has no parts or components, or limbs or members. He has no directions: no right or left, front or back, above or below. He is not circumscribed by place nor is He subject to time. He cannot be incarnate in any place. He is not described with any of the attributes of creation which involve contingency nor is He described as being finite or as being limited. He does not beget and is not begotten. No quantity can encompass Him; no veil conceal Him; no sense perceive Him. He cannot be compared to mankind nor does His resemble creation in any way. He was First before events in time and before contingent things, and existed before all creatures. He is Knowing, Powerful, Living and will always remain so. Eyes cannot see Him; sight cannot perceive Him; imagination cannot encompass Him. He is Knowing, Powerful, Living, in a way dissimilar to all others who are knowing, powerful, living. He alone is timeless and there is nothing timeless but Him, no god but Him and He has no partner in His kingdom. (Maqalat al-Islamiyyin)

Also I have started a Imam Zayd bin Ali (as) on facebook. Please join it and ask any questions in English

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wal ... 6898586235.


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: Salam 'aleykoum
مشاركةمرسل: الاثنين مارس 15, 2010 8:19 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الأحد مارس 14, 2010 12:24 pm
مشاركات: 42
غير متصل
as salaamu alaykum.

I pray that all is well!

I'm sorry that I dont speak French! If you understand English well, I can reply to some of your questions. Also, I could just translate it into French using the Google translating service.

Regarding your question about Zaydi fiqh, one of the brothers posted a translation of a Zaydi fiqh text. Were you able to understand it? if you have any questions and concerns about any particular masaa'il, please ask.
What you should know is that the usul of Zaydi fiqh relies upon the Qur'an, Sunnah, and the consensus of the Imams of the Purified Family of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny. I believe that it is a misnomer to label the madhhab "Zaydi" because they do not exclusively take the opinions of Imam Zayd, upon him be peace. There are a host of opinions from the imams of the prophetic Household that make up Zaydi fiqh. i think the more proper name would be "Madhhab Ahl al-Bayt." That's just my opinion, though.

Regarding the usul ad-Deen, there are a host of differences between the Zaydis and the Ash'aris. These differences are around several issues.
The first issue is the discussion whether Allah will be seen in the Hereafter or not. The Ash'aris say that Allah will be seen with the eyes on the Day of Judgment, as well as in Paradise. The Zaydis say that it is impossible that Allah will be seen because His Majesty and Essence cannot be contained by creation. Those who say that He can be seen imply that He can be contained by the vision of the eyes--which is created. Also, the Exalted says in His Book: ((Vision does not reach Him rather He reaches all Vision. He is the All Subtle, All Aware)).
The second issue is the discussion whether the Qur'an is created or eternal. the ash'aris say that it is eternal. The school of Ahl al-Bayt says that it is created because the Qur'an is organized, arranged in chapters, contains verses that are abrogated by other verses, etc; which all can only apply to in-time creation.
The third issue is the discussion whether the disobedient Muslims will be removed from Hell or will remain therein. The Ash'aris say that the disobedient Muslims will be removed from Hell by the intercession of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny. The imams of the Prophetic House, upon them be peace, say that the disobedient Muslim who doesn't repent from their major sins before dying will remain in Hell forever. This is because the verses of the Qur'an and authentic hadiths are very explicit in stating this. Any "hadith" that states contrary is dismissed as fabricated. This is because the Prophet never contradicted the Qur'an!
These are just three main issues. There are more if you would like to discuss them.

Regarding Tazkiya an-Nufus, the Zaydis refer to this as zuhd. This concept means that through realization, dhikr, recitation of the Qur'an, and other things, the person will develop an indifference (zuhd) towards this dunya. Many of the imams reached this maqam and was able to perform miracles by the permission of Allah. There is no organized brotherhoods or murshid/murid relationship like in Sufism.

I hope I answered your questions. Now i have questions for you:

How did you learn about Zaydism? What convinced you that it is the closest to the Truth (Haqq)?


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: Salam 'aleykoum
مشاركةمرسل: الاثنين مارس 15, 2010 8:26 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الأحد مارس 14, 2010 12:24 pm
مشاركات: 42
غير متصل
As Salam alaykum.

Je prie pour que tout va bien!

Je suis désolé que je ne parle français! Si vous comprenez bien l'anglais, je peux répondre à certaines de vos questions. Aussi, je pouvais aussi bien le traduire en français en utilisant le service de traduction Google.

Concernant votre question sur Zaydi [i]fiqh[/ i], un des frères a affiché une traduction d'un [Zaydi i] fiqh [/ i]. Avez-vous été capable de le comprendre? Si vous avez des questions et préoccupations au sujet de tel ou tel [i] Massail [/ i], s'il vous plaît demander.
Ce que vous devez savoir est que le [i] usûl [/ i] de fiqh Zaydi s'appuie sur le Coran, la Sunna et le consensus des Imams de la famille purifiée du Prophète, paix soit sur lui et sa progéniture. Je crois que c'est un terme impropre pour désigner les [i] madhhab [/ i] "Zaydi» parce qu'ils ne tiennent pas exclusivement l'opinion de l'imam Zayd, sur lui la paix. Il existe une foule d'opinions auprès des imams de la Maison prophétique qui composent Zaydi fiqh. Je pense que le nom plus approprié serait «[i] madhab Ahl al-Bayt [/ i]." That's just my opinion, though.

En ce qui concerne l'annonce Usul-Deen, il existe une multitude de différences entre les zaydis et le Ash'aris. Ces différences sont autour de plusieurs questions.
Le premier problème est la discussion de savoir si Allah nous le verrons dans l'au-delà ou pas. Le Ash'aris dire que Allah sera vu avec les yeux sur le Jour du Jugement, ainsi que dans le Paradis. Le zaydis dire qu'il est impossible que Dieu sera vu parce que Sa Majesté et de l'essence ne peut être maîtrisé par la création. Ceux qui disent qu'il ne peut être considérée laisser entendre qu'il peut être contenue par la vision des yeux - qui est créé. En outre, le Très-Haut dit dans Son Livre: ((Vision ne lui arrivent pas, plutôt, il rejoint tous Vision. Il est le Subtil tous, tous au courant)).
La deuxième question est la discussion de savoir si le Coran est créé ou éternel. la ash'aris dire qu'il est éternel. L'école d'Ahl al-Bayt dit qu'il est créé parce que le Coran est organisée, disposés en chapitres, contient des versets qui sont abrogés par d'autres versets, etc; que tous ne peuvent s'appliquer à la création du temps.
La troisième question est la discussion de savoir si les rebelles musulmans sera retirée de l'enfer ou restera-ci. Le Ash'aris dire que les rebelles musulmans seront retirés de l'enfer par l'intercession du Prophète, paix soit sur lui et sa progéniture. Les imams de la Maison prophétique, la paix soit sur eux, disent que les musulmans désobéissants qui ne se repentent de leurs péchés majeurs avant de mourir restera en enfer pour toujours. C'est parce que les versets du Coran et de la foi [i] hadîth [/ i] s sont très explicites en affirmant cela. Tout "[I] hadîth [/ i]" que les Etats contraire est rejeté comme fabriquée. C'est parce que le Prophète n'a jamais contredit le Coran!
Ce ne sont là trois grandes questions. Il ya plus si vous souhaitez en discuter.

En ce qui concerne Tazkiya An-Nufus, le zaydis référer à ce que [i]zuhd[/ i]. Ce concept signifie que, grâce à la réalisation, le dhikr, la récitation du Coran, et d'autres choses, la personne va développer une indifférence ([i] zuhd [/ i]) à cette tâche [i] dunya [/ i]. Bon nombre des imams atteint ce [i]maqâm[/ i] et a été en mesure d'accomplir des miracles par la permission d'Allah. Il n'ya pas de confréries organisés ou [i] / murshid murid [/ i] relation comme dans le soufisme.

J'espère que j'ai répondu à vos questions. Maintenant j'ai des questions pour vous:

Comment avez-vous entendu parler de Zaydism? Ce que vous convaincu qu'il est le plus proche de la Vérité ([i] Haqq [/ i])?


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: Salam 'aleykoum
مشاركةمرسل: السبت مارس 20, 2010 7:39 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
Salaam Brother
The Asharii do not believe the Quran is uncreated.
Here is Shaykh Abu Zahra's (ra) response in opposition to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbali.
Shaykh Abu Zahra was an Asharii himself and he says that the Mutazilli were correct.
The Mutazillah's were correct. The Quran is created.

Abu Zahra states on page 52 of his work Ibn Hanbal, Dar al-Fikr al-'Arabi 1997 edition:

58 – If we hold Ahmad b. Abi Du’ad responsible for the whole episode, can we then also claim that the approach of Ahmad b. Abi Du’ad was all wrong, devoid of any good? And that Ahmad b. Hanbal’s stance was all good without a possibility of even a slight error on his part?

There are numerous views concerning this issue, and every view should be treated on its merit. Hence, in terms of piety, faith, determination, the strength of patience and perseverance, we cannot but acknowledge that Ahmad b. Hanbal was one of the legendary figures who, when severely tested, passed those tests; who magnificently bore with patience all the odds for their beliefs, without bargaining their religion for worldly gains, preferring eternity over ephemerality for what they believed to be the truth.

59 – In terms of cautiousness in religious matters, and safeguarding it from philosophical thoughts and a labyrinth of ideas, we cannot but commend Ahmad b. Hanbal’s stance. This is because he was utterly against the idea of such disputations, either negatively or positively. In fact, he remained hesitant to air his view and refrained from giving a decisive judgement. Indeed, he felt that this issue is one of those where it is not befitting for a Muslim to delve into and explore deeply, simply because the Salaf were not known to have delved into such issues. Ahmad was, in all religious matters, a textualist (Athari) who wouldn’t discuss except that which the early Muslims had discussed, in order to follow their guidance and take their way. We would further explain in detail his view in the forthcoming chapter on his theological views.

However, if we look at the issue in terms of who deserves a favourable judgement, with respect to the createdness or uncreatedness of the Quran, then surely the proofs as laid out by Ibn Abi Du’ad in those works, along with intellect and commonsense, dictate that our judgement be in favour of the Mu’tazila, that their view is correct. For the Quran, even if it was God’s Speech, is still created, whilst that does not contradict the fact that the attribute of Speech is as eternal as God’s eternal existence. Just as God’s creation comes about by God’s power, whilst His power remains eternal, then God creating the creation with His power does not necessitate that the creation must also be eternal; similarly, the fact the God spoke the Quran, addressed with it His Prophet, and revealed unto him with His power, via the attribute of Speech with which He described Himself, does not necessitate that the Quran itself be eternal.

60 – If we condone Ahmad b. Abi Du’ad, and the Mu’tazila in general, for having correct view over this issue, can we also condone their approach in harming their opponents, especially the righteous and pious people, and condone them for testing people’s conscience and revealing their innermost secrets?! This is where they deserve criticism, as they did in the past – during the era of Ahmad – such that even some of those who shared their beliefs did not spare them from criticism; so much so that it forced al-Jahidh the Mu’tazilite, who was Ahmad’s contemporary, to defend their policy. To this end he says in one of his writings, defending their policy of inquisition and revealing people’s innermost thoughts, along with excommunication and subjugation:

“To proceed; we do not excommunicate anyone except those whom we have established the proofs against. We did not put on trial except those who were charged. To investigate someone charged is not spying. To interrogate the suspect is not revealing his innermost secrets. If every interrogation was disclosure of people’s privacy, and every investigation was tantamount to spying, then surely the judge would have been the most brutal of all privacy invaders and spies!”


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: Salam 'aleykoum
مشاركةمرسل: السبت مارس 20, 2010 7:41 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
Here is a response from the athari who are in opposition to the Ashari, Mutazilli, and Muturidi.

The Ash’aris believe that Allah’s Speech subsists in His Essence and is without sound or letters, and therefore, Allah could not have said Alif-Laam-Meem.

The Mu’tazilah believed that the Quran is Allah’s Speech; and Allah’s Speech is created.

The Ash’aris believed that the Quran is not Allah’s Speech, so while Allah’s Speech is uncreated, the Quran remains created.

al-Bayjuri the Ash’ari theologian says in his Sharh Jawharat al-Tawheed:
“it is still only permitted to say “The Qur’an is emergent (or created)” in a classroom setting”

Ibn al-Jawzi says in al-Muntadham of al-Ash’ari:
“The people never differed that this audible Qur’an is Allah’s Speech, and that Gabriel descended with it upon the Prophet – Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. The reliable imams declared that the Quran is eternal, while the Mu’tazila claimed that it is created. Al-Ash’ari then agreed with the Mu’tazila that the Quran is created and said: ‘This is not Allah’s Speech. Rather, Allah’s Speech is an Attribute subsisting in Allah’s Essence. It did not descend on the Prophet, nor is it audible.’ “

Ibn al-Jawzi would often say on the pulpit:
“The heretics (the Ash’aris) claim; i) there is none in the Heavens, ii) neither is there Qur’an in the Mushaf, and iii) nor is there a Prophet in the grave; ‘your three shameful facets’” (al-Dhayl)

Ibn al-Jawzi writes, while complaining about certain Ash’arites indoctrinating the masses with the Ash’arite dogma: “A group of Persian (a’ajim) heretics arrived in Baghdad and mounted the pulpits to sermon the masses. They would claim, in most of their gatherings: There is no ‘Speech of Allah’ on this earth, and is the mushaf anything but paper, galls and vitriol? Allah is not in the Heavens, and the slave-girl to whom the Prophet said: ‘Where is Allah?’ was dumb and therefore pointed towards the sky, meaning: He is not from the idols worshipped on this earth.

They then said: ‘Where are the ‘letterists’, who claim that the Quran is composed of letters and sound? Rather, the Quran is only an expression of Jibril!’ They continued in this vein, until the sacredness of the Quran diminished from the hearts of many.”

He then mentions at length, the arguments for the orthodox approach towards the Quran, and commends Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal for his rigid stance on the issue, which united the Muslims on one belief: the Quran, which is contained in the Mushaf, is the uncreated Speech of Allah. He then denigrates al-Ash’ari, saying: “Then, people did not differ in this issue, until there appeared ‘Ali b. Isma’il al-Ash’ari, who at first, held the beliefs of the Mu’tazilites. It then occurred to him, as he claimed, that Allah’s Speech subsists in the Divine Essence (sifah qa’imah bil-that). His claim, therefore, necessitated that the Quran we have is created.”

Ibn Qudama says in his refutation of the Ash’aris on the topic of Quran:

* “Some of our [Hanbali] companions often ask us about the debate that took place between me and some of the heretics (i.e. Ash’aris)”

* Ash’aris claim that the Speech of Allah – the Quran – is one whole entity which is indivisible, for anything eternal must be indivisible, as they claim. Ibn Qudamah responds to this saying, that their belief implies, that the Torah, the Bible and the Quran are all the same, and the one who memorises a verse has memorised the whole Quran, and that Allah’s prohibitions are the same as what he permits, etc.

* Ash’aris say that if Allah speaks with sound and letters, it implies that Allah has a tongue, a throat and lungs, since this is the only way one may speak. Ibn Qudamah says, the stones and trees of Makkah would say Salam to the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wasallam without any of that, and likewise ones hands will bear witness against him on the day of judgement, without the need of any tongue or throat etc. Moreover, by the same token, they should also deny that Allah is all hearing and seeing, as one cannot hear except through air waves hitting the air-drums, nor can one see except through lights hitting the retina.

* Ibn Qudamah says that Ash’aris belief implies that for one to recite the Quran in his Salah, in fact renders his Salah null and void, because the Quran is actually the speech of Jibril, as they claim.

* He says: “There is no dispute amongst all the Muslims that anyone who rejects a verse from the Quran, or a word, which is agreed upon, or even a letter which is agreed upon, is a Kafir… Whereas al-Ash’ari rejects the entire Quran and says: none of that is the Quran, rather it is the speech of Jibril”

* He says: “What is amazing is that they are not bold enough to manifest their belief in public, nor do they explicitly state it except when they are alone. Even if they were the rulers, or governors of countries, and you were to attribute this belief to them, they would detest it and condemn it, and become obstinate. They would only pretend to honor the Quran respect the Mushaf, and stand up upon seeing it, whereas when they are alone they say: There is nothing in it but paper and ink, what else is there in it? And this is from the actions of Zanadiqah”

* One of them said to Ibn Qudamah: I affirm that this Mushaf is actually the Quran, but it is not the eternal Quran, to which Ibn Qudamah replied: ‘So, do we have two Qurans?! … Some of our [Hanbali] companions said: ‘You (the Ash’aris) are the rulers and the governors over Islamic countries, so what prevents you from making your belief manifest to the common folk?

* He said: ‘We do not know of a sect from the heretics who hide their beliefs, and who are not bold enough to manifest them, except the Zanadiqah and the Ash’aris.’

* He said: ‘His belief (i.e. al-Ash’ari’s) is similar to that of the Mu’tazilah without doubt, except that al-Ash’ari wants to deceive. So he states his belief which appears to be agreeing with the beliefs of the people of truth. He then gives an explanation to his belief with a Mu’tazili twist.

* He says: ‘The reality of the Ash’ari doctrine is that there is no God in the heavens, nor is there a Quran on this earth, and nor is Muhammad a messenger of God’. Ibn Fuwarrak was killed by the great ruler Ibn Subuktakin for claiming that the Prophet SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam was only a messenger when he was alive, and he isn’t a messenger anymore after his death.

* He says: ‘What is amazing is that their leader (i.e. Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari) who established their beliefs was a man not known for his religion or piety, nor was he known for any of the Sacred sciences. In fact, he belongs to no science except the science of blameworthy Kalam. All the while they acknowledge that he spent 40 years adhering to Mu’tazili doctrine, and then pretended to have retracted from it, however, nothing could be seen from him after his repentance except this Bid’ah.’

al-Saffarini al-Hanbali says in his Sharh of his own Athari creed:
“In conclusion, the Mu’tazilites are in agreement with the Ash’arites, while the Ash’arites are in agreement with the Mu’tazilites, that this Quran contained within the two covers of the Mushaf is created and anew. The only difference between the two factions is that the Mu’tazila did not affirm any other Speech for Allah except this (the Quran, which they thought was created), whereas the Ash’arites affirmed al-Kalam al-Nafsi (self-speech/talking to oneself/inner-speech) subsisting in Allah’s essence. Whereas the Mu’tazilites say, the Speech of Allah is created (and not subsisting in Allah). The Ash’aris do not consider it (the Quran) the Speech of Allah. Yes, they call it ‘the Speech of Allah’, but only metaphorically, and that is the belief of the majority of their predecessors.”

Conclusion:

1) the Ash’aris believe that the Quran that we have which is contained in the Mushaf is in fact created, because Allah Speaks without sound or letters.

2) This is how the Hanbalis have viewed the Ash’aris for centuries.
Ibn al-Jawzi’s quotes can be found in his al-Muntadham, in his notice on Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari; as well as his Sayd al-Khatir

Ibn Qudama is being quoted from his Munadhara ma’a Ahl al-Bid’a (debate with heretics), which is his discourse with his contemporary Ash’rites.

al-Saffarini is being quoted from his own Sharh to his own Athari creed called Lawami’.


The reason why some sunni think it is created is because they think Imam Ahmad (ra) was correct in his debate against the Mutazilla. This is not the case.

The Mutazillah were correct is some areas, but not all areas.

Abu’l-Yusr al-Bazdawi (d.493), a major Maturidite, said in his book Usul al-Din:

The Speech of Allah, the Exalted, is present with Him, and likewise the speech of every speaker.

And these Surahs which have an ending and beginning, countability and parts:

It is not the Speech of Allah, the Exalted, literally.

Rather, it is composed (manzûm), Allah the Exalted composed it. And it signifies the Speech of Allah, the Exalted, like the manzûm of Imru’l-Qays..

The manzûm of Imru’l-Qays signifies his speech, but it is not his speech. Likewise, the sermon of each preacher and the message of each messenger is manzûm, signifying his speech but it is not his actual speech like this..

So the Nazm of the Qur’an, or composition, is not Allah’s Speech. Just like the composition of Imru’l-Qays, the famous king-poet, is not his speech. The Qur’an simply signifies (dâl is the Arabic expression through which the Maturidites strayed away) the eternal Speech of Allah, it is NOT His Speech.

Likewise, the thing composed of Imru’l-Qays is NOT his speech, it simply signifies it. And the message of a messenger is NOT his speech, it simply signifies it. Well, how clear do you want to get it? Just take a look at what follows.

In the K. al-Tamhid by Abu’l-Mu’in al-Nasafi (d.508), another major Maturidite, it is stated:

Allah, the Exalted, is a Speaker with Speech that is One, and it is an Attribute of Him in eternity, not from the kind of letters and sounds, and it is an Attribute devoid of silence and forgetfulness.

And Allah is a Speaker by it: ordening, prohibiting and informing, and these expressions signify it.

And the expressions are named Allah’s Speech, the Exalted, meaning that they are expressions of His Eternal Speech, existing within His Essence. And it is what’s intended in our saying: The Qur’an, the Speech of Allah the Exalted, is uncreated.

So Allah is a Speaker with Speech which is One. So the expressions – which are multiple – can not be His Speech. Rather, they simply signify His Speech and are NOT His Speech at all. He even admits that when they say the Qur’an is uncreated they mean by it Allah’s Speech, not the Nazm al-Qur’an.

Again, from the ‘Umdat al-I’tiqad of Hafidh al-Din al-Nasafi (d.701) it is stated:

The maker of the universe is a Speaker by Speech, One, Eternal, existing within His Essence.

It is not from the kind of letters and sounds, undivided, devoid of silence, forgetfulness and absence of speech.

And He orders, prohibits and informs by it.. And these expressions are created cause they are sounds which are accidents.

And it is named Speech of Allah because of what it signifies.

And if the Inner Speech is expressed in Arabic it is a Qur’an, and if it is expressed in Hebrew it is a Thaurat, and if it is expressed in Syrian it is a Injil.

So the expressions differ, but not the Speech. Just like we call Allah by different expressions, while His Essence is One.

How much more explicit could it be? Allah’s Speech is One and existing within His Essence. It is not of letters and sound, as the Qur’an is. Indeed, sounds are nothing but accidents and therefore Allah is absolved from that.

So what is heard or read and named Speech of Allah is simply because that is what it signifies, nothing more. It is not His Speech in reality: not the Arabic Qur’an, nor the Hebrew Thaurat or the Syrian Injil. All these are, simply, created expressions of Allah’s Eternal Speech – not the Speech of Allah Himself.

And consider his last sentence that was quoted: The expression differ but not his Speech, just like Allah is called by different expression while His Essence is One.

This is because they consider the Names of Allah as created! We seek refuge with Allah from unbelief!

The aforementioned Abu’l-Mu’in al-Nasafi said also in his Tabsira al-Adillat:

And these wordings (alfâz) are named a Qur’an and Speech of Allah to enforce the Speech of Allah, the Exalted, by it and it is in itself created. And the Speech which is an Attribute of Allah, the Exalted, is not created.

And the teachers of ours from the Imams of Samarqand – the ones who have united upon knowledge of the Usûl and the Furû’ – their saying concerning this was to say:

The Qur’an is the Speech of Allah and His Attribute, and the Speech of Allah is uncreated and likewise His description.

And they would not say straightly: The Qur’an is not created.

Fearing that it may come up in the hearer’s mind that these composed expressions from letters and sounds are not created, as the Hanbalites say so..

Take another look: The wordings Gabriel, the Prophet and we hear, read and write are named a Qur’an and Speech of Allah to enforce the very Speech of Allah by it – meaning: it is not Allah’s own Speech these wordings, but they enforce [something else: namely] Allah’s Speech. Because these wordings are created, and what is enforced is uncreated.

And watch carefully how according to Abu’l-Mu’in al-Nasafi’s own testimony the Maturidiyyah expressed their opinion concerning the Qur’an al-Karim: it is uncreated as the Speech of Allah as an Attribute is. He did not say openly and clearly: the Qur’an is uncreated, except if the phrase ‘Speech of Allah’ is added. He did that before in his K. al-Tamhid as we’ve mentioned!

The Qur’an is therefore two things with them: the Qur’an with the meaming of ‘Inner Speech’ which is uncreated, ánd the Qur’an present among us which is of letters and is therefore created. It has been expressed by sound, therefore created. It can be called Arabic, therefore created. Or Hebrew and Syrian therefore contingent, created. It can be referred to in parts, counted and described in other features – therefore created. Below is an confirmation of what we stated before, shortly:

Since without shame al-Taftazani (d.791), the major philosopher of the Maturidiyyah, said in commenting on ‘Umar al-Nasafi’s words And the Qur’an, the Speech of Allah the Exalted, is uncreated the following:

And he followed the Qur’an by Speech of Allah, the Exalted, because of what the Shaykhs (i.e. the Maturidiyyah) mentioned from saying < The Qur’an, the Speech of Allah the Exalted, is uncreated > and not to say < The Qur’an is uncreated >, fearing that it may come up to the mind that the thing composed of sounds and letters is eternal, like the Hanbalites opinioned ignorantly, obstinently..

And the Maturidites say without modesty and shame – just like the later-day Ash’arites – that there is no difference between us and the Mu’tazilites that the Qur’an is created!

The only difference is that the Mu’tazilah know only one Speech of Allah, the Qur’an, which is created. While the Maturidites profess in addition another Speech of Allah called ‘Inner Speech’ which they call eternal.

Here is al-Taftazani again from his Sharh of al-Nasafiyyah:

And the reality of our difference between us and them (i.e. the Mu’tazilah) goes back to the affirmation of the Inner Speech and its denial. The only thing is: we do not speak about the eternity of the alfâz and letters [nor with not saying that they are created] and they do not speak about the createdness of the Inner Speech.

And from a Maturidite, a certain ‘Abd al-’Aziz al-Farîhârî who was alive in 1239 AH and wrote a Hashiyah upon it, is mentioned:

And even if the two parties did not differ concerning the affirmation of an Inner [Speech] and its denial, then there is still no dispute. For we when we say < The Qur’an is uncreated > we intend the Inner [Speech]. And if we say: < The Qur’an is created > we intend the expressed [Speech]. So we do not speak about the eternity of the wordings and the letters, but rather of its createdness just like the Mu’tazilah say. And they do not speak of the createdness of the Inner [Speech], but rather they deny its existence. And even if they affirmed it (i.e. the Inner Speech) they would have spoken of its eternity, just like we said..

Meaning, we and the Mu’tazilites are the same concerning this!

And consider the following saying of this same al-Taftazani, deprived of sound beliefs concerning the Qur’an al-Karim:

Speech [of Allah] that is stated means the Inner Speech. So the meaning of being Speech of Allah is His Attribute. And it is stated about the expressed [Speech] created, composed of Surahs and Ayats. And the meaning of it being ascribed to Allah is: That it is Allah’s creation, not from the composed things of the creatures.

Then take a look how its commentator, al-Farîhârî, comments upon this:

He meant [i.e. al-Taftazani] that it [i.e. the Qur'an] is Makhluq-lillah, the Exalted, without intermediary, acquisited from the creatures, either through the sound untill an Angel hears it or a Messenger, or through the inscriptions from the Tablet, or by the creation of a perception (idrâk) of the letters in the heart of an Angel or a Messenger, or by the creation of the letters upon his tongue without his choice.

Ponder upon this deviation! In fact, the Maturidites have stated clearly that Allah, the Exalted, created a voice and letter which Gabriel heard, then kept safe untill he delivered it to our Prophet, the peace be upon him! At the same time they say: The Speech of Allah is eternal, without letter or sound. In fact, in contradistinction of the Ash’arites they agreed altogether upon that Musa, the peace and blessing upon him, did not hear Allah’s uncreated Speech, but rather heard sound and letter created by Allah! The Ash’arites were better than them concerning this issue: they opinioned the possibility of hearing Allah’s Speech, a thing a Maturidite would deny!?!

None other than al-Kawthari – the infamous Jahmite – stated:

Actually, the Qur’an which is in the Well-Preserved Tablet, and upon the tongue of Gabriel, the peace upon him, and upon the tongue of the Prophet, the peace and blessing upon him, and upon the tongues of the rest of the reciters and in the their hearts and in their tablets is created..

And who would find fault with al-Kawthari and his predecessors from the Maturidiyyah, their big ones and their little ones, concerning this subject when they subscribed to whatever their Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi opinioned?

And this man himself stated quite clearly – contrary to some people here who probably fear our response more than they fear Allah, the Fast one in Punishment – words that we hope our brethren of today would never utter:

It is not the saying (qawl) from Allah that {Kun} with the Kâf and the Nûn is, but it is rather an expression bi-awjaza kalam enforcing the complete understood meaning..

That is: the Saying of the Al-Mighty {Kun} in several Ayats, cf. {Kun fa-yakûn}, is nothing but an Majâzi expression ascribed to Him, not literally His. {Kun}, composed of two letters, is not Allah’s Word but it, simply, enforces al-Ma’na al-Tam al-Mafhûm as the author of the Ta’wilât Ahl al-Sunnah says, i.e. Imam al-Maturidi, may Allah forgive him!

And as Allah, the Most Merciful, may forgive this man for his clear deviation concerning this matter, may He be praised that one of his followers opposed this and said:

And the word {Kun} Allah Spoke by it literally (haqîqati), not figuratively (majâzan)

says Abu’l-Yusr al-Bazdawi in his Kanz al-Wusûl.

And this is nothing but a small selection from what has been mentioned from the Maturidiyyah concerning the Qur’an al-Karim, which is Allah’s Speech. And their expression of the Qur’an we all know being, in fact, created is more manifest than with the Ash’arites.

So we asked the Ash’arites:

Who said {Alif Lâm Mîm}?

We ask the Maturidites:

Who said {Kun: fa ya-kûn}?

May Allah protect us from misguidance, Ameen.


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: Salam 'aleykoum
مشاركةمرسل: السبت مارس 20, 2010 8:13 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
Is there any difference between the Mutazillah and the Zaydia on this issue. There is a slight difference between the 12r Shias and Sufis on this concept.

(ix) Vision (ru'yah) of God:
The Mu'tazilah vehemently deny the possibility of seeing God with the eyes. They believe that one may only have faith in God, a faith which is rooted in the mind and the intellect. That is, one can acquire a firm conviction in the depth of one's soul and mind in the existence of God, and this is the highest kind of faith one may attain. God can by no means be seen or observed. This is testified by the Qur'an when it says:
The sights do not perceive Him, and He perceives the sights, and He is All-subtle (incapable of being perceived) and All-knowing (i.e. perceives the eyes and the rest of things). (6:103).
The Asha'irah, with equal vehemence, assert that God can be seen with the eyes, but only on the Day of Resurrection. They also cite as evidence certain Qur'anic verses and prophetic traditions to support their claim. One of the verses they cite is:
(Some) faces on that Day shall be bright, looking towards their Lord. (75:22-23)
The 12r Shi'ah believe that God can never be seen with the eyes, neither in this life nor in the Hereafter. Nevertheless, the highest kind of faith is not an intellectual one. The intellectual faith is 'ilm al-yaqin. A higher level of faith than that of the intellect is 'ayn al-yaqin - certitude of the heart. 'Ayn al-yaqin (lit. certitude by sight) means witnessing God with the heart, not with the eyes. Thus, though God cannot be seen with the eyes, He is 'visible' to the heart. 'Ali (A) was once asked, "Have you seen God?" He replied, "I have not worshipped a god whom I have not seen. But He is visible to the hearts, not to the eyes." The Imams (A) were asked whether the Prophet (S) saw God during his Ascension (mi'raj). Their reply was: "With the eyes? No. With the heart? Yes." In this matter only the Sufis have a viewpoint resembling the Shi'ah position


Beatific Vision ‑ It has been noticed that al‑Maturidi, like the Mu'tazilites, strongly opposed the anthropomorphic idea of God and interpreted meta­phorically those passages of the Qur'an which appear to create such an impression. But on the question of seeing God in paradise by the believers, he is wholly in agreement with the orthodox, and firmly holds that the passages of the Qur'an and the traditions of the Prophet on this subject must be taken in their literal sense. By scholastic reasoning he shows that the letter and spirit of these verses and traditions do not allow us to take them allegorically and to interpret seeing God as "seeing His signs and rewards or knowing Him by the heart." This latter type of seeing is common for believers and non­believers in the next world and may even happen in this world. The texts must always be taken in their literal and real sense, he argues, except where that is impossible. The vision of God in the next world is not impossible and it does not necessarily prove His corporeality, and hence if the literal sense were rejected, its consequences would be dangerous and it might ultimately lead to the denial of the existence of God. As God is knowing and doing; for example, without His being a body or accident or without His being limited by time and space, so will He be an object of vision in the next world. Some people were misled because, as they had no experience of seeing what is not a body nor an accident, they compared the vision of God in paradise with the vision of a material object in this world. Thus, the Corporealists (Mujassimin) erred in saying that God is a body, because He will be seen, and the Mu'tazilites erred in saying that He cannot be seen because He is not a body. Conditions of vision, al‑Maturidi says, differ from stage to stage, person to person, and genus to genus. Many things exist, but we do not see them. Angels who are not corporeal beings see us, though we do not see them. Conditions of seeing: rays of light, darkness, and shadow, are not the same as those of seeing solid material objects. So it is quite unreasonable to apply the conditions of seeing a physical object in this world to the seeing of the Being which is not a body in the next world, where conditions will be totally different from those in this world. Seeing God, therefore, may be impossible in this world, but not in the next world. He also argues that vision may not happen sometimes for some reason or other, although the conditions of vision exist; in the same way, vision may happen in the absence of those conditions. Another argument of his is that, according to our sense‑experience, only the knowledge of matter and accidents can be acquired by a man, yet we assert the possibility of acquiring knowledge of the realities beyond experience. This principle is also applicable to beatific vision.



In short, al‑Maturidi asserts that the vision of God in paradise is the highest spiritual and intellectual delight and the most coveted reward of the believers; it is an article of faith based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah and supported by reason. So we must accept this as such, without going into detail.


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: Salam 'aleykoum
مشاركةمرسل: السبت مارس 20, 2010 8:26 pm 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الأحد مارس 14, 2010 12:24 pm
مشاركات: 42
غير متصل
as salamu alaykum wa rahmatullah!

Thank you brother for your information!
Although there have been some Sunnis that disagreed with the "official" Ash'ari/Maturidi position on theological matters, it is nontheless an exception not the rule. For example, regarding the verse cited to prove the Beatific Vision, Abu Bakr al-Jassas al-Hanafi (a Sunni mufassir) admitted in his tafsir:
Vision cannot be specifically implied from His statement: {Faces, on that Day, will be radiant, looking to their Lord} because “looking” has many possible meanings, such as anticipating a reward, which is narrated from a group of the salaf. Therefore, whenever that interpretation is permissible, objection to it by means of another interpretation which is not possible, is not permissible.
Also regarding the hadiths that suppossedly support the Vision, the same author said:
Regarding the narrations that are reported regarding the Vision, the intended meaning is knowledge, if [the reports] are indeed authentic. It is a sound knowledge in which there is no doubt. The use of “seeing” to mean “knowledge” is well known in the language.

These two statements prove that even some Sunni scholars denied the possibility of the Vision. However, the general and official view of the Asharis and Maturidis is that Allah will be seen with the eyes.


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
 عنوان المشاركة: Re: Salam 'aleykoum
مشاركةمرسل: الأحد مارس 21, 2010 7:49 am 
معلومات العضو
مشترك في مجالس آل محمد
إحصائيات العضو

اشترك في: الخميس أكتوبر 19, 2006 10:08 pm
مشاركات: 180
غير متصل
I know its the Asharii position to believe Ruhya is possible with the eyes. However, I never heard that the Muturidi believed it was done through the eyes
The Maturidi and Asharii differ on 12 points...


أعلى
 يشاهد الملف الشخصي  
رد مع اقتباس  
عرض مشاركات سابقة منذ:  مرتبة بواسطة  
إرسال موضوع جديد الرد على الموضوع  [ 11 مشاركة ] 

جميع الأوقات تستخدم GMT + 3 ساعات
اليوم هو الثلاثاء مايو 26, 2020 1:59 am


الموجودون الآن

المستخدمون المتصفحون لهذا المنتدى: لا يوجد أعضاء مسجلين متصلين و 3 زائر/زوار


لا تستطيع كتابة مواضيع جديدة في هذا المنتدى
لا تستطيع كتابة ردود في هذا المنتدى
لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك في هذا المنتدى
لا تستطيع حذف مشاركاتك في هذا المنتدى
لا تستطيع إرفاق ملف في هذا المنتدى

البحث عن:
الانتقال الى:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
ترجم بواسطة phpBBArabia | Design tansformation:bbcolors
  تصميم الستايل علاء الفاتك   http://www.moonsat.net/vb  
jurisdictionbeautifulbakednylongamersparanoidstratfordwinery