No announcement yet.

Review of the book: Qawl al Tamam bi Ithbati Tafweed Madhhaban lil Salaf al Kiram

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Review of the book: Qawl al Tamam bi Ithbati Tafweed Madhhaban lil Salaf al Kiram

    Assalamu Alaykum,

    This thread will be dedicated to reviewing and critiquing the book القول التمام بإثبات التفويض مذهبا للسلف الكرام. This book is fairly recent (with the second edition being published in March, 2010) and has received commendations by the likes of Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi, Taqi Al Uthmaani, and others. Many Asharis both in the Arabic and English internet realm are bragging about this book with great pride. It is supposed to be the most comprehensive and well researched book on the topic of Tafweedh promoting the Ashari side of the debate.

    This is good actually, since if we take care of the arguments found in this book, we would have taken care of almost everything that they have got to offer on this subject.

    Now please note this........ you may only follow this thread if you actually have a good background of this subject first. My posts are for readers who are already familiar with this subject and I am not going to be speaking with the assumption that the reader is a beginner.

    Hence, if you are interested in following this thread, I would recommend that you refer to the following articles and read them first....... (start with this)

    If you become acquainted with the above, then you should have a good solid grasp of this subject inshallah. That way, we don't have to waste our time refuting every single argument in the book. Rather, we would only focus on specific arguments, which might be new to us. And also focus on rebuttals that the author attempts to provide to our arguments and then in turn provide counter rebuttals back.

    Inshallah knowledgeable brothers and sisters (e.g. al boriqee, Um Abdullah, Harris and others) would have the time and capacity to contribute as well.


    Jazaakum Allaahu Khayran.

    Bassam Zawadi,

  • #2
    There are two more articles in related to the topic that have not been posted in the English section yet, one has been translated but needs review.. I will work on it tomorrow or day after insha Allah.


    • #3
      Jazakum Allah Khayran akhee and all those who contribute ...

      May Allah reward your efforts and place Barakah in your times


      • #4
        From pages 60 to 62 the author argues that when Salafis argue that God's attributes such as yad are literal, yet at the same time we nullify that yad means organs, then Salafis are being self contradictory and unreasonable. This is because (according to him) in Arabic, the haqqiqi (literal) meaning of yad is an organ. So to say that Allah's yad is haqqiqi, yet not an organ is non-sensical.

        It appears that this is nothing more than a difference in semantics. It appears that the author is including the "nature" of yad under it's "meaning", while what we do is include it's "nature" under it's modality or kayfiyyah and not under it's meaning.

        When we say that Allah's yad is literal, what we mean is that His yad actually and in reality exists. That an actual and not metaphysical attribute of Allah exists. We believe that the Essence of this yad corresponds to the Essence of Allah. What is the Essence of Allah? Well we don't know, hence we don't know the Essence of Allah's yad.

        Also, Abul Hassan Al Ashari in his Ibaanah said...

        “If it is said,

        ‘Why do you deny that His saying;

        “Do they not see that We have created for them what Our Own Hands have created.” [36:71]

        And His saying:

        “Whom I have created with my Own (Two) Hands.” [38:75]

        are majaaz (methaphorical)?’

        To him it is said,

        ‘The ruling concerning the speech of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, is that it is taken upon its dhaahir (apparanty) and haqeeqah (real) meaning. Nothing is removed from its dhaahir (apparant) meaning to majaaz (a metaphorical) one, except with a proof…

        Likewise, the saying of Allaah, the Mighty and majestic:

        “Whom I have created with My Own (Two) Hands.” [38:75]

        Its dhaahir and haqeeqah meaning is affirming Yadain (Two Hands of Allaah). So it is not pernmissible to alter it from the dhaahir meaning of Yadain to that which our opponents claim, except with a proof…

        Consequently, about His saying:

        “Whom I have created with My Own (Two) Hands.” [38:75]

        It is obligatory to affirm Two Hands for Allaah, the Most High, in its haqeeqah (real) meaning, not with the meaning of ni’matain (two bounties of Allaah).’


        • #5
          So basically if we said hand is literal like an organ we would be guilty of being a Mujasim. so in other words what the author is saying is that we have no choice but to affirm an organ for Allah (swt) because we accept the attribute of hand literally.

          maybe the author should apply the same reason to the attributes that the Asharis affirm and they would be Mujassim.
          Their will come leaders who will not follow my guidance and not follow my Sunnah. Their will be among them men who will have hearts of devils in the bodies of humans. He (the companion of the prophet) asked, "what shall I do, O messenger of Allah, if I reach that?" He replied, "you should hear and obey the ruler even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth, then still hear and obey."
          (Saheeh Muslim)



          • #6

            The author Sayf Ali al-Asri did a good job by compiling all the statements of Salaf on this issue but at the end this book is against the mufawidah ( those who do tafwid ) because the understanding of Ashari scholars themselves is against this new doctrine of tafwid al-mana see here

            Imagine on every page of Quran these people claim that there are 15 to 20 words which don't know the meaning or which doesn't have any meaning for them ( the reader ) , so what was the purpose of revealing all those words in Quran. few words I can understand, but on every page 15 to 20 words, like when ever you hear Samee Baseer, Qadeer, Aleem, Hayy etc....

            You also have an issue with Asma of Allah -- same methodology is used in ASMA wal SIFAAT :- Tawqeefiyah

            So, do these founders of new sect, also claim the same for Names of Allah ? Like Rahman or Raheem ?
            Disclaimer: Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) said, “Everyone after the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam will have his sayings accepted and rejected - not so the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam.” [Irshaad al-Saalik 227/1, Jami Bayaan al-Ilm 91/2]


            • #7
              On page 68, the author states that the definition of Jaariha (i.e. organ) is an instrument or device or mechanism used to gain and perform acts.

              Then on page 70 he quotes Ibn Taymiyyah as nullifying organs used for eating and drinking such as the kidney and spleen, however Ibn Taymiyyah said that unlike those, Allah has the yad, which is used for performing acts. And obviously this is something clearly taught in the Qur'an since Allah used His yad to create Adam and will use His yad to roll up the heavens and the earth.

              Now the argument of the author is that:

              - Ibn Taymiyyah ultimately views Allah's yad as an organ because.......

              - An organ is that which is used to perform acts


              - The Salaf denied that Allah has organs


              - Ibn Taymiyyah went against the Salaf.

              Okay let's get some things straight here....

              Point number 1.......

              Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah in his letter to Hamah quotes Abi Sulayman Al Khattabi who said that Allah's yad is not like the organs of us human beings and Ibn Taymiyyah approves of this statement...

              ["فإذا قلنا يد وسمع وبصر وما أشبهها فإنما هي صفات أثبتها الله لنفسه ،ولسنا نقول : إن معنى اليد القوة أو النعمة ولا معنى السمع والبصر العلم ، ولا نقول إنها جوارح ولا نشبهها بالأيدي والأسماع والأبصار التي هي جوارح وأدوات للفعل ونقول : إن القول إنما وجب بإثبات الصفات ; لأن التوقيف ورد بها ، ووجب نفي التشبيه عنها لأن الله ليس كمثله شيء ، وعلى هذا جرى قول السلف في أحاديث الصفات" هذا كله كلام الخطابي .
              وهذا الكلام الذي ذكره الخطابي قد نقل نحوا منه من العلماء من لا يحصى عددهم مثل أبي بكر الإسماعيلي والإمام يحيى بن عمار السجزي وشيخ الإسلام أبي إسماعيل الهروي صاحب " منازل السائرين " و " ذم الكلام " وهو أشهر من أن يوصف وشيخ الإسلام أبي عثمان الصابوني وأبي عمر بن عبد البر النمري إمام المغرب وغيرهم] اهـ كلام شيخ الإسلام.
              Point number 2........

              The author goes on to refute himself. He said on the bottom of page 70 that the reason why the scholars denied that Allah has organs is because organs are seen as something deficient to have. That is because, if you don't have the organ, then you can't perform that function. However, Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed no such thing, which implies any such thing. I mean the author himself on page 73 even quotes Ibn Taymiyyah himself saying that Allah's yad is not an organ!

              Point number 3.........

              The definition of Jaariha (i.e. organ) that the author puts forward requires some more attention. For instance, Imam Al Daarimi in his response to Al Marisi denied that we would view Allah's attributes as organs:

              وأما تشنيعك على هؤلاء المقرين بصفات الله، المؤمنين بما قال الله: أنهم يتوهمون فيها جوارح وأعضاء، فقد ادعيت عليهم في ذلك زوراً وباطلاً، وأنت من أعلم الناس بما يريدون بها، إنما يثبتون منها ما أنت معطل، وبه مكذب، ولا يتوهمون فيها إلا ما عنى الله ورسوله صلّى الله عليه وسلّم، ولا يدعون جوارح وأعضاء كما تقولت عليهم...
              Yet Al Daarimi was known for his affirmation of Allah's attributes. So that means that Al Daarimi wouldn't have understood organs to simply mean "something used to perform an act", but rather had the deficient qualities associated with the word in mind and then negated it.

              Furthermore, an organ is commonly understood as constituting a "part" of a whole. As if it is a structural unit as such and Ibn Taymiyyah has clearly denied that Allah is composed of parts assembled together.

              Hence, I don't believe that the author has successfully pushed forth his argument in this regard. The Qur'an clearly talks about Allah using His "yad" to do certain acts and we have clear statements from the Salaf affirming the reality of the yad. Hence, the negation of organs needs to be understood differently than from what the author is proposing.


              • #8
                On page 73, surprisingly the author displays his unfamiliarity with the Qur'an. He said that the Qur'an no where denies that Allah eats. Perhaps, Surah 5:75 slipped his mind or perhaps he never understood it's implications?

                As for Allah getting sick, thirsty, etc. then these are well known deficiencies obvious to everyone, which we should negate for Allah. These aren't as obvious as "bodies", which requires much more knowledgeable people to articulate for the laity or other things, which might be deficient in only a subjective sense (i.e. negative in one's perception and opinion, but not the other) and when it comes to these cases we must be cautious of negating them for Allah when Allah hasn't negated them from Himself. This is what scholars like Shaykh ibn Baz had in mind when they said that we should only negate what Qur'an and Sunnah negates.


                • #9
                  Please can someone take the task f compiling this information and structuring it into a PDF for online rebuttal.
                  Their will come leaders who will not follow my guidance and not follow my Sunnah. Their will be among them men who will have hearts of devils in the bodies of humans. He (the companion of the prophet) asked, "what shall I do, O messenger of Allah, if I reach that?" He replied, "you should hear and obey the ruler even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth, then still hear and obey."
                  (Saheeh Muslim)

                  HANBALI FIQH MOVEMENT


                  • #10
                    On page 74, the author discusses how some Salafis said that there is a relationship between Allah's fingers and yad. Please refer here for more information.


                    • #11
                      From page 78 till 82 the author cites Imam Al Ghazali, Ibnul Jawzi, Imam Al Shaatibi, Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Badr Al Deen, Imam Al Qurtubi and Al Shahrastaani in an attempt to show that there were scholars who said that the Sifaat should not be taken upon the dhaahir.

                      Yet, all of these scholars are from the khalaf period. Why on earth are you quoting scholars from the khalaf period, when the title of your book is attempting to show that this was the position of the Salaf???

                      I mean, wasn't Imam Abul Hassan Al Ashari from amongst the Salaf? Yes he was. Didn't he say that Sifaat should be taken upon their dhaahir? Yes he did!!! (refer to post no. 4 above).

                      So why are you leaving the statement of someone from the Salaf and then going ahead with the khalaf? Or perhaps you believe Abul Hassan is from amongst the mushabiha? No, I don't think you would dare say that.

                      Or perhaps you want to call into the question the authenticity of the attribution of the book Al Ibaanah to him? Well if you do, then good luck refuting this


                      • #12
                        Next, he raises the issue regarding the Descent (Nuzool) of Allah. Anyone familiar with the contents here and has read the book Sifat Al Nuzool Al Ilaahi wa rad Al Shubuhaat Hawlaha by Abdul Qaadir Al Ja'eedi, will have no problems dealing with the points that the author put forth.

                        However, there is one thing that I want to comment on. The author on page 87 said that according to the Arabic language, the meaning of the word descent implies two things: 1) Transition from high to low (which we agree) and 2) The emptying of the above space and the occupation of the below space

                        This is where the author goes wrong. Point number 2 has to do with kayfiyyah (modality). He keeps making the mistake of forcing the modality into the meaning. Refer here


                        • #13
                          subhanallah, I'll respond when I get a chance, but can't these people form reasonable arguments.

                          asalamu alaikum
                          ابو نعيمة علي البريكي

                          "I have debated with the Ash'aris
                          and it has become clear to me that they believe that Allah does not exist"

                          May Allah hasten the Muslims back to the path
                          that granted victory to them before.




                          • #14
                            On page 116 the author is citing Al Kubaisi who said that we as human beings only know the hand to be a component of a body, hence if you say that Allah's yad is a component, then this is wrong. And if you say that it's not a component, then that means that you have changed the meaning of yad to something we don't know.

                            It's very sad to see these kinds of arguments. These people prefer their limited logic over clear scripture. Not only that........ their logic is very poor.

                            Why not be consistent and say.... "we can't imagine Speech unless it's in letters and sounds so that means that we don't know what Speech means for Allah", yet Asharis affirm Speech for Allah. Why the inconsistency? Why can't they simply say that for creation, a yad is a component, but for Allah we don't know how the yad is subsisted in Allah's Essence?

                            I don't get these people.


                            • #15
                              On the same page (116) Al Kubaisi gives a very weak argument.

                              He said that if you study the Qur'an carefully, you would realize that for attributes such as Knowledge and Seeing, Allah clearly attributes them to Himself. For example, Allah says "And know that Allah has Knowledge of all things" (Surah Al Baqarah, 231) and "And know that Allah Sees what you do" (Surah Al Baqarah, 233) and he argues that the same applies to Will, Hearing, Power, etc.

                              However, he argues that the same is not for yad, 'ayn, etc. He says that the Qur'an only mentions them in passing and not as a core or main issue in the verse. For example, the Qur'an doesn't say "And know that Allah has two yads" for instance.

                              This is a weak argument for a number of reasons.

                              1) Who said that Allah must speak in a certain way in order to affirm something for Himself? Whom from the scholars had said such a thing?

                              2) Also, how come the inconsistency? The author himself admits that only "most" (فأغلب) of the attributes He believes in are communicated in this fashion. So why then do you affirm those that are not communicated in that fashion?

                              3) When Allah told Adam that He created him with His yad, was that something "just in passing"? When the Prophet peace be upon him sought refuge in Allah's wajh (face), did the Prophet peace be upon him only mention it just for the sake of it?

                              There are additional ways to demonstrate the weakness of this argument, but the above should suffice inshallah.