[faqir]

as-salamu alaikum

Some quotes compiled a while back by myself and Abul Layth:



Imam al-Hafidh al-Bayhaqi said in his book, Al-Asma'u was-Sifat, on page 400 [Kawthari edition]:

والذي روي في اّخر هذا الحديث إشارة إلى نفي المكان عن الله تعالى، وأن العبد أينما كان فهو في القرب والبعد من الله تعالى سواء، وأنه الظاهر فيصح إدراكه بالأدلة، الباطن فلا يصح إدراكه بالكون في مكان. واستدل بعض أصحابنا في نفي المكان عنه بقول النبي صلّى الله عليه و سلّم أنت الظاهر فليس فوقك شىء، وأنت الباطن فليس دونك شىء، وإذا لم يكن فوقه شىء ولا دونه شىء لم يكن في مكان

".... What was mentioned towards the end of the hadith is an indication of denying Allah has a place and denying the slave is alike to Allah, wherever he was, in proximity or remoteness. Allah, the Exalted, is adh-Dhahir--hence, it is valid to know about Him by proofs. Allah is al-Batin--hence, it is invalid that He would be in a place."

He also said:

"Some of our companions used as a proof to refute the place to Allah the saying of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam : 'You are adh-Dhahir and there is nothing above You, and You are al-Batin and there is nothing underneath You.' Therefore, if there is nothing above Him and nothing underneath Him, He is not in a place."

Similarly, regarding this same hadith [from Sahih Muslim]:

O Allah, You are the first: there is nothing before You; and You are the last: there is nothing after You. You are the Manifest (al-Zahir): there is nothing above You. You are the Hidden (al-Batin): there is nothing below You.

Al-Raghib al-Isfahani (d. 425 hegira) in his Mufradat al-Qur`an explained that Allah is the Manifest because His existence is intuitively evident to us through everything we see in the creation, while He is the Hidden because we can not comprehend the nature of His existence.

Mufradat al-Qur`an, (Damascus, Dar al-Qalam; and Beirut, Dar al Shamiyyah, 1992), p.131.



Imam Zayn ul-Abidin said:

وروى الحافظ اللغوي محمد مرتضى الزَّبيديُّ في شرح الإحياء بالإسناد المتصل أن الإمام عليًّا زين العابدين كان يقول: "سبحانك لا يحويك مكان" اهـ، وزين العابدين كان أفضل أهل البيت في زمانه

“glory be to you who has no place”

[documented in Imam Murtada Zabidis’s sharh al ihya ulum ud deen, with a mutasil isnad]

In Al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq under the chapter heading:

في بيان الاصول التى اجتمعت عليها اهل السنة

Imam Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi says:

واجمعوا على انه لا يحويه مكان ولا يجرى عليه زمان خلاف قول من زعم من الشهامية والكرامية انه مماس لعرشه وقد قال امير المؤمنين على رضي الله عنه ان الله تعالى خلق العرش اظهارا لقدرته لا مكانا لذاته وقال ايضا قد كان ولا مكان وهو الآن على ما كان

".....Allah created al-'arsh as an indication of His Power and did not take it as a place for Himself. Allah existed eternally without a place, and He now is as He ever was" [i.e. without a place]

Imam Ali [RA] is reported to have said:

تفسير مدارك التنزيل وحقائق التأويل/ النسفي
قول علي رضي الله عنه: الاستواء غير مجهول والتكييف غير معقول والإيمان به واجب والسؤال عنه بدعة لأنه تعالى كان ولا مكان فهو على ما كان قبل خلق المكان لم يتغير عما كان.

“al-Istiwa is not unknown, and the modality is altogether inconceivable. To affirm it is obligatory and to ask questions about it is an innovation, this is because Allah was, when there was nothing, and He created place before there was a place, and He is in no need for a place”.

[Reported in Tafsir Madaarik al-Tanzeel wa Haqaa’iq al-Ta’weel by an-Nasafi, under surah Taha (20) ayat (5)]


قال الإمام علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه :-" من زعم أن إلهنا محدود فقد جهل الخالق المعبود" ا.هـ رواه أبو نعيم في حلية الأولياء

Sayyidina Ali bin Abi Talib RA is also attributed by Hafidh Abu Nu'aym in his Hilyatul Awliya as saying:

"He who a claims that our Lord is limited is ignorant about the Creator who is worshipped."

Imam Ash-Shafi'i stated,

" إنه تعالى كان ولا مكان فخلق المكان وهو على صفة الأزلية كما كان قبل خلقه المكان لا يجوز عليه التغيير في ذاته ولا التبديل في صفاته " اهـ. [إتحاف السادة المتقين (2/ 24 ]

"Verily, He the exalted was, without makaan (station or place). He created Makaan and He was upon His attribute of eternality just as He was before he created makaan. It is not permitted upon Him to change his essence or to change in His attributes."

[It-Haaf As-Saadah Al Muttaqeen 2/24]

Imam Ibn Hibban in his Thiqaat says,

"الحمد لله الذي ليس له حد محدود فيحتوى، ولا له أجل معدود فيفنى، ولا يحيط به جوامع المكان ولا يشتمل عليه تواتر الزمان". الثقات (1/ 1)

He also stated in his Saheeh,

"كان- الله- ولا زمان ولا مكان"

"Allah was - without time and without makaan (station)."

وقال الشيخ الإمام أبو منصور عبد القاهر بن طاهر التميمي البغدادي الإسفراييني (429 هـ) ما نصه : "وأجمعوا- أي أهل السنة- على أنه- أي الله- لا يحويه مكان ولا يجري عليه زمان " اهـ.


Ash-Shaykh Al Imam Abu Mansur Abdul Qahir ibn Tahir At-Tameemi Al Baghdadi Al-Isfara-ini (died 429 AH) said,

"They have consensus - meaning Ahlus Sunnah - upon the fact that Allah is not contained in a place (makaan) and time does not run upon him."

الفرق بين الفرق (ص/ 333)

وقال أبو محمد علي بن أحمد المعروف بابن حزم الأندلسي (456 هـ) : " وأنه تعالى لا في مكان ولا في زمان، بل هو تعالى خالق الأزمنة والأمكنة، قال تعالى: (وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ فَقَدَّرَهُ تَقْدِيراً)(سورة الفرقان/2)، وقال (خلقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا)(سورة الفرقان/59)، والزمان والمكان هما مخلوقان، قد كان تعالى دونهما، والمكان إنما هو للاجسام"

Ibn Hazm Al Andalusi said, "And He ta'alaa is not in a place and is not in time..."


[كتابه علم الكلام: مسألة في نفي المكان عن الله تعالى (ص/ 65)]


Al Qadhi Ash-Shaykh Abul Waleed Muhammad ibn Ahmad Qadhi Al Jama'ah in Qurtubah (cordoba), well known as Ibn Rushd Al Jadd (the grandfather - this is not the author of Bidaayatul Mujtahid - it is his grandfather) Al Maliki stated,

"ليس- الله- في مكان، فقد كان قبل أن يخلق المكان

"Allah is not in a place. He is as he was before he created 'place'. "

[This is mentioned by Ibn Al Haaj Al Maaliki in his Madkhal.]

قال ابن حزم (وهو ممن يتكلم باسم السلف) قول تعالى يجب حمله على ظاهره ما لم يمنع من حمله على
ظاهره نصّ آخر أو إجماع أو ضرورة حس, وقد علمنا أن كل ما كان في مكان, فإنه شاغل لذلك المكان
ومالئ له ومتشكل بشلكه, ولا بدّ من أحد الأمرين ضرورة, وعلمنا أن ما كان في مكان فإنه متناه بتناهي
مكانه وهو ذو جهات ست أو خمس متناهية في مكانه وهذه صفات الجسم اه ثم قال:إن الأمة أجمعت على
أنه لا يدعو أحد فيقول يا مستو ارحمني, ولا يسمى ابنه عبد المستوي اه ثم قال إن معنى قوله تعالى على
العرش استوى أنه فعل فعله في العرش وهو انتهاء خلقه إليه, فليس بعد العرش شيء, والعرش نهاية جرم
المخلوقات الذي ليس خلفه خلاء ولا ملاء, ومن أنكر أن يكون للعالم نهاية من المساحة والزمان والمكان
لحق بقول الدهرية, وفارق الإسلام اه ثم ردّ على القائلين بالمكان وختم كلامه بقوله فإنه لا يكون في
مكان إلا ما كان جسما أو عرضا في جسم, هذا الذي لا يجوز سواه, ولا يتشكل في العقل والوهن غيره
ألبتة, وإذا انتهى أن يكون الله عز وجل جسما أو عرضا, فقد انتهى أن يكون في مكان أصلا وبالله نتأيد اه
فليعتبر بقول ابن حزم هذا أدعياء السلف من مشبّهة العصر. 3

Imam al-Kawthari RH says regarding Imam Ibn Hazm RH in الأسماء والصفات, ص 516 , تعليق رقم ( 1 :

Ibn Hazm (who was a person wont to speak in the name of the salaf) said:

“One is required to take Allah’s word, exalted is He, literally as long as there is no text, or consensus, or empirical necessity, stops us from doing that. We know that everything that is in a place occupies that space and fills it and assumes its shape. One of the two things has to be. We know that whatever is in a place has to be limited by the limits of that place, as it has to be in limited by a finite limit in the six or five directions in its space, and these are the attributes of bodies.”

Then he said:

“The ummah is agreed that no one should say ‘O, He who has ascended, have mercy on me’! just as no one should name his son ‘Slave of the One Who Ascended.’”

Then he said:

“Truly, the meaning of His saying, exalted is He, ‘He made istiwà on the Throne’ is that He acted in some way on the Throne; namely, He ended His creation with it, for there is nothing after the Throne which is the end of creation; there is nothing after it, neither space, nor void. Anybody who denies that the creation has a finite limit in distance and time and space joins the materialists and leaves Islam.”

Then he refuted those who insist that Allah occupies space and he ended his discourse saying:

“Nothing can be in space except what is a body or an accident [what occurs in a substance like heat, color and so on] in a body; there is no other possibility, for neither reason nor imagination can conceive of another possibility at all. Since it is concluded that Allah is neither a body nor an accident, it is concluded that He cannot occupy space absolutely. And Allah is our help.”

So let those claim to follow the salaf in our times likening Allah to His creatures consider carefully this proclamation of Ibn Hazm.

[faqir]

What about those who say Allah is 'separate' from His Creation?




Shaykh al-Islam Imam al-Nawawi in his book Raudah al-Talibin quotes a fatwa (encyclical) of al-Mutawalli’s:

“Whoever believes that the world is eternal, or that the Maker is originated, or has an originated attribute (huduth al-Sani), or denies any attribute of the Eternal which the ulama agree is an attribute (that is, on which there is consensus−ijma), or believes that He is in contact with or separate from His creation or anything in it (al-ittisal wa alinfisal), he is an unbeliever.”

Ibn al-Jauzi RH the Hanbali Denounces Those Hanbalis Who Insist That Allàh is "Separate" From His Creation

The fact that the notion that Allàh is contiguous with His creation or separate from it necessarily and essentially implies the notion that He is possessed of body and substance was emphasised by Abu ’l-Faraj ibn al-Jauzi (d. 597 /1201; Baghdad), a Hanbali Imàm in his book Daf‘ Shubah al-Tashbih when he remonstrated with Ibn al-Zàghuni (d. 520 / 1126), one of the teachers of Ibn al-Jauzi and one of the anthropomorphist Hanbali’s, for insisting that Allàh “has to be separate” and for insisting that Allàh physically ascended the Throne:

I declare [Ibn al-Jauzi says]: This talk is nonsense and sheer anthropomorphism (tashbih)!

This man doesn’t know what is necessary of the Creator, and what is impossible of Him.

Indeed, His existence is not like the existence of atoms (jawàhir) and bodies which must have a location. “Below” and “above” only apply to what can be faced and gotten opposite to. Now, what is gotten opposite to has of necessity to be bigger, smaller, or equal to what is opposite it––but this is what applies to bodies. Whatever faces bodies may be contacted, and whatever can be in contact with bodies, or be separate from them is originated since it is known [in science of Kalàm] that the proof that atoms (jawàhir) are originated is their capacity to be contacted or separate. Thus, whoever permits [contact and separation] for God makes Him originated. If they maintain that He may not be originated in spite of His being susceptible to contact and separation, we will not be left with any means to demonstrate that atoms are originated.

Furthermore, if we conceive of a thing transcending space and location[namely, God], and another requiring space and location [namely, bodies], then we may neither declare the two to be contiguous nor separate since contiguity and separateness are among the consequences of occupying space.

It has already been established that coming together and becoming separate are among the inseparable attributes of whatever occupies space. However, the Real (al-Haqq), high and exalted is He, may not be described by the occupation of space because, if He did occupy space, He would either have to be at rest in the space He occupied, or moving from it; whereas, He may neither be described by movement nor stillness; nor union nor separation [since these are the attributes of things which are contingent and originated, not of that which is necessary and eternal]. Whatever is contiguous or separate must have a finite existence. Then, what is finite has to have dimensions, and what has dimensions needs that which particularises its dimensions [and whatever has a need can not be the God and Originator of the cosmos].

Furthermore, from another point of view, it can be pointed out that He is neither in this world or outside it because entering and exiting are inseparable attributes of things which occupy space. Entering and exiting are just like movement and stillness and all other accidents which apply to bodies only.

Notice that Ibn al-Zaghuni claims above [Ibn al-Jauzá had quoted from one of his books] that He did not create things in His Essence (dhàt); therefore, he presumes it is established that they are separate from Him. [In refutation of this claim] we declare [that is, Ibn al-Jauzi] that the Essence of the Transcendent God (dhàtuhu al-muqaddasah) is beyond having things created in it, or that things should occur in it. Now, material separation in relation to Him requires of Him what it requires of substances [namely, that He be defined by finite limits]. Indeed, the definition of location is that what occupies it prevents a similar thing from being found there; [whereas, nothing is similar to God in any way].

It is apparent that what [these anthropomorphists] presume is based on sensory analogy. Their inability to conceive of a reality beyond material experience led them into bewilderment, and to liken the attributes of the Transcendent God to the attributes of originated things [that is, to commit tashbih]. Indeed, the bewilderment of some of them reached such a degree that they declared: “The reason God mentioned His ascension (istiwà’) on the Throne is that it is the nearest thing to him.” Obviously, this is preposterous because nearness in terms of distance can only be conceived of in relation to bodies [whereas, in relation to the Transcendent God who is not a body, it is inconceivable]. Others declared that the Throne is opposite what confronts it of the Divine Essence (dhàt), but not opposite the entire dhàt. This, of course, is explicit in saying that God is like a body (tajsim), and that He is susceptible to division. I am at a loss to understand how a person [who believes such heretical nonsense] has the audacity to ascribe to our school of law [that is, the Hanbali madhhab]!

Ibn al-Jauzi, Daf‘ Shubah al-Tashbih (Cairo, Maktabah Kulláyat al-Azharáyah, 1991), pp, 21-22

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sa‘d al-Din al-Taftàzàni (d. 793 / 1390; Samarkand), in his Sharh al-‘Aqà’id al-Nasafiyah made the same point as Ibn al-Jauzi:

The adversaries cling to the outward sense of the [ambiguous texts] in order to predicate direction, corporeality, form, and limbs of the divinity.

Moreover, they argued that whenever we suppose two things to be present, it is inevitable that either one of them is in contact with the other touching it, or that it is separate from it away from it in some direction.

Now, [they argue] since Allàh is neither in the world, nor is the world in Him, it stands that He is separate from it and away from it in some direction, located in some place (mutaäayyiz). Thus, He has to be a body, or part of a body, having a form, and an extreme limit.

The answer to them is that what they say is sheer delusion: the judging of what is supersensible according to the criteria of what is sensible.

Conclusive proofs (al-adillat alqat‘iyah) are established which determine the absolute and imperative necessity of maintaining the pure transcendence of God.

Therefore, it is necessary that either we leave the knowledge of the meaning of the ambiguous texts to Allàh, exalted is He, as was the custom of the Salaf [the first three generations of Islàm] preferring the safer way(al-tariq al-aslam); or we interpret them in a correct way as is the custom of the later ‘ulamà’ in order to refute the propaganda of the ignorant [an allusion to the Hashawiyah] and take simpleminded souls by the arm in a way which is safer [for the simpleminded].

[latter two quotes translated by Sh. Muhammad W. C.]

[Muadh_Khan]

Asslamo Allaikum,

Insha'Allah I will troll through Sunniforum and other sites and attempt to find quotes from the Salaf about the existence of Allah (SWT) Bila-Makan; can you brothers and sisters also post what-ever you come across please?

Jazakullah Khairun

[Hamoudeh]

Related from Imam al-A`zam Abu Hanifa radiAllahu `anhu:

From Kitab al-Wasiyya: http://www.marifah.n...a-abuhanifa.pdf

"We affirm that Allah the Exalted has established (istawa’) himself on the Throne without there being any necessity or sedentariness (istiqrar) for Himself [of it]. He is the Keeper of the Throne and of [anything] other than the Throne without any need [for Himself to it]. If he [ever] was in need [of it] then he would not have been able to bring the world into existence or dispose of it, just like the two creations [are unable]. If he [ever] was needy of sitting (julus) and settling (qarar) [on the Throne], then where was Allah before the creation of the Throne? May Allah be exalted over that, in being high and great."

From al-Fiqh al-Absat: http://www.livingisl.../ahanifa_e.html

"If someone says, 'Where is Allâh' The answer for him is that Allâh existed when there was no 'where,' no creation, nothing! And He is the Creator of everything!"

There is another article by Shaykh Gibril in which this quote is related, with different sources, posted on SunniForum ( http://www.sunniforu...amp;postcount=1 ). If this article is published already on any website, such as Living Islam, please let me know. I haven't been able to locate it anywhere.

Wassalam

[faqir]

as-salamu `alaikum

have you seen:

http://www.marifah.n...?showtopic=2467

[Muadh_Khan]

Asslamo Allaikum,

Jazakullah Khairun Brothers..

Also Jafar As-Sadiq (RA) and others:

http://www.marifah.n...e-alijumuah.pdf

Taken from Br Fahid on Sunniforum:

Sayyidina Ali (ra): reported to have said “al-Istiwa is not unknown, and the modality is altogether inconceivable. To affirm it is obligatory and to ask questions about it is an innovation, this is because Allah was, when there was nothing, and He created place before there was a place, and He is in no need for a place”. [Reported in Tafsir Madaarik al-Tanzeel wa Haqaa’iq al-Ta’weel by an-Nasafi, under surah Taha (20) ayat (5)]

Anyhow the reasoning behind Imam Bukhari (ra) and being that "Allah exists without a place" is that of Imam Shafi (ra)"

"Verily, He the exalted was, without makaan (station or place). He created Makaan and He was upon His attribute of eternality just as He was before he created makaan. It is not permitted upon Him to change his essence or to change in His attributes." [It-Haaf As-Saadah Al Muttaqeen 2/24]

It also continues in the Shaf'i school:

“Whoever believes that the world is eternal, or that the Maker is originated, or has an originated attribute (huduth al-Sani), or denies any attribute of the Eternal which the ulama agree is an attribute (that is, on which there is consensus−ijma), or believes that He is in contact with or separate from His creation or anything in it (al-ittisal wa alinfisal), he is an unbeliever.” (Imam Al-Nawawi (ra), fatwa of al-Mutawalli, raudah al-talibin)

[Hamoudeh]

faqir, on Jan 21 2008, 12:02 AM, said:

as-salamu `alaikum

have you seen:

http://www.marifah.n...?showtopic=2467

Forgot all about it! I merged the topics. So, is that article by Shaykh Gibril which you have posted on SF over a year back published somewhere or not? Is it perhaps in PDF form somewhere?

Ma`salam

[faqir]

yep it has.

[Abu Naim]

I want to share also a quote from Mulla Ali al Qari's Sharh Fiqh al Akbar:

Imam Abdullah bin Salam narrates in his book ''Hallur Rumuz'' that Abu Hanifa (rah) said:

"Whoever says, 'I do not know whether my Lord is in the heaven or on earth' is a disbeliever, the reason is that by such words he suggests a place for Allah and this (the one who suggest a place for Allah) is idolatry (one who compares Allah to his creation)."


Was salaam

This post has been edited by Abu Naim: 26 January 2008 - 07:59 PM

[Abul Layth]

The following are two quotes that I hope someone will translate. They manifest the creed of the well known Maaliki explainer of Sahih Al Bukhaari, Ibn Battaal, as quoted in Fat-hul-Baari:

غرض البخاري في هذا الباب الرد على الجهمية المجسمة في تعلقها بهذه الظواهر، وقد تقرر أن الله ليس بجسم فلا يحتاج إلى مكان يستقر فيه، فقد كان ولا مكان، وإنما أضاف المعارج إليه إضافة تشريف، ومعنى الارتفاع إليه اعتلاؤه- أي تعاليه- مع تنزيهه عن المكان


فتح الباري (13/ 416)

Maybe someone would like to translate this as I do not have time to.

He also said:

لا تعلق للمجسمة في إثبات المكان، لما ثبت من استحالة أن يكون سبحانه جسما أو حالا في مكان

[Ibn Ahmad]

غرض البخاري في هذا الباب الرد على الجهمية المجسمة في تعلقها بهذه الظواهر، وقد تقرر أن الله ليس بجسم فلا يحتاج إلى مكان يستقر فيه، فقد كان ولا مكان، وإنما أضاف المعارج إليه إضافة تشريف، ومعنى الارتفاع إليه اعتلاؤه- أي تعاليه- مع تنزيهه عن المكان

Bukhari’s intent in this chapter is to respond and refute the anthropomorphists regarding their insistence on interpreting these verses based on a literal persuasion. It has been firmly established that Allah is without a body and needs not a place in which to reside, and He has always existed without a place. If “ascension” is attributed to Him, then it is an attribution of honor. The meaning of the “rising” that is attributed to Him is that He takes charge and commands each and every affair. In other words, His exalted stature is (fundamentally linked to) His transcendence of space.

*This IS my actual work, and NOT a professional translation.

[faqir]

JazakumAllahu khayran

[faqir]

some further beneficial quotes provided by brother AbdurRahman:


ابن حجر الهيتمي المنهج القويم:

واعلم أن القرافي وغيره حكوا عن الشافعي ومالك وأحمد وأبي حنيفة رضي الله عنهم القول بكفر القائلين بالجهة والتجسيم وهم حقيقون بذلك

Ibn Hajar Al Haytami Ash Shaafi’i says in his book on Shaafi’i fiqh, al Manhaj al Qaweem:

“And know that al Qaraafi and others related from Ash Shaafi’i, Maalik, Ahmad and Abu Hanifah (the four Imams) RadiyAllahu anhum: the statement of KUFR against those who allege a direction and corporealness (to Allah) and they are deserving of that.”


وفي كتاب "الفتاوى الهندية لجماعة من علماء الهند (14) ما نصه: "يكفر باثبات المكان لله تعالى. ولو قال: الله تعالى في السماء فإن قصد له حكاية ما جاء فيه ظاهر الأخبار لا يكفر وإن أراد به المكان يكفر" اهـ.

And in the book Al Fataawaa al Hindiyyah (AKA al Fataawaa al Aalamgeeriyyah 2/259) by a committee of Scholars from India it says: “A person commits disbelief by ascribing a place to Allah Ta’aala. And if one said, “Allah is in the sky”, then if he meant only a narration of what came outwardly in the texts (without divulging into it’s meanings) he did not commit KUFR. But if he meant the place (itself) he commits KUFR.”


وقال الشيخ زين الدين الشهير بابن نجيم الحنفي(5) (970هـ) ما نصّه (ويكفر باثبات المكان لله تعالى، فإن قال: الله في السماء، فإن قصد حكاية ما جاء في ظاهر الأخبار لا يكفر، وإن أراد المكان كفر).
(5)البحر الرائق: باب احكام المرتدين (٥/129).

The great Hanafi Shaikh Zainud Deen ibn Nujaim al Hanafi RahimahUllah has this same Fatawa in his book of Hanafi fiqh: Al Bahr Ar Raa’iq 5/129. It is noteworthy that he related this Fatawa in Baab Ahkaamil Murtaddeen (The chapter of Judgments concerning Muslims who have committed apostasy.)


و قال الإمام ابن الجوزي رحمه الله في دفع شبه التشبيه:
و من ذكر تبعيض الذات كفر بالإجماع. اهـ

And Al Imam Ibnul Jawzi al Hanbali RahimahUllah has stated in his book Daf’u Shubahit Tashbeeh bi Akuffit Tanzeeh (Pushing away the doubts of likening-Allah to His creation-with the hands of transcendence) while explaining hadeeth #39: “And whoever mentions that the (Divine) Essence (of Allah) has separate parts (has a face, hands, shins, sides, hips, feet, fingers etc. with the meaning that these are all separate parts of which He is made up) commits KUFR according to the Ijmaa’ (consensus).”



و قال الإمام أبو جعفر الطحاوي في العقيدة الطحاوية:
وتعالى عن الحدود والغايات ، والأركان والأعضاء والأدوات ، لا تحويه الجهات الست كسائر المبتدعات ‏.‏

Al Imaam At Tahaawi RahimahUllah in his treatise on ‘Aqeedah, Al ‘Aqeedah At Tahaawiyyah, which is accepted by Ash’aris, Maturidis, and yes even “salafis”, while clarifying the Aqeedah of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah, said: And He is transcendent from (having) boundaries and extremities (limits) and sides and limbs and adawaat (This could be translated as instruments, utensils or tools, signifying the body part used at the ends of limbs to perform a task-specifically hands and feet at the ends of arms and legs. In light of At Tahaawi’s negation of corporeal qualities, which was the point of this section of his ‘aqeedah, the physical implication of these terms is absolutely negated…:::sandal:::…), the six directions do not contain him like all created things.

قال الإمام إبراهيم بن محمد الباجوري رحمه الله تعالى في تحفة المريد على جوهرة التوحيد:
واعلم أن معتقد الجهة لا يكفر قاله العز بن عبد السلام, و قيده النووي بكونه من العامة, وابن أبي جمرة بعسر فهم نفيها. اهــ

Al Imam Ibraheem bin Muhammad al Baajoori RahimahUllahu Ta’aala said in Tuhfatul Mureed alaa Jawharatit Tawheed: “And know that the believer in the direction is not committing KUFR. Al ‘Izz ibn ‘Abdis Salaam RahimahUllahu Ta’aala stated this. And Al Imam An Nawawi RahimahUllahu Ta’aala (compiler of Riyaadus Saaliheen, al Majmoo’ etc.) stipulated that the person in question must be a layman (for the KUFR not to apply to him/her) and Al Imam Ibn Abi Jamrah RahimahUllahu Ta’aala (an explainer of Sahih al Bukhari that Ibn Hajr RahimahUllah quoted from) stipulated that (for the person not to be commiting KUFR) the person have difficulty in understanding (that Allah's existence is not negated by) negating it.

[Abu Naim]

Well done, there are also some statement in Khusayri's Risalah, Gumushkhanawi's Jami al Mutun, Turpushti's Risala, Imam Birkhiwi's Wasiyya, Muhammad Khadimi's Bariqa, stating the same.

Unfortuanaly i got it only in turkish;

http://muratyazici.b...lemek-caiz.html

Was salaam

[Abul Layth]

We added a few more quotes and linked to this thread from the following post:

http://seekingilm.com/archives/119

Jazaakum Allahu Khairan,
Abul Layth

Ibn Ahmad, on Mar 4 2008, 11:41 AM, said:

غرض البخاري في هذا الباب الرد على الجهمية المجسمة في تعلقها بهذه الظواهر، وقد تقرر أن الله ليس بجسم فلا يحتاج إلى مكان يستقر فيه، فقد كان ولا مكان، وإنما أضاف المعارج إليه إضافة تشريف، ومعنى الارتفاع إليه اعتلاؤه- أي تعاليه- مع تنزيهه عن المكان

Bukhari’s intent in this chapter is to respond and refute the anthropomorphists regarding their insistence on interpreting these verses based on a literal persuasion. It has been firmly established that Allah is without a body and needs not a place in which to reside, and He has always existed without a place. If “ascension” is attributed to Him, then it is an attribution of honor. The meaning of the “rising” that is attributed to Him is that He takes charge and commands each and every affair. In other words, His exalted stature is (fundamentally linked to) His transcendence of space.

*This IS my actual work, and NOT a professional translation.

I changed the word "of" to "from" as I feel that makes it clearer in terms of tanzih. Shukran.