1. Imām al-Aáżam Abū Ĥanīfah al-Númān ibn al-Thābit al-Kūfī [70-150 AH / 689-767 CE] states in Fiqh al-Akbar:
“Allāh táālā shall be seen in the Hereafter, and the believers shall see Him while they are in Paradise,
with the eyes of their heads, without similitude or modality, and there shall not be any distance between Him and His creation.”
Commenting on this, Abu’l Muntahā Shihābuddīn Aĥmad ibn Muĥammad al-Maghnīsāwī [d. 1000 AH / 1592 CE] writes:
“Musāfah in the language means distance, and the intention of it here is direction and place.”
Thus we see he negated place and direction for Allāh.
2. He states in Kitāb al-Waşiyyah:
“The meeting of Allāh táālā with the inhabitants of Paradise is a reality, without modality, similitude and nor direction.”
Here we observe explicit negation of direction for Allāh by the Imām.
3. He says in the same book:
“We affirm that Allāh táālā did Istiwā'a on the Throne without there being any need for Him or settledness [istiqrār]. He is the Keeper of the Throne and of other than the Throne, without any need.
If He was in need then He would not have been able to bring the world into existence or arrange it, as the two creations [are unable].
If He was in need of sitting [julūs] and settling [qarār] [on the Throne], then where was Allāh before the creation of the Throne?
Allāh is exalted beyond that with a great exaltedness.”
We see here that the Imām affirms Istiwā'a whilst negating need for it, settling upon the Throne, and sitting upon it. He also negates that the Throne is the place of Allāh.
4. He states in Fiqh al-Absaţ:
“The one who states, ‘I do not know if Allāh is in the heaven or on the earth’, has committed kufr.”
The reason why is explained by Abu’l Layth Naşr ibn Muĥammad al-Samarqandī [d. 375 AH / 985 CE] in his commentary.
He writes:
“Because, by this statement he assumes that He has a place, thus he became a mushrik.”
The Imām continues:
“Likewise is the one who states, ‘He is on the Throne but I do not know if the Throne is in the heaven or on the earth.’”
Abu’l Layth al-Samarqandī comments on this writing:
“In reality, this returns to the first meaning, because when he stated,
‘I do not know if the Throne is in the heaven or on the earth’, then it is as if he stated, ‘I do not know if Allāh táālā is in the heaven or on the earth.’”
Therefore, it can be understood that the reason why the Imām declared both of these expressions to be kufr,
is because they both intend to ascribe a place to Allāh. This is supported by what is mentioned in the following quote.
5. He was asked further in Fiqh al-Absaţ:
“What is your opinion, if it is asked, ‘Where is Allāh táālā?’”
He replied:
“It is said unto him, Allah existed and there was no place before He created the creation, and Allāh táālā existed and there was no ‘where’, no creation, nor anything, and He is the Creator of all things.”
This makes clear beyond doubt that the Imām did not consider Allāh to be located in any place; neither on the Throne nor in any other place.
This is clear from his declaring ‘where’, i.e. place, to be a creation, and by doing so He negated it for Allāh.
6. Imām Abū Jaáfar al-Ţaĥāwī al-Ĥanafī [239-321 AH / 843-933 CE] writes in his Áqīdah:
“This is a mention of the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l Jamāáh, upon the methodology of the jurists of the religion: Abū Ĥanīfah al-Númān ibn al-Thābit al-Kūfī,
Abū Yūsuf Yáqūb ibn Ibrāhīm al-Anśārī, and Abū Ábdullāh Muĥammad ibn al-Ĥasan al-Shaybānī, and what they believed from the foundations of the religion, and professed as their religion for the Lord of the Worlds.”
Thus, what is mentioned in this text is the creed of the Imām.
It must be remembered that Imām Ţaĥāwī was a student of the direct student of the two main students of the Imām, and so there is no doubt in the authenticity of what is mentioned in the text.
In this he writes:
“Exalted is Allāh ázza wa jall from limits, extremes, corners, limbs and instruments. The six directions do not contain Him, as with all created things.”
Thus, if it is said Allāh is located on the Throne, then it would result in saying He has a limit,
and that He is in the upwards direction. Therefore, such a belief would contradict what is authentically narrated from the Imām and his students.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Many Muslims incorrectly assume slavery is not a "good" thing. It is, and if it was not, then Allāh would not have permitted it, and His Beloved Rasūl ﷺ would not have engaged in it.
They erroneously assume that because freeing one's own slaves can be rewarded, that this somehow means slavery as a whole is evil and ought to be abolished.
Firstly, not all instances of freeing slaves are rewarded, it is only rewarded if done sincerely for the Pleasure of Allāh, otherwise if a person frees a thousand of his slaves without this sincere intention, then though it is valid, there is no reward.
Moreover, if a kāfir does so, there is no reward for him, regardless of his intention.
Secondly, a person is rewarded for giving charity if he does so purely for the sake of Allāh, but does this now mean private property is evil and must be abolished? Must governments take all wealth of individuals by force? Of course not.
In reality, this is modern-day apologetics designed to suit 21st century sentiment regarding slavery and has no basis in traditional Islam.
Today marks the day that one of the greatest Sunni scholars of India left this world: Alahazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Hanafi Qadiri Baraylawi [1272-1340 AH / 1856-1921]
Here is a thread of some of my threads regarding him ad translations of his writings
His detailed definition and discourse regarding worship:
So yes, "Anti-slavery fight is a modern idea, Islam unanimously agreed with this this practice, this is the consensus", this is correct.
I don't know why people struggle with the historical fact that wholesale demonisation of slavery and opposition to slavery in the Muslim world is a recent occurrence thst began in 19thC and that for centuries nobody of any group or sect had any issue with slavery in of itself.
The first who conceptualised an identity was German lawyer, jurist, journalist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs [1825-1895].
Prior to this, the focus was on the act of the individual, whereas activists such as Ulrichs shifted the focus towards the nature of the individual.
In 1867 he attended the Congress of German Jurists in Munich and argued for the repealing of laws which prohibited sodomy, mentioning that nature had implanted this inn them, and thus such laws are discriminatory against them.
The one deserving of Khilāfat is he who possesses the seven conditions of Khilāfat, that is:
1. Man,
2. Sane,
3. Pubescent,
4. Muslim,
5. Free,
6. Capable,
7. Qurashī
These seven conditions are necessary such that if even one condition is missing then the Khilāfat shall not be sound. The elucidation of this is in all books of creed.
Imām Taftāzānī says in Sharh al-Aqā’id:
“{He ought to be from Quraysh, and it is not permissible from other than them} meaning, it is stipulated that the Imām be a Qurashī due to his saying, upon him be blessings and salutations, ‘The Imāms are from Quraysh.’
Muslims ought to remember that Allāh has created cattle for the benefit of mankind, and they are a great blessing and favour from our Lord.
There are numerous explicit verses in the Qur'ān which clarify this, and to oppose this is detrimental to one's faith.
It is necessary not to fall prey to modern ideas of veganism, environmentalism, etc, which claim that benefitting from animals is immoral, harmful, unjust, and is destructive for the environment.