Thread by @Aal_Moalim

“Once I was having a discussion with a neo-hanbali on the issue of Hulul Al Hawadith.

The neo-Hanbali was discussing using Kalam, such that he said:

‘Let’s say creator instead of Al-Ilah so that our discussion can be pure Kalam.’

So, since our discussion was pure Kalam,

I wanted to tackle the issue of Hulul Al Hawadith from a historical basis.

So, I mentioned the history of the prime mover argument and how it reflects back to all of the different Kalami groups.

I then asked the famous question:

‘If a person was a Kafir for most of his life

then died upon Iman, was Allah angry with him then became pleased with him?’

Since if he did, it means that a meaning from the meanings of ‘movement’ has occurred in the essence of Allah (from anger to being pleased with that slave) or do you deny this, based on the idea that

God cannot move?’

Instead of discussing this, the neo-hanbali jumps to the discussion of God’s actions subsisting in His essence and, suddenly, became a Hashawi:

‘Ibn Batta said; Ibn Qudama said; Ahmad said’

with quotes to try and show that God cannot be described with when

And the neo-Hanbali ended up saying that Allah was pleased with the slave that died upon Iman after Kufr since eternity past; meaning that God was pleased with him, even during the slave’s period of Kufr.

In brief, when Ibn Sina realised that time is the measure of movement and that ‘when’ is an adverbial noun of time, along with his statement that God is immutable, he concluded that God is transcendent from ‘when’

This means that asking about God with ‘when’ when it comes to His acts, affirms that God is described in Time.

And you only describe in time something that moves.

Now, which of us is in agreement with the Salaf and the Hanabilah.

Do they affirm time and not transcend Allah from speaking about His acts with ‘when’?

Let’s list them:

قال الدارمي:

يأتي متى شاء كيفما شاء

قال المرداوي:

غالب الناس في هذه الأزمنة يقول: من قال: إن الله يتكلم بصوت، يكون كافرا. فهذا الإمام أحمد رحمه الله ورضي عنه قد صرح في غير رواية بأن الله يتكلم بصوت بقدرته ومشيئته إذا شاء وكيف شاء، وهجر من قال: إنه لا يتكلم بصوت وبدعه.

وهذا الإمام الكبير عبد الله بن المبارك، إمام الدنيا على الإطلاق، الذي اجتمع فيه من خصال الخير ما لا يجتمع غالبا في غيره، قد قال: إن الله يتكلم بقدرته ومشيئته بصوت كيف شاء ومتى شاء وإذا شاء بلا كيف

وهذا الإمام أبو عبد الله محمد بن إسماعيل البخاري، من أعظم أئمة المسلمين بلا مدافعة في ذلك، قد قال في كتابه خلق أفعال العباد: إن الله يتكلم بصوت، وإن صوته لا يشابه صوت المخلوقين، وإنه يتكلم كيف شاء ومتى شاء"

قال السفاريني:

إن صفة كلام الله عز شأنه ثابتة بإجماع الأنبياء على ذلك ليتكلم إذا شاء ومتى شاء بلا كيف

قال المرداوي:

التاسع أن يقال: لم يزل متكلما إذا شاء ومتى شاء... وهذا القول هو المأثور عن أئمة الحديث والسنة

قال ابن النجار:

التاسع: أنه يقال: لم يزل متكلما إذا شاء ومتى شاء... وهذا القول هو المأثورة عن أئمة الحديث والسنة ومن أعظم القائلين به: إمامنا أحمد والبخاري وابن المبارك وعثمان بن سعيد الدارمي ونحوهم

Ibn Sina said that you can’t describe God with when and so you can’t say ‘when He speaks, when He is pleased, when He descends’

The Ash’ariyyah agree with ibn Sina and they say that God does not act or that He acts from eternity past to avoid the ‘when’ dilemma

But, given the barrage of Hanbali quotes on this issue where they clearly affirm that God does acts when He wants, where can the neo-hanbali go?”

t.me/bassembech/3429