Imam al-Tahawi on the Impermissibility of Ascribing a Direction to God | Dr. Hamza Bekri

Learn two years of university-level Arabic in six months by joining the 6-Month Arabic Intensive starting July 2024.
Visit themadinanway.org/arabicintensive to learn more.

[@ibnawesome]

Learn two years of university-level Arabic in six months by joining the 6-Month Arabic Intensive starting July 2024. Visit themadinanway.org/arabicintensive to learn more.

[@Zain-rg5ec]

Please upload more of him and saeed fouda on these aqaid issues with english subtitles. Your doing a great job and we all are benefiting massively.

[@tafreekladh]

I'm always awestruck with the fact that the ashari's are so intellectual in their speeches, such profound explanations and also incorporating the aspect of aql, it's simply beautiful

[@blessedslave]

Aql is fallible, but naql is infallible. Their aqeedah is WRONG

[@blessedslave]

@البتّار الازدي agreed but using aql over naql should not be done. Anybody who does that would deviate from the opinions of salafus salih. Further, the asharis use aql over naql and go beyond the apparent meaning which in most cases never backed by salaf.

[@yourstruly5706]

@@blessedslave nope, some naql may be exclusive or not followed. And in the Qur'an Allah calls to aql and says will they not use their aql? You're saying Allah is asking the people to use something which is fallible.

[@yunusawan1467]

@@yourstruly5706 By "fallible" you mean the 'aql isn't unreliable right? Because we all believe that only Allah, the Prophets, and the Angels are infallible. Just wanted to clarify if I understood what you meant.

[@yourstruly5706]

@@yunusawan1467 yes, and they don't sin.

[@humzas5559]

Love his teaching style!

[@mhrosoha]

Great video brother, keep it up. I love shaykh Hamza Bakri

[@thomasbuxton2648]

Amazing. Is the full series of Tahawi available by the shaykh?

[@ibnawesome]

Unfortunately, no.

[@mrnajat5811]

Keep Translating them

[@FireFistAce007]

Great job. I think you should also upload videos going over the mistakes of Albani in Hadith.

[@HK4718]

Just brilliant!

[@myYouTubechannel123]

ALLAH humma barik Lahu

[@MB-tb6jy]

Amîn

[@yunusawan1467]

Jazakum Allahu Khairan!

[@EagleHD]

I loved this

[@Gog3453]

It’s unlawful to prescribe a direction to Allah

[@Gog3453]

The Wolf I couldn’t said it better

[@kab1r]

Rather it is unlawful to try to understand Allah using logic

[@Gog3453]

@@kab1r agreed 👍

[@HK4718]

Can someone post the link for the original Arabic lectures of the Shaykh? And are they of the entire book?

[@pedangagung85]

kzbin.info/aero/PLnXQtAauTV72_QSVJg296lrLBzuHQ3J4I

[@HK4718]

@@pedangagung85 BarakAllahu Fikum

[@rezacny]

Amazing how pseudo salafis twist imam tahawis statement and ascribe a direction to Allah

[@user-fm5cc2hb1i]

Akhi, can i write you? I have one question and offer. I want to translate your videos to russian language, if you dont mind. Please send me your contacts for writing you

[@ibnawesome]

[e-mail]

[@user-fm5cc2hb1i]

I wrote you akhi. Please answer)

[@gogetta3567]

Is there any book for Ashari Aqeeda? Where can I learn Ashari Aqeeda Ilm ul kalam 😍😍😍

[@noorhassan4361]

Islam Answers Atheism by Asrar Rashid Shaykh Saeed Foudah commentary on Sanusi creed Jawharut Tawhid (been translated into English) The incoherence of the Philosopher's by Imam Ghazzali Moderation in Belief by Imam Ghazzali

[@yunusawan1467]

For aqeedah overall, Al-Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah and Al-Aqeedah as-Sanusiyya are both excellent.

[@AzizRahman1]

I'm a little confused to be honest. Don't the Qur’aan and Sunnah say that Allaah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is above His Throne? Isn't that a direction?

[@discordalt1724]

Is dr hamza bekri a shaykh or student of knowledge or what? And what is his doctorate in. Just find it interesting to know stuff like this.

[@MiroMayne]

He is a professor at the Ibn Khaldun University in Turkey

[@mhrosoha]

He is a scholar brother with great insight. He done his doctorate in Hadith (his PhD thesis in publication ) and has studied hadith under scholars such as shaykh Muhammed Awama (one of the leading Muhadith of our time). He also specialises in Kalam/Aqeeda which he has studied more so through traditional studying rather than doing phd. You can read his interview below. www.google.com/amp/s/sehirisifkulubu.com/2018/05/05/hamza-bekri-mulakat/amp/

[@MiroMayne]

Here are some of his published papers. ibnhaldun.academia.edu/HamzehAlBakri If you know Arabic I highly suggest you watch his full lectures. Subhaan Allah his understanding and explanation of ilm ul kalaam issues is next level. He breaks things down in such a way that it becomes easy to understand

[@rashiq9154]

@@MiroMayne Where is he from

[@mhrosoha]

@@rashiq9154 He has Palestinian origins but was born and brought up in Jordan

[@junaidijaz2067]

That makes no sense. If it is within the creation than it can be above everything in even a single direction. But it for example the Throne needs to be within the creation. If it is seperate from the creation, then it will follow the ideology that Allah SWT is the sustainer and the creation is sustained by Allah SWT. In that case it can be said as above creation, what exactly that means is the knowledge of Allah. It makes no sense to ascribe an attribute of creation (direction) to Allah SWT.

[@Ahle.haq0]

This is why we way that such verses are mutshabehath. But you're right ascribing directions to allah even it may be one is haram and impossible and illogical

[@JunedHussain]

Six directions do not apply to Allah. But if I am salafi, despite belief according to Aqeeda Tahawiah. I do not believe it.

[@housse51]

Affirming a direction is not the same as saying that Allah is contained in that direction.. Its like saying the universe is above the Earth.. we know that it doesn't even mean a limitation in any direction at all.. but the why and the limitations of universe we could know with the right means.. we also know some of the sifaat of this universe based one observation.. for ahlus sunnah to say Allah is above his throne is a confirmation of Allah khabr.. a confirmation of the unseen based on wahy.. He is the one who is telling us.. we can not know the how even if we use all possible means in the universe.. let alone the aql of mutakallimuun.. For ahl bida to do taweel is rajm bil ghaib.. how is it when Allah tells you something about himself and you cant know the how and then you reject it? Do you even know the true detail, that you can make as a hujjah in front of Allah so that you can say that saying al yad or saaq or istiwa is actually tashbiih.. how is it tashbiih? How is it like a creation? I mean how is Allah's hand and how is creature's hand ? The detail of it so that i really can be assured 100% tha it is tashbiih?? You are in the state of jaahil in the first place yaa human, state of jaahil to understand Allah and to reject His khabr is jahl murakkab.. Secondly if it is the case with the universe, than Allah is above and beyond and perfect in every sense which befits His Majesty..

[@user-lr2iy7mc7w]

My brother you are arguing with yourself here, not with the shaykh. According to the as'ariyyah both ta'wil and tafwid (which is what you are describing) are valid. What is not valid is to say that god is tangible or contingent or contained or resembling his creation in any way, which would be the case if you accept the literal meaning of the verses and the attribution to a direction and which certain groups and scholars have done and still do. The true athariyya reject the literal meaning of the verses (for example that Allah s.w.t is literally "sitting" on his throne hashak) but don't give an alternative interpretation of the meaning of these verses, saying that the knowledge about its true meaning is only known by allah s.w.t. You yourself based on your comment understood the problem of accepting the literal meaning of those verses, by having to elaborate and clarify them. That's the whole point the shaykh and the true athariyya, maturidiyya and ash'ariyyah is making regarding seemingly anthropomorphic verses and narrations. Where they differ is whether you can or should give alternative metaphorical interpretations of those verses, but this has never been a matter on which they did takfir on each other and the ash'ariyyah holds both positions (Imam ash'ari rahimahullah himself rejected ta'wil).

[@housse51]

@@user-lr2iy7mc7w Athariyyah accepts haqiqa, nuzul as nuzul, but reject the kaifiyya. Tafwidh says nuzul is not nuzul, but rather they don't know the meaning and subsequently the kaifiyya. So there is extra step of ta'thil. Like the expression "Allah has hands, and both of them are right hand" is a well known expression among the salaf. "Allah creates r things with his Hands". Allah has hands, wajh etc are understood in the haqiqa or literal meaning as His attributes. But those attributes are not like the creation, and the how and the detail is unknown. These are not a tafwidh position. The test is rather simple.. when you ask Do Allah has an attribute called Hands or Wajh etc ? Ahlus sunnah will say yes, ahlut ta'weel (and ahlul kalaam) will say no and Ahlut tafwidh will say we don't know. That is why the belief of ahlus sunnah in sifaat is described with "bi la kayfin" and often asked "kayfa" by their opponents : because what they believe entails the need to explain the kayf, but the explanation is impossible to know so they stop at wahy. On the other side, ahlut ta'weel and ta'til would never need to even be asked the how / kayfiyyah because they reject the meaning in the first place.

[@user-lr2iy7mc7w]

@@housse51 what you just said is the definition of tafwid according to ibn taymiyyah, not according to the majority of the hanbaliyyah and the ahlu sunnah in general. Ibn taymiyyah held the position that in order for something to exist, it has to be material, which according to the ahlu sunnah goes against the absolute transcendence of Allah jalla jalaaluhu, and therefore subjects him to change (contingence), which would make him part of his creation, as everything that changes necessarily needs to have an uncaused cause for that change to happen. That's why antropomorphism is rejected with such a passion, because the moment you limit the absolute transcendence of god, which comparing him haqiqatan to his creation is, you basically take away the rational necessity of his existence as the cause and root of all being and therefore the rational proof of his existence. That has consistently been the biggest criticism and refutation muslim scholars had towards christianity, who have an irrational concept of god due to their antropomorphism. It is also how we will know that dajjal is an imposter, because we know that it is impossible for Allah s.w.t to be part of his creation so any creation claiming divinity is automatically lying. Based on all these things, it's very understandable why the scholars are so insisstant on making sure that no antropomorphism happens. I'm not making takfir on anyone but Ibn Taymiyyah and his followers have an understanding of tafwid which is de facto anthropomorphism in the sense, that it goes against the transcendence of Allah s.w.t. if thought out till the end. والله اعلم

[@housse51]

@@user-lr2iy7mc7w Im sorry but you throw many things, which are baatil.. "In order something to exist it has to be material" this is a lie, or i am misunderstanding this. So clarify : 1.where is the evidence for this view of ibn taimiyyah? 2. What does "material" here means? Is it material as in "matter", if yes, this is a clear lie. All ahlus sunnah and ahlul kalam agree that Allah is different in essence and sifaat than the creation. If what athariy believe is de facto anthropomorphism, then what asyariyah believe about Allah is de facto Allah doesn't exist.

[@housse51]

@@user-lr2iy7mc7w Secondly, aqwaal of salaaf are too many, their books are readily available.. how can you limit this just to ibn taimiyyah and hanabilah? What about ibn khuzaimah? What about Daaruquthny? Al laalikaaiy?

[@saedoosomboreh429]

People in comments really are praising this nonsense ??!!! You say no limit that limits him ?????!!!!

[@redx11x]

How can a man have so much knowledge but has no knowledge of the Sunnah for the beard?

[@blessedslave]

Wrong Aqeedah. Stick with the narrations.

[@muslimsunniashari3280]

We should follow you. Clown.

[@user-qm2of7vd3k]

What do you mean wrong aqeeda yours is wright by saying Allah is above the thron before creating the thron where was Allah we all know that thron is the creation of Allah how can Allah be above the thron