Ibn Za'farani al-Shafi'i

The Jahmiyya are more athari than pseudo-athari today on the issue of makan because of their textual fidelity, if we're talking about consistency.

[Ibn Za'farani al-Shafi'i @MoroKullabi]

Abu (L.A) says: "Madad Madad Ya Umar"

to save himself from jahannam.

[Red Al-Rafidhi @RedAlRafidhi]

Abu Lulu (R.A) says Wa alaikum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

[Ibn Za'farani al-Shafi'i @MoroKullabi]

@RedAlRafidhi Nah mate, Abu Lulu said "madad madad ya umar" to save him from jahannam

[Ibn Za'farani al-Shafi'i @MoroKullabi]

@sitoslimy5 Magomed is just the russian version of Muhammad

[Ibn Za'farani al-Shafi'i @MoroKullabi]

@AnalyticalTaymi Truly a Karrami Philosopher🥱.
They just compared their god to the world

[Azaharie Ben Yahya @bahlul_majnun]

ALLAH’S MERCY UPON THE INHABITANTS OF HELL: AN EXPLANATION

When the Qur’an speaks about punishment and mercy, Allah تعالى says in Sūrah al-Aʿrāf, verse 156:

قَالَ عَذَابِي أُصِيبُ بِهِ مَنْ أَشَاءُ وَرَحْمَتِي وَسِعَتْ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ

“He said: My punishment—I inflict it upon whom I will; and My mercy encompasses all things.”

Notice how Allah تعالى speaks of His punishment with the expression أُصِيبُ بِهِ مَنْ أَشَاءُ, meaning, “I inflict it upon whom I will,” whereas when speaking of His mercy, Allah uses an extraordinarily comprehensive expression: وَرَحْمَتِي وَسِعَتْ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ, “My mercy encompasses all things.”

A similar meaning is affirmed in an authentic ḥadīth qudsī. In one narration Allah تعالى says:

«إِنَّ رَحْمَتِي غَلَبَتْ غَضَبِي»

“Indeed, My mercy has overcome My wrath.”

And in another narration:

«إِنَّ رَحْمَتِي سَبَقَتْ غَضَبِي»

“Indeed, My mercy preceded My wrath.”

Both formulations are narrated in authentic ḥadīths.

Thus, mercy is not some minor or peripheral attribute in Allah’s relationship with His creation. Rather, Allah Himself describes it as encompassing all things, preceding and overcoming His wrath.

When it is said that Allah’s mercy encompasses all things, this does not mean that all people receive the same form of mercy. Allah’s mercy towards a believer is not necessarily identical in form to His mercy towards a disbeliever; nor is His mercy towards those who obey Him necessarily identical to His mercy towards sinners. Likewise, Allah’s mercy in this world is not necessarily identical to His mercy in the Hereafter.

Nevertheless, the fundamental principle remains that Allah’s mercy is immensely vast.

Indeed, some exegetes, when explaining this verse, mention the comprehensiveness of Allah’s mercy over all creation, while the continuation of the verse, فَسَأَكْتُبُهَا لِلَّذِينَ يَتَّقُونَ, explains that there is also a particular form of mercy designated for a specific group.

For this reason, it is also inaccurate to assume that when someone is afflicted by Allah’s wrath or punishment, every form of Allah’s mercy has thereby been completely cut off from him. The texts concerning the Hereafter themselves indicate that the condition of human beings in Hell contains distinctions that cannot simply be treated uniformly.

Among the important evidences concerning this matter is what Imam al-Qurṭubī mentions in his work al-Tadhkirah fī Aḥwāl al-Mawtā wa Umūr al-Ākhirah. He cites an authentic ḥadīth from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī RA in which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

«أَمَّا أَهْلُ النَّارِ الَّذِينَ هُمْ أَهْلُهَا فَإِنَّهُمْ لَا يَمُوتُونَ فِيهَا وَلَا يَحْيَوْنَ، وَلَكِنْ نَاسٌ أَصَابَتْهُمُ النَّارُ بِذُنُوبِهِمْ ـ أَوْ قَالَ بِخَطَايَاهُمْ ـ فَأَمَاتَهُمُ اللَّهُ إِمَاتَةً…»

“As for the inhabitants of Hell who are its true inhabitants, they will neither die therein nor live. But there are people whom the Fire afflicts because of their sins—or he said, because of their errors—and Allah causes them to die with a death…”

This ḥadīth is narrated by Imam Muslim.

The ḥadīth indicates that there are believers who, because of their sins, first undergo punishment in Hell. However, after a period determined by Allah, their condition changes. They do not continue indefinitely to experience the pain in the same manner. Allah causes them to die, and when they have become like charcoal—حتى إذا كانوا فحما—permission is given for intercession, and eventually they are brought out of Hell.

Imam al-Qurṭubī gives a particularly interesting explanation of this ḥadīth. He says:

«هَذِهِ الْمَوْتَةُ لِلْعُصَاةِ مَوْتَةٌ حَقِيقِيَّةٌ؛ لِأَنَّهُ أَكَّدَهَا بِالْمَصْدَرِ، وَذَلِكَ تَكْرِيمًا لَهُمْ حَتَّى لَا يُحِسُّوا أَلَمَ الْعَذَابِ بَعْدَ الِاحْتِرَاقِ»

“This death of the sinful ones is a real death, because it is emphasized by the verbal noun [إماتة]. This is as an honor bestowed upon them, so that they no longer feel the pain of punishment after being burned.”

[Ibn Za'farani al-Shafi'i @MoroKullabi]

@Sarautwmhy @IbnAlarabi15 @ManartuAlSham عَ هالحكي، معناته الصحابة والتابعين طلعوا كانوا خاشين اشي عن العوام والناس؟

[Ibn Za'farani al-Shafi'i @MoroKullabi]

@Sarautwmhy @IbnAlarabi15 @ManartuAlSham سمعت شي رواية عن الصحابة أو التابعين إنه الواحد ما يصير يحكي أشياء العامة ما بتستوعبها؟ زي كيف الإمام مالك منع حكي صفات الخبرية قدام العامة؟

[عدن @Eden_Jahad]

The Ashʿarī and Māturīdī scholars who praised Ibn Taymiyyah — especially those who denied that he was a mujassim — can be classified into several categories.

First, there are those who were not particularly familiar with his doctrinal positions, such as al-Yūsī and others, who had not read his major theological works, or had only read a few rasāʾil—and even then, without engaging with the major details of his positions. These scholars knew very little about Ibn Taymiyyah’s actual doctrine.

Second, there are those who believed that he had repented, or who simply maintained ḥusn al-ẓann toward him. This category, too, was not particularly well acquainted with his doctrinal positions. This becomes quite clear when one observes that they exonerate him from tajsīm while themselves describing certain positions as tajsīm even though those very positions were held by Ibn Taymiyyah. This is typically the case with al-ʿAynī and Ibn Ḥajar. One need only read their commentaries on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī to see this. The same applies to those scholars who regarded him as a mufawwiḍ, as was the case with many later Hanbalīs, or those who thought that he affirmed the ṣifāt khabariyya in the manner of al-Ashʿarī, al-Bāqillānī, and others — that is, as maʿānī, while maintaining the same tanzīh as these theologians.

Third, there are those who initially held a favorable opinion of him but later changed their view, such as Abū Ḥayyān al-Andalusī and Ibn al-Zamalkānī.

Fourth, there are those who investigated his statements more thoroughly and consequently described him as a mujassim — in some cases going as far as declaring him a kāfir, and in others not doing so.

What is particularly amusing, however, is when the Ḥashwiyya themselves admit that, according to Ashʿarī and Māturīdī doctrinal principles, they are mujassima, yet then cite Ashʿarī and Māturīdī scholars and say: “Look, even your own scholars exonerated Ibn Taymiyyah from tajsīm.”

But if you yourselves admit that your own doctrinal principles classify these positions as tajsīm, then you are implicitly admitting that those scholars did not properly understand Ibn Taymiyyah’s actual positions. And this is precisely what we argue as well: indeed, they did not have a sufficiently accurate knowledge of his views.

Practically all of our scholars paid little attention to his major works in which he develops his more complex theological positions, to such an extent that their impact was almost nonexistent in Muslim societies. Consequently, there was little incentive to undertake lengthy and extensive refutations of those works in order to protect Muslims in general. This does not mean, however, that no scholars undertook such refutations: some did, and some of those works have survived, while others have not.

I am speaking here strictly about doctrinal positions. There is no doubt that Ibn Taymiyyah was a great scholar in several fields of the religion. May Allah have mercy on him and forgive him.

But let us be honest with ourselves and with academic research. Quoting statements from scholars who exonerate a particular scholar from particular theological deviations, when they have not read all of his works — or at the very least, all of his major books and rasāʾil on ʿaqīda — is completely worthless as evidence.

You may read two theological works by a scholar and find nothing objectionable in them, only to reach the third and end up making a hundred taʿlīqāt on his statements.

[The Kooky ⵣ ☭ 𓌏▌أثماثن إنسلمن (Punished Ikhwani) @the_kooky_imam]

"Historically jism meant existance"

جسم : الجسم : جماعة البدن أو الأعضاء من الناس والإبل والدواب وغيرهم من الأنواع العظيمة الخلق ، واستعاره بعض الخطباء للأعراض ، فقال يذكر علم القوافي : لا ما يتعاطاه الآن أكثر الناس من التحلي باسمه ، دون مباشرة جوهره وجسمه ، وكأنه إنما كنى بذلك عن الحقيقة ; لأن جسم الشيء حقيقة واسمه ليس بحقيقة ، ألا ترى أن العرض ليس بذي جسم ولا جوهر إنما ذلك كله استعارة ومثل ؟ والجمع أجسام وجسوم . والجسمان : جماعة الجسم . والجسمان : جسم الرجل . ويقال : إنه لنحيف الجسمان ، وجسمان الرجل وجثمانه واحد . ورجل جسماني وجثماني إذا كان ضخم الجثة . أبو زيد : الجسم الجسد ، وكذلك الجسمان ، والجثمان الشخص . وقد جسم الشيء ، أي : عظم فهو جسيم وجسام - بالضم - . والجسام - بالكسر - : جمع جسيم . وجسم الرجل وغيره يجسم جسامة ، فهو جسيم ، والأنثى من كل ذلك - بالهاء - ; وأنشد شاهدا على جسام"

لسان العرب

Jism only has the defînition of essence when discussing the science of Rhymes for example or any written science (think of Corpus), any other application entails all things that have a Width, Length and height, in other words things that only apply to Creation, so no.

[Ibn Za'farani al-Shafi'i @MoroKullabi]

@MuhtasimIbnAtiq no need to explain, there's no shame in defending your husband.

[Ibn Za'farani al-Shafi'i @MoroKullabi]

Basically you're calling Ibn Hajr a jahil who was called amir al-mu'mineen fil hadith for no reason.

[Ahmed Al-Tayy @AhmedTayy]

@BerkeKhan6 Ibn Hajr was basically just collecting anything and everything that had been related to him about the ongoings of that century, without verification.

[Ibn Za'farani al-Shafi'i @MoroKullabi]

@MuhtasimIbnAtiq There's obviously a big difference between collecting reports while knowing they're weak and fabricated vs. collecting them blindly without any verification.Maybe try learning the difference before speaking.

btw u want to me school u again on this issue, i already did one for u.

[Kūfī (alḥamdulillāh we’re back) @LeayAlKufi]

“𝐈 𝐋𝐎𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐃 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐘𝐎𝐔 ﷺ 𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐄”

Jibrīl ﷺ descended to the Prophet ﷺ after an interval of 40 days, so the Prophet ﷺ said to him, “You have not descended till I have longed for you.”

Jibrīl ﷺ replied, “I longed for you ﷺ more, but I act on orders.”

[Ibn Za'farani al-Shafi'i @MoroKullabi]

@FidoDido4EVER @RedAlRafidhi The Khawarij in the past said the same thing and btw you sided with the kuffar like the yahud for the corruption version of your tawhid😂.

[Ibn Za'farani al-Shafi'i @MoroKullabi]

@abuatiyyah_ Is this the ghulam Khalal authored the Sharh Sunnah attributed to Barbahari?

[AscendedShin al Zouhayri @ZouhairsMurid]

"Sets are abstract"
Beautiful. Care to tell us what you guys say are eternal things subsisting in Allah? Something something "qidam al naw' hadith al ahad"
Would you look at that... sets.
Taking that to the logical conclusion, Allah needs eternal attributes that don't exist in order to produce specific actions. Glorious 'aqeedah

[Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn al-Ḥanafī @ZaynAlAbidin0]

The Wahhābī polemicists are so rattled by the words of the Grand Mufti of Syria, Shaykh Usamah al-Rifāʿī حفظه الله, that they’ve started recycling their old anti-Ashʿari poems against him. 😂

May Allāh preserve the Shaykh and grant him barakah.

[Hadi @HadiTbzi]

Wahhabism has reduced tawhid to a slogan a child can understand, then mistaken that juvenility for theological sophistication.

“Go directly to God!”

You genuinely think no one thought of that already? The question is why did pre-Wahabist Muslim theologians need to debate for centuries of what that even entails?

Allameh Tabatabaei's discussion of intercession reminds us, God Himself acts through intermediaries. He sends angels, prophets and messengers, and in some cases intermediary wisemen. His sovereignty is not diminished by the means through which His will is realized.

So if God can reach you through intermediaries without compromising His divinity, why must your approach to Him through an intermediary necessarily compromise your tawhid?

The Qur’an says faith must enter the heart. Yet some are more concerned with whether their slogans usurped your ability to think beyond a child's understanding.

[Ibn ʿAbd Allah al-Hāshimī @hashimiyy_]

On the Reports Attributing “Sitting” to Ibn Masʿūd, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, and ʿIkrimah

There is no authentic report established from Ibn Masʿūd, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, or ʿIkrimah affirming “sitting” (al-julūs) for Allah.

The reports commonly cited for these attributions are preserved by Maḥmūd al-Dashtī in Ithbāt al-Ḥadd lillāh wa-bi-annahu Qāʿidun wa-Jālisun ʿalā ʿArshih, and neither survives even light isnād criticism.

The Report Attributed to Ibn Masʿūd

Al-Dashtī says that he found in a book which had reached him, copied from a copy associated with the handwriting of Jamāl, son of al-Ḥāfiẓ ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Maqdisī, that al-Ḥakam b. Maʿbad mentioned in his Kitāb al-Ruʾyah:

عن الشعبي عن عبد الله أنه قال في قوله: ﴿الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى﴾: جالس

From al-Shaʿbī, from ʿAbd Allāh [b. Masʿūd], concerning “The Most Merciful istawā over the Throne”: “Sitting.”

The chain is:

Mūsā b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī → Rawḥ b. ʿUbādah → Ḥammād b. Salamah → ʿAṭāʾ b. al-Sāʾib → al-Shaʿbī → Ibn Masʿūd.

This isnād has several defects.

First, Mūsā b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Mahdī is not firmly authenticated. Ibn Ḥibbān included him in al-Thiqāt, but I have found no substantial independent tawthīq from the early critics.

Ibn ʿAdī only remarks that very little ḥadīth is transmitted from him. Thus, for those who do not regard Ibn Ḥibbān’s solitary inclusion as sufficient, Mūsā remains majhūl al-ḥāl / mastūr.

Second, the transmission of Ḥammād b. Salamah from ʿAṭāʾ b. al-Sāʾib is disputed. ʿAṭāʾ unquestionably underwent ikhtilāṭ.

There is substantial evidence that Ḥammād heard from him during his earlier period, and this should be conceded.

However, al-ʿUqaylī transmits from ʿAlī b. al-Madīnī concerning Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān that Ḥammād heard ʿAṭāʾ before and after his confusion without distinguishing between the two. Ibn Rajab also transmitted this criticism.

Thus, this route cannot simply be declared unquestionably pre-ikhtilāṭ.

Third, al-Shaʿbī did not hear from Ibn Masʿūd. Abū Ḥātim explicitly states:

لم يسمع الشعبي من ابن مسعود

and another critical report states:

إنما رآه رؤية

“He merely saw him.”

Therefore, the attribution is munqaṭiʿ at precisely the point where the statement is being ascribed to Ibn Masʿūd.

While the marāsīl of al-Shaʿbī carry considerable evidentiary weight, they do not, by themselves, possess the strength required to establish such an essential point of creed.

So even before discussing theology, it cannot authentically establish that Ibn Masʿūd رضي الله عنه interpreted istiwāʾ as “sitting.”

⸻

The Report Attributed to al-Ḥasan and ʿIkrimah

Al-Dashtī also transmits:

عن عباد بن منصور قال: سألت الحسن وعكرمة عن قوله: ﴿الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى﴾ قالا: جالس

“ʿAbbād b. Manṣūr said: I asked al-Ḥasan and ʿIkrimah concerning His saying, ‘The Most Merciful istawā over the Throne,’ and they said: ‘Sitting.’”

Its chain runs:

Muḥammad b. Ḥātim → al-Faḍl b. al-ʿAbbās → ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Thābit → Yazīd b. Hārūn → ʿAbbād b. Manṣūr → al-Ḥasan and ʿIkrimah.

The clearest defect is ʿAbbād b. Manṣūr. Abū Dāwūd said:

ليس بذاك، وعنده أحاديث فيها نكارة، وقالوا: تغير

“He is not strong; he has reports containing reprehensible material, and they said that he changed.”

Al-Nasāʾī said:

ضعيف، ليس بحجة

“Weak; he is not a proof.”

Abū Ḥātim called him weak in ḥadīth, while al-Jawzajānī described him as poor in retention and stated that he deteriorated later.

His transmission from ʿIkrimah is especially problematic. Abū Dāwūd was specifically asked whether ʿAbbād heard from ʿIkrimah and answered:

شيئاً، والبقية لم يسمعها

“Some things; the remainder he did not hear.”

Ibn Ḥibbān further accused him of transmitting material ultimately coming through Ibrāhīm b. Abī Yaḥyā → Dāwūd b. al-Ḥuṣayn → ʿIkrimah while suppressing the intermediaries.

The wording here is سألت الحسن وعكرمة, which formally claims direct questioning, so it would be excessive to reject this particular report merely by saying ʿAbbād was a mudallis.

The stronger objection is that the sole person attributing this statement to both men is himself a significantly weakened narrator, criticized for poor retention, change, nakārah, and specifically problematic transmission from ʿIkrimah.

There is then a further problem above Yazīd b. Hārūn.

The three narrators are given only as:

Muḥammad b. Ḥātim → al-Faḍl b. al-ʿAbbās → ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Thābit.

Their identities cannot simply be supplied by choosing famous trustworthy namesakes.

If al-Faḍl b. al-ʿAbbās is identified with the trustworthy al-Faḍl al-Ḥalabī, the known teacher-student relationships create a problem: Muḥammad b. Ḥātim is recorded among al-Faḍl’s teachers, whereas this isnād requires the reverse, Muḥammad b. Ḥātim narrating from al-Faḍl.

Moreover, the required ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Thābit is not established among his known teachers.

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Thābit cannot simply be assumed to be the famous Ibn Thawbān. Ibn Thawbān died in 165 AH, while Yazīd b. Hārūn was born around 117–118 AH.

This would require an older Ibn Thawbān to narrate from the substantially younger Yazīd, possible in principle, but it requires actual evidence. Yazīd is not established among Ibn Thawbān’s documented shuyūkh.

Worse, identifying him as Ibn Thawbān would require the preceding al-Faḍl b. al-ʿAbbās to have heard from a man who died in 165 AH, which does not fit the obvious later narrators bearing the name al-Faḍl b. al-ʿAbbās.

Therefore, the problem is not merely that these names are abbreviated. The obvious attempts to identify them do not yield a coherent, documented teacher-student chain.

Their identities and mutual transmission must first be established before anyone imports the tawthīq of better-known namesakes and considers this isnād acceptable let alone strong.

Conclusion

The Ibn Masʿūd report is multiply defective and explicitly disconnected, while the report from al-Ḥasan and ʿIkrimah rests upon ʿAbbād b. Manṣūr, a weak narrator with recognized anomaly and special problems in his transmission from ʿIkrimah, preceded by an upper chain whose narrators have not even been securely identified.

These are therefore not merely reports containing some minor weakness. In evidentiary terms they are absolutely useless.

They are abandoned as proofs for establishing this attribution and cannot bear the weight of affirming al-julūs as a divine attribute on the authority of Ibn Masʿūd, al-Ḥasan, or ʿIkrimah.

والله أعلم.

[Yunis @nomorehemloc]

Look at the mujasimma under this tweet, they are all enraged, saying it is part of one’s aqeedah to believe that the LORD is a big man sat on a throne that makes creaking noises due to his weight. They defend their kufr with such ikhlas you have to sit back and say “wow”.