By Suede Nikita
I plagiarised most of this via Facebook from one of the few authentic Islamic scholars people have access to in the UK – Sheikh Atabek Nasafi (http://www.avicennaanswers.com/). It shows, shall we say, the ‘counter intuitive’ views of scholars popularised in the UK by self-proclaimed ‘Muslim intellectuals’ such as Hamza Tzortzis, Haitham Haddad and Akram Nadwi.
Some of these individuals take it upon themselves to ‘demonstrate’ (I use the term in it’s loosest sense) that Islam is rational and even debate non-Muslims on this. We must be most grateful that these said non-Muslims do not know that the aforementioned ‘intellectuals’ believe in a God who has limits, climbs ropes and is in fact a giant humongous ring containing the universe within himself – for this is what their Imams or rather ‘Sheikh Ul Islam’s’ demand we believe.
Hilariously, Tzortzis recently took it upon himself to remind the well known Blogger and writer Paul Williams on Twitter that revelation agrees with the ‘sound mind’.
But then how ‘sound’ are these bizarre Creeds that he himself holds as an aficionado and populariser of Ibn Taymiyya et al? Perhaps sensing his shaky intellectual foundations, he has recently taken to quote mining Al Ghazzali (neglecting to mention that Ibn Taymiyyah accused him of promoting disbelief).
Likewise, Akram Nadwi inflicts entire courses on unsuspecting Muslims aggressively promoting the belowmentioned views of Ibn Taymiyya and others of his ilk http://akramnadwi.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/akram-nadwis-strange-salafi-views-on-aqida/.
Recently, voices such as Adam Deen have come out and questioned whether Tzortzis’ repeated assertions of promoting an Islam which ‘makes sense’ actually hold water: http://adamdeen.com/2014/06/03/intellectual-apostasy/
I will have to leave it to the reader to judge if Tzortzis and companies claims of being ‘both religious and rational’ ring true in light of the teachings of their Imams…
The man Salafis insist is ‘Shaykh of Islam’ (‘Doctor Maximus’) Usman Darimi writes;
”God has a Hadd (limits) but no one knows it except him. No one should imagine God’s limits as his own limits. We believe in Hadd, but we leave it’s knowledge to God. Space is also limit. And He is on his Arsh above the heavens.”
So there are not one but two ‘limits’ to God!?
My actual face when I read that
These two words; ‘Hadd’ and ‘Makanah’, are not in the Quran nor in the Sunnah. From here we understand that when Salafi brothers say ‘we follow only what God and the Prophet say’ they are just kidding.
Darimi saying; ”We believe in Hadd but we don’t know it’s meaning” is him merely fooling people because he says; ”Space is also Hadd (limit)”. So, if we don’t know the meaning of Hadd, then how does he know that ‘Hadd’ and ‘Space’ are in fact the same?
In this text, Shaykh of ”Islam”, Ibn Taymiyyah is discussing the physical position of God as related to the Arsh (‘Throne’) and the ‘Spheres’ (of the Heavens as per the Greek and Ptolemaic system). He is discussing what he considers are the two possibilities regarding the shape of the Arsh – firstly that it is circular or secondly that it is flat.
He then uses ‘geometry’ (I use the term very loosely) to clarify the ‘position’ of God vis-a-vis each of these two possibilities (which are in fact both impossible, but leave that aside for the time being), saying that if the Arsh is circular then God is surrounding it, and is thus still above the universe because ‘the outside of the circle from it’s centre is towards the ‘above” (according to Ibn Taymiyyah).
But if the Arsh is flat then God being above it means that the ‘six directions’ are applicable on the creation only, but as for God there are only ‘two directions’ ‘Above’ and ‘Beneath’. And because the universe is ‘beneath’ so he must be above. Why only two directions apply is not explained and geometry is perfunctorily abandoned regarding this claim.
After all of this (and much more) he says;
”We don’t attribute to God anything he didn’t attribute to himself. Mutakallims are Kuffar because they use Greek philosophy to describe God”
Maybe he thinks that Geometry is not a ‘Greek’ thing (although even Aristotle would have considered applying geometry to God to be heresy)…
Geometry teaches amongst other things ‘shape’ or ‘topology’ maybe. But it is not applicable to God, and nor is direction or being in need of a place as Ibn Taymiyyah is insists on doing.
Back to Usman Darimi again:
”Because the Alive Sustainer does whatever he wants; So he moves if he wants, comes down if he wants, grabs if he wants, releases if he wants, sits if he wants.That’s because the difference between the alive and dead thing is ”Harakah” (movement). So each living thing moves! And each dead thing doesn’t move!”
Does the Quran and Sunnah say that the difference between living and dead things is ‘movement’? Or that the life of God is like the life of the dependant creatures? Not at all. So where then did the Salafis get this from? It is a hodgepodge of Greek philosophy, amateur biology and God knows what else. But where is the Islamic foundation for this heretical claim?
So Dharimi compares God to animals. Because according to him, the difference between dead animals and alive animals is movement. Hmm.. and then Salafis criticise Hanafis and other for using ‘Qiyas’ or analogy. But here they are using an ‘analogy’ very freely. For God. With animals.
He also tells us God does ‘whatever he wants’. So can God become Jesus then? Or Satan? God only does things that are possible for him – he can’t decide to stop being God for example. But that is a digression.
I have two questions of ‘Imam’ Darimi:
1. Where is the mention of ”Harakah” or God moving in Quran or Sunnah. Like, at all?
2. Who told you that it is permissible to compare God with creatures or animals and to thus set up a new ”Sifah” (Attribute) of God?
Usman Darimi carries on;
”God did touch Adam while creating him. And He didn’t touch anything else!”
The Arabic ”Masees” means ‘touching’. But where is it in the Quran and Sunnah!?
As you can see, it’s not quite like when Salafis tell us that they follow the ‘Quran and Sunnah’.
So I suggest to my Salafi brothers and sisters: stop insulting people by saying ‘He is an innovator, he rejects the Sunna, he is an apostate’ etc and lets go back together to the original teachings of the Quran.
Since you love to insult people by claiming they are opposing Bukhari or hadith, as you can see, the method of your Imams is opposing the Quran itself.
So which one is worse?
At least we Hanafis have our conditions to test Hadeeth and thus accept them or reject them. But do you have any principles which allow you to reject the Quran?
Or are you rejecting it merely because Ibn Taymiyyah and Darimi etc. rejected it?
Many of you are shocked and do not believe in what you see here.
Some of you will start looking for excuses for these imams. Some of you will go to sheikh such and such and so and so to get some ‘explanation’.
I know this reaction well.
It usually happens when you find reality to be different to what you thought it to be. All of these sheikhs that you go to for explanations will talk a lot in order to convince you.
But keep in mind that they will never actually answer your question. Instead they will just take you around and around in circles.
But only the real genuine Muslims amongst us will be able to put the Quran above these useless beliefs.