اللهم اظهر الحق و اجمع الأمة على الحق❤

These guys are all runners. They’ll never accept a discussion. Beautiful Video Shaykhi May Allah preserve you ❤

Jazackallah ❤

19:00 we all know Shaykh Haroun, yet no one knows Ahmed Jose, that’s so ironic😅

We need more narrations and examples like that from Imam Al-Ramli. Buriktum.

Nobody talks about how funny sheikh Haroun (may Allah preserve him) is😂😂😂
4:25

The only thing Ahbash are good for is making Nasheed

According to ChatGPT and I did not verify myself the books quoted here :

Ibn Taymiyya was accused by his opponents of anthropomorphism (tajsīm), but he always rejected this accusation. He explicitly wrote that **anyone who attributes a body to Allah like that of His creatures is not a Muslim.

📜 Some texts from Ibn Taymiyya himself

1. In Bayān Talbīs al-Jahmiyya

> “Whoever says: Allah is like His creature or Allah has a body like bodies is a kāfir (disbeliever) by consensus.”

Here he clearly states that giving Allah a physical resemblance to creatures is **kufr**, i.e., leaving Islam.

2. In *Majmū‘ al-Fatāwā (vol. 3, p. 25)

> “Allah is free from resemblance to His creatures.
> Whoever describes Allah as resembling one of His creatures is misguided.
> If, moreover, he persists in affirming that Allah is like His creature, he becomes a **kāfir**.”

3. In Dar’ Ta‘āruḍ al-‘Aql wa an-Naql

> “We affirm what Allah has attributed to Himself and deny what He has denied.
> But we never say that Allah is a body, nor that He is like any of His creation.
> Whoever attributes this to Allah opposes the Qur’an.”

📌 Conclusion

* Ibn Taymiyya never said that Allah has a body.
* On the contrary, he wrote clearly that **anyone who attributes a body to Allah like that of the creatures commits disbelief.
* The controversy comes from his refusal to use metaphorical interpretations (*ta’wīl*) like the Ash‘arites, insisting on affirming attributes “without asking how” (*bilā kayf*). His opponents labeled him a *moujassim*, but he himself clearly condemned *tajsīm*.

Ahbash they not asharri
Some of shikh abdollah make takfir for alot of asharri big scholar

Great work Shaykh Haroun!

Therefore, the claim that Allah is settled upon the Throne, confined within it, and that He is in the direction of ‘above’ is effectively a statement that He is a body — because jismiyyah is a necessary rational consequence of being confined or possessing direction. And whoever says that Allah is a body is a disbeliever by consensus. For this reason, Imam al-Haramayn said in al-Irshad: ‘Ascribing direction to Allah is outright blasphemy

لحمة مفرومة ناعمة❤ كبة نيه. وردة شيخ هارون🌹

Barakallahofeek for exposing them they are making fitna here in sweden too.

I cant understand how a mujassimah can be a muslim ?
Is he not praying to something else which has a limit. Like an idol(statue) in their head ?
Its different to Allah. By definition its against tawheed.

Shayateen

https://youtu.be/c_2L4VW1GAU?si=ujg3bBaRcKurJVLk
👆👆👆👆👆👆
Samir alqadi habashi and wahabii
They both have same mentality about Sunni scholar..

It’s best for sheikh Ahmed Jose not to accept this debate challenge it would be embarrassing

It is understood that those scholars did not deem the lay person of the followers of the mujasimah who said " Allah is a jism unlike other jisms because they understood from it that " The existence of Allah is unlike that of the creations," thus they did not deem them as non-Muslims. However, they deemed their leaders as blasphemers. The following references indicate such:  

1. Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855)

Statement:
"The one who says that Allah is a body unlike other bodies (jism lā ka-l-ajsām) is a disbeliever/blasphemer."
Reference: Narrated by Imam al-Zarkashī in Tashnīf al-Masāmiʿ bi-Jamʿ al-Jawāmiʿ, Vol. 3, p. 389 / Chapter 7, p. 49 (2013, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah).

2. Imam al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820)

Statement:
"The one who believes that God is a body (jism) sitting above the grand Throne (ʿArsh) is a disbeliever."

Reference: Narrated by Imam Najm al-Dīn Ibn al-Rifʿah via the transmission route of al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, in Kifāyat al-Nabīh Sharḥ al-Tanbīh, Vol. 4, p. 24 (Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah).


3. Al-Bāqillānī (d. 403/1013)

Statement:
"It is obligatory to know that Allah, the Exalted, is not a body, nor a substance, nor an accident; He is not bound by direction, nor contained within space, nor characterized by physical motion, rest, or composition. Whosoever attributes physical limits, spatial confinement, or corporeal traits (tajsīm) to Him has likened Him to creation and contradicted the core of Tawḥīd."

Reference: At-Tamheed al-Awā’il wa Talkhīṣ al-Dalā’il (Ed. ʿImād al-Dīn Aḥmad Ḥaydar, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah), pp. 36–38 (Bāb al-Qawl fī al-Muhdathāt) & pp. 221–224 (Bāb al-Kalam fī al-Istiwā’).

4. Al-Juwaynī (d. 478/1085)

Statements:
"The Creator, Transcendent is He, is elevated above being a body, or possessing limbs, organs, dimensions, or physical locality. He is not in a direction (jihah), for existing in a direction entails spatial boundary and composition, which are properties of non-eternal entities (ḥawādith)."

Kitāb al-Irshād
"Whoever believes that God is a localized physical entity or bounded by physical directions has stripped Him of divinity and attributed created characteristics to Him, which negates absolute transcendence."
Al-ʿAqīdah al-Niẓāmiyyah

References:
Kitāb al-Irshād (Ed. Asʿad Tamīm, Mu'assasat al-Kutub al-Thaqāfiyyah), pp. 58–62 (Bāb fī Ithbāt Tanzīh Allāh ʿan al-Jism wal-Jiha).
Al-ʿAqīdah al-Niẓāmiyyah (Ed. Muḥammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī, Maktabat al-Azhariyyah li-Turāth), pp. 20–25 (Faṣl fī Tanzīh Allāh ʿan al-Jihāt wal-Ajsām).

5. Al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111)

Statements:
"The foundational duty of the layperson regarding divine attributes is sanctification (taqdīs): to firmly believe that Allah is utterly free from physical corporeality (jism), shape, size, color, or spatial location. Attributing a physical body to God is a corrupt creed that stems from mistaking metaphors for physical realities."

Iljām al-ʿAwwām
"Disbelief (kufr) is to charge the Messenger ﷺ with falsehood regarding fundamental tenets of faith. Asserting that Allah is composed of physical parts or localized in space negates His eternal self and essential attributes, representing an invalidation of sound creed."
Fayṣal al-Tafriqah

References:
Iljām al-ʿAwwām ʿan ʿIlm al-Kalām (Dar al-Minhaj Edition), pp. 52–58 (al-Aṣl al-Awwal: al-Taqdīs).
Fayṣal al-Tafriqah bayna al-Islām wal-Zandaqah (Ed. Sulaymān Dunyā, Dar al-Minhaj), pp. 64–72 (Faṣl fī Ḥadd al-Kufr wal-Takfīr).

6. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210)

Statements:
"If God were a physical body (jism), He would necessarily be composed of divisible parts and confined by spatial dimensions. Anything that is composed or spatially bounded requires an agent to define its parameters and is therefore non-eternal (muḥdath). Thus, tajsīm logically leads to denying the eternity of God."
Asās al-Taqdīs
"The proof that Allah, the Exalted, is not a body is that everybody is divisible and composed, whereas the Divine Essence is One and absolute. Affirming jismiyyah contradicts the necessary existence (Wujūb al-Wujūd) of God."
Al-Arbaʿīn fī Uṣūl al-Dīn

References:
Asās al-Taqdīs (Ed. Aḥmad Ḥijāzī al-Saqqā, Maktabat al-Kulliyyāt al-Azhariyyah), Part 1, pp. 16–42 (al-Qism al-Awwal: fī Tanzīhihi Taʿālā ʿan al-Jism wal-Makān).
Al-Arbaʿīn fī Uṣūl al-Dīn (Ed. Aḥmad Ḥijāzī al-Saqqā, Maktabat al-Kulliyyāt al-Azhariyyah), Vol. 1, pp. 102–115 (al-Mas’alah al-Sādisah: fī Annahu Taʿālā Laysa bi-Jism).

7. Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 571/1176)

Statement:
"Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī held the creed of the righteous predecessors (al-Salaf), affirming divine transcendence (tanzīh). He negated corporeal shape (jismiyyah), limbs, boundaries, and spatial containment from Allah, upholding that attributing physical organs or human-like attributes (tashbīh) is an invalid innovation contrary to authentic Sunni doctrine."

Reference: Tabyīn Kadhib al-Muftarī fīmā nusiba ilā al-Imām Abī al-Hasan al-Ashʿarī (Dar al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī), pp. 148–152 & pp. 356–360 (Dhikr ʿAqīdat Abī al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī).

8. Al-Sanūsī (d. 895/1490)

Statement:
"Among the necessary rational attributes of Allah is His Absolute Dissimilarity to Created Things (Mukhālafatuhu lil-Ḥawādith). This requires the absolute negation of Him being a body, occupying space, having dimensions, or being subject to direction, time, or physical limits."

Reference: Sharḥ Umm al-Barāhīn (al-Sughrā) (Ed. Yāsīn Jād al-Ḥaqq, Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah), pp. 72–85 (Under the attribute Mukhālafatuhu lil-Ḥawādith).

🟢نصيحة
إيّاك أن تأخذ دينك من مشايخ الأحزاب الذين نصبوا أنفسهم بوّابين على أبواب الجنّة ، لا يفتحون إلا لمن بايع حزبهم ، ولا يُجيزون السُّلوك إلا على خرائطهم.  

الدينُ بحرٌ ، لا تُحيط به ضفّة حزب ، ولا يسعه قارب تنظيم.

خذ دينك عن القلوب اللينة التي ذابت شوقًا لله ،
وعن العيون التي بكت في السحر ،
لا عن اللسان الذي شتم عند الخلاف.

الدين يُؤخذ من أهل الله ، لا من أهل الغضب.
ويؤخذ من الرُّحماء ، لا من المتربّصين.

والطريقُ إلى الله لا تُفرشه رايات ،
بل تُفرشه نياتٌ صادقة ، وقلوبٌ لا تعرف سوى المحبة والصفاء.

وإذا رأيت إنسانا ( شيخ ) ، يشتم أحدًا من العلماء في مجلسه ، فاضرب به عرضَ الحائط.

According to ChatGPT regarding Imam al Ramli :

Imam al-Ramli never claimed that someone who attributes a body to Allah (a mujassim) is not a disbeliever. On the contrary, he followed the traditional Ash‘arite and Shafi‘i position, which holds that anyone who attributes a body to Allah is indeed a disbeliever.

The confusion sometimes arises regarding the question of direction (jihah). Some have interpreted al-Ramli’s statements as being tolerant toward those who attribute a direction to Allah. However, this interpretation is incorrect. Al-Ramli emphasized that any attribution of direction to Allah must be understood metaphorically, without implying physical location. He warned that assigning physical characteristics to Allah constitutes a serious doctrinal deviation.

Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that al-Ramli exempted a mujassim from disbelief. His position aligns with other Ash‘arite and Shafi‘i scholars: anyone who attributes a body to Allah is a disbeliever, while on the question of direction, he recommended a cautious, non-literal interpretation to avoid anthropomorphism.