Post by zarbehaq on Jun 19, 2016 12:37:35 GMT
Original Posting Date: 19 Dec- 2013 / Taken from FB NOTES MAKASHFA [Original Link here]
Wahabi Dawa karte hain Keh wo Imam Ahmed k aqeede ko follow karte hain jub keh ye Khulam khula Jhoot Munafiqat or Baydeeni se ziyada kuch nahi. Saboot k liye parhen
English:
The Shâfi’ faqîh, Shaykh al-Islâm al-Haytamî was asked: “Was the belief of Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal the same as [certain] present-day Hanbalîs claim?” – He replied:
Concerning the doctrine of the Imâm of Ahl al-Sunna, Ahmad ibn Hanbal raDiy-Allahu-anhu may Allâh (swt) grant him the loftiest of gardens as his resting-place and destination, bestow upon us and him His bounties, and grant him a dwelling in the loftiest firdaws: his doctrine was in absolute conformity with the belief of Ahl al-Sunna, and completely concordant. It included the belief that Allâh (swt) is exalted beyond those matters that the oppressors and dissenters attribute to Him. That is, Allâh (swt) is exalted from possessing direction, parts, corporeality, and so forth among the various Attributes of imperfection.The truth of the matter is that Allâh is free from all the Attributes that are not characterized by absolute perfection; and all those things that are being circulated and publicized among the ignoramuses as being said by this great mujtahid Imâm are a slander. It is an outright lie that this Imâm ever claimed direction or the like in describing the Attributes of Allâh (swt). May Allâh lead to perdition those who attribute such positions to the Imâm who is entirely exonerated of having said such things.
All these matters have been explained by the hadîth Master, Imâm Ab al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzî, who belongs to his [Imâm Ahmad’s] school. He has cleared the Imâm’s name of such foul slanders and has provided explicit proofs exposing the lies of the slanderers.
And beware of what Ibn Taymiyya, his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and others wrote; he [Ibn Taymiyya] is a man who took his lusts for his Lord, for which Allâh led him astray despite his learning, sealed upon his hearing and heart, and put a veil upon his sight; and who can guide him after Allâh let him be misguided? Why should He not, when these heretics have gone past the boundaries set by the Sharî`a and trampled them? Yet they imagine that they are the guided ones, that they are guided by their Lord Almighty when the truth is that they are not. Rather, they are on the wrong path, the most heinous, misleading way and most abominable traits. They are afflicted by vices and have incurred a great loss. May Allâh humble their followers and wipe the earth clean from their likes!
A contemporary example of this difference
A contemporary example of the disparity between Hanbal `Aqîda and puristic Taymiyyan views is the recent edition of the Hanbal Shaykh al-Islâm, the Imâm and Musnid Shams al-Dîn Muhammad ibn Badr al-Dîn ibn Balbân al-Dimashqî al-Sâlihî’s ( 1006- 1083) compendium of fiqh, adab and `Aqîda titled Mukhtas.ar al-Ifâdât fî Rub` al-îbâdât wal-âdâb wal-Ziyâdât by a “Salafî” student and his teacher Muhammad Sulaymân al-Ashqar who injected into the work the following aberrations
Examples:
Ibn Balbân’s text … …Conclusion: On knowledge of Allâh (swt) and what pertains thereto and what the legally qualified person must believe [p. 485]
Salafi Injections:
The author was not blessed with success – Allâh forgive him! – in reporting the `Aqîda of the Salaf that Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the expert authorities of the Madhhab held.
footnote and rebuttal Ibn Balbân – Allâh reward him! –
shows mastery of the `Aqîda of the Sunni Salaf including Abû Hanîfa, Ahmad, and al- Ash`arî with a view to confront innovations current in his time in and outside his own School, including tajsîm and i`tizâl.
Ibne Balban’s Text2:
It is obligatory to categorically affirm (al- jazm) that He (swt) is one, indivisible and not made of parts, single not in the sense of number… [p. 487]
Salafi injections:
Shaykh al-Islâm [Ahmad] Ibn Taymiyya warned against such newfangled terms and cites the very same terms used by the author as examples of what not to say.
footnote and Rebuttal:Ibn Balbân echoes Ash`arî (Ibn Khafîf) and Mâturîdî (Fiqh al-Akbar) `aqîda while Ibn Taymiyya innovated triple-tawhîd terminology never used by Imâm Ahmad and claims that Ahmad believed Allâh has a limit whereas it is established he held the opposite.
============
Some further evidences from Hanbali Text: Which shows that these so called followers of (Hanbali fiqh) i-e Wahhabis are just maskurating their own Kharijite ideas and falsely showing that they are followers of Imam Ahmed Who has nothing to do with them and their false believes:
1 – “It’s not allowed to describe Him as being in very place or in a place”
Al-Mu’tamid fi Usul ad-Din by Qadi Abu Ya’ala.
2 – “’Imaduddin Ahmed bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti al-Hanbali, student of Ibn Taymiyya about whom he said, “’Imaduddin is the Junayd of our time” said,
“Allah ‘azza wa jallah was when there was no makan, ‘arsh water… and how He was in pre-eternity… He is now as He was…”
Nasihatul Ikhwan li Imam al-Wasiti al-Hanbali
3 – “He’s not restricted or contained in a place, He’s not subjected to time, nothing resembles Him, nothing escapes His knowledge or will, He’s Exalted from Tharfiyya (time and place).”
‘Allama Mari’
4 – “So whoever believes or says that Allâh is, in His essence (bi-dhâtihî), in every place or in a place, is a kâfir. It is obligatory to categorically affirm that He (swt) is separate (bâ’in) from His creation. Allâh (swt) was when there was no place then He created place and He is now as He was before He created place.”
[p. 489] the Hanbali Shaykh al-Islâm, the Imâm and Musnid Shams al-Dîn Muhammad ibn Badr al-Dîn ibn Balbân al-Dimashqî al-Sâlihî’s ( 1006- 1083) titled Mukhtas.ar al-Ifâdât fî Rub` al-îbâdât wal-âdâb wal-Ziyâdât.
5 – Ibn Balbân’s words are reiterated verbatim by Sulaymân ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhâb in his epistle on `Aqîda titled al-Tawdîh. `an Tawhîd al-Khallâq fî Jawâb Ahl al-`Irâq
6 – “Whoever believes or says, “Allah ta’ala with His essence is in a place, then he’s a kafir. Rather it’ necessary to believe that He… was and there was no makan, then he created makan, and He is as He was before he created makan.”
Page 35-36 al-‘Ayn wal Athar fi ‘Aqaid ahl al-Athar li Shaykh Abdul Baqi al-Hanbali.
7 – “Exalted is He that He have as an attribute/description of being contained in places, this is corporeality in essences.”
Ibn ‘Aqil Shaykh ul Hanabilah.
8 – “It’s necessary for us to believe that His essence isn’t contained in any makan…”
Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanbali.
9 – Ibn ‘Adil al-Hanbali in various places in his tafsir, entitiled ‘Al-Lubab fi ‘Ulum al-Kitab’
10- Dhun Nun al-Misri negation of Hadd (limit), location and modality as quoted by ‘Hafidh Abi Nu’aym in his Hilya.
11 – The Mufassir’s, Az-Zajjaj, negation of Makan in his Tafsir Asma’ullah al-Husna.
12 – “Because He was whenthere was no Makan, then he created Makan, and He is now as He was before creating Makan”, ” (if someone says)He is with His Essence in every makan or in a Makan, then he’s a Kafir”.
Ibn Hamdan al-Harrani al-Hanbali, 690 Hijri, work entitled ‘Nihayatul Mubtadi’in fi Usul ud Din, page 31.
13 – Abu Nasr As-Sijsi said, “He was when there was no Makan, then He created Makan, and He is as He was before creating Makan”. Page 34 Nihayatul Mubtadi’in.
14 – Abu Muhammed Rizqullah bin ‘Abdil Wahhab at-Tamimi said, “we don’t say the ‘Arsh is His Makan, because places are His creation”. Page 35 Nihayatul Mubtadi’in.
15 – “The Scholar of the Hanbalis in Hijaz, and Sham, their Imam, the Faqih, Righteous Muhaddith, the ‘Abid, Shaykh ‘Abdullah bin ‘Udah bin ‘Abdillah Sufan bin Shaykh ‘Isa bin al-Haj Salamah al-Qudumi An-Nabulusi al-Hanbali of Athari Madhab resident of Medinah, born 1247 Hijri.” Agrees with and quotes the words of Imam Ibn Balban and ‘Shaykh AbdulBaqi regarding makan in agreement. “(from what we will mention) a small portion of the ‘Aqaid of the Imams of Hanabilah, which we have taken and studied from our great scholars and Imams, which indicate them being free from Tashbih and Tajsim, and from every vile belief.”On page 145 the author says, “whoever believes He ta’ala is in a Makan or in every Makan, then he’s a renegade (Mulhid), misguided innovator.” Source: Al-Manhaj al-Ahmed fi Daru’ al-Mathalib al-lati Tunma li Madhab al-Imam Ahmed.
And finally
Hafiz al-Sakhawi relates that his teacher al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said (roughly translated):
…. and Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala is free from dwelling in places, for Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala existed before places came into existence.
NOTE: YOU CAN READ FULL REFUTATION TO ANTHROPOMORPHIC IDEOLOGY OF WAHHABISM FROM OUR FORUM IN THE SAME SECTION OF RAD_E_BADMAZHAB
Wahabi Dawa karte hain Keh wo Imam Ahmed k aqeede ko follow karte hain jub keh ye Khulam khula Jhoot Munafiqat or Baydeeni se ziyada kuch nahi. Saboot k liye parhen
شافعی مسلک کے مشہور امام شیخ الاسلام الہیثمی سے سوال کیا گیا۔کیا امام احمد بن حنبل کا عقیدہ ویسا ہی تھا جیسے کہ آجکل کے حنبلیوں (مراد وہابیوں) کا ہے؟
انہوں نے جواب دیا:اصولِ امام احمد بن حنبل رضی اللہ عنہ جو کہ اہلسنت کے امام ہیں ، اللہ اپنی رحمتوں کا نزول اور انکو بہترین جنتوں کا حقدار قرار دے (آمین) انکا عقیدہ اہلسنت کے عقیدے کے ساتھ ہمیشہ ہی قائم رہا۔انہی (عقیدوں) میں یہ بھی شامل رہا کہ اللہ رب العزت اُن تمام مسائل سے ماؤرا اور بلند ہے جو کہ بددین اور ظالم لوگ اسکی طرف منسوب کرتے ہیں،اور جو کہ یہ عقیدہ ء صحیح ہے کہ ۔اللہ تعالیٰ ہر قسم کی جہت ، حصوں،(یعنی کسی بھی قسم کی جسمانی ساخت) اور دیگر اس قسم کی نامکمل صفات سے بالکل پاک ہے۔
اس بات کی حقیقت تو یہی ہے کہ اللہ ہر قسم کی اُس بری صفت سے پاک ہے جو کہ نامکمل ہے اور وہ تمام خرافات جو امام کی طرف منسوب کرکے بتائی جاتیں ہیں وہ سب جھوٹ اور جہالت پر مبنی ہیں اور یہ عظیم مجتہد اور امام پر ایک تہمت ہے۔یہ ایک واضح اور صاف جھوٹ ہے کہ انہوں (امام احمد) نے اللہ کے لیئے جہت (رُخ) کی نسبت صفات بیان کی ہیں۔اللہ کا ان پر قہر نازل ہو جنہوں نے امام کی جانب ایسی بیہودہ بات منسوب کیں جن سے وہ پاک و صاف ہیں۔
یہ تمام مسائل کے بارے میں حافظ امام ابو الفراج ابن الجوزی جنکا تعلق امام احمد کے (مسلک) سے ہے۔انہوں نے ان باتوں کو صاف بیان کردیا کہ یہ سب کچھ جھوٹ اور تہمتوں کے سوا کچھ نہیں اور انہوں نے اسکے ثبوت میں بہت سے دلائل بھی مہیا کیئے ہیں جس سے امام کے بارے میں اس جھوٹ کا پول کھل جاتا ہے۔
اور یہ کہ ابن تیمیہ کے بارے میں خبردار رہو اور اسکا شاگرد ابن قیم الجوزیہ اور دیگرے جنہوں نے لکھا؛وہ(ابن تیمیہ) ایسا انسان ہے جو کہ اپنی خواہشات کو مقدم رکھتا ہے اللہ کےمقابل،جسکی (وجہ ) سے اسکے علم کے باوجود اللہ نے اسکو گمراہ کردیا ہے،اسکی سماعت اور دل پر مہر لگادی ہے،اور اسکی آنکھوں پر پردہ ڈال دیا ہے،اور ۔کون انکو راہ پر لاسکتا ہے بعد اس کے کہ اللہ نے انکو گمراہ کردیا؟۔ اور کیوں نہ کرے،جب یہ بےدین لوگ شریعت کی ہرحد کو پار اور غلط کرچکے ہیں؟ اور اس پر انکو گمان یہ ہے کہ وہی وہ لوگ ہیں جو ہدایت یافتہ ہیں، اور جو اپنے رب کی طرف سے ہدایت یافتہ ہیں جو کہ وہ ہرگز نہیں۔بلکہ۔یہ غلط رستے پر ہیں، سب سے قبیح،گمراہ رستہ اور سب سے بڑی جہالتِ غداری۔یہ فتنوں سے آلودہ ہوچکے ہیں اور ایک عظیم ترقہ کھوبیٹھے ہیں۔اللہ اپنے ماننے والوں پر رحم فرمائے اور ان (اور انکے جیسوں) سے اس زمین کو پاک فرمائے ۔ آمین۔
اس کی واضح مثال موجودہ دور میں بھی وہابی کتابوں میں ملتی ہیں جس میں انہوں نے اپنی طرف سے ترمیم واخراج کرکے الفاظ میں تبدیلیاں کی ہے۔ اور ابنِ بلبان کے اصلی الفاظ میں اپنی طرف سے ترمیمات کی ہیں جیسے مثال کے طور پر۔
ابن بلبان نے لکھا ہے:یہ فرض ہے کہ یہ اقرارِ ایمان کیا جائے (الجزم) کہ وہ (اللہ تعالیٰ) ایک ہے (واحد)،نا قابلِ تقسیم، اور نہ ہی حصوں پر مشتمل ، اکیلا (تعداد کے معنوں میں،،،،،،۔۔۔ (صفحہ 487)۔
سلفیوں نے لکھا ہے:شیخ الاسلام (احمد) ابن تیمیہ نے ایسی نئی باتوں کے بارے میں متنبہ کیا تھا اور یہی باتیں بتائیں تھیں جیسا کہ ان صاحبِ تحریر نے استعمال کی ہیں جو کہ نہیں کہنی چائییۓ
جبکہ اس کے جواب میں فٹ نوٹ میں رد کے طور پر لکھا ہوا ہے پہلے سے ہی کہ:
ابن بلبان نے عشری (ابن خفیف) اور ماتریدی (فقہ اکبر) کا عقیدہ بیان کیا ہے جبکہ ابن تیمیہ نے تثلیثی توحید کے عقیدے کی بدعت ایجاد کی جوکہ کبھی بھی امام احمدکا عقیدہ نہیں رہا اور یہ دعویٰ بھی کیا کہ یہ امام کا عقیدہ تھا جبکہ یہ کھلا سچ ہے کہ امام اس عقیدے کے مخالف تھے۔
اسی طرح کئی مزید بھی چیزیں ہیں جو کہ ان خوارجیوں نے اپنی طرف سے امام احمد کی طرف منسوب کررکھی ہیں جس کا ان سے کوئی تعلق واسطہ نہیں ۔ اس سے یہ بھی واضح ہوجاتا ہے کہ وہابی جو مسلمانوں کو گمراہ کرنے کے لیئے حنبلی ہونے کا ڈھونگ رچاتے ہیں اور اپنی حنبلیت کو صرف ابن تیمیہ اور ابن قیم کے مشرکانہ عقیدوں اور بدعتوں تک محفوظ رکھتے ہیں جن کا مسلک امام احمد بن حنبل سے ہرگز ہرگز کوئی واسطہ نہیں
حوالہ جات دیگرےالہیثمی ۔ فتاویٰ حادثیہ ص 203ابن بلبان ، مختصر الافاضات، ایڈیشن محمد ناصر العجمی بیروت دارلبشائر الاسلامیہ 1998
اس کے علاوہ عقیدہ امام احمدبن حنبل و دیگر سلف صالحین کا وہی ہے جو فقہ اکبر میں بیان کیا گیا ہے اور یہی عقیدہ المقاصد حسنہ فی بیان کثیر من الاحادیث المشتہرۃ علی الالسنۃ جو کہ امام الحافظ محمد عبدالرحمٰن السخاوی کی تصنیف ہے اس میں بھی لکھا ہے سکین دیکھیں
حافظ سخاوی نے اپنے استاد حافظ ابن ھجر العسقلانی سے روایت کرتے ہوئے لکھا ہے۔ رف ٹرانسلیشن۔اور(اللہ) سبحانہ وتعالیٰ جہات (یعنی مقام،رخ وغیرہ) سے پاک ومنزہ ہے۔کیونکہ اللہ تعالیٰ اس وقت بھی موجود تھا جب مقامات کا بھی وجود نہ تھا۔
English:
The Shâfi’ faqîh, Shaykh al-Islâm al-Haytamî was asked: “Was the belief of Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal the same as [certain] present-day Hanbalîs claim?” – He replied:
Concerning the doctrine of the Imâm of Ahl al-Sunna, Ahmad ibn Hanbal raDiy-Allahu-anhu may Allâh (swt) grant him the loftiest of gardens as his resting-place and destination, bestow upon us and him His bounties, and grant him a dwelling in the loftiest firdaws: his doctrine was in absolute conformity with the belief of Ahl al-Sunna, and completely concordant. It included the belief that Allâh (swt) is exalted beyond those matters that the oppressors and dissenters attribute to Him. That is, Allâh (swt) is exalted from possessing direction, parts, corporeality, and so forth among the various Attributes of imperfection.The truth of the matter is that Allâh is free from all the Attributes that are not characterized by absolute perfection; and all those things that are being circulated and publicized among the ignoramuses as being said by this great mujtahid Imâm are a slander. It is an outright lie that this Imâm ever claimed direction or the like in describing the Attributes of Allâh (swt). May Allâh lead to perdition those who attribute such positions to the Imâm who is entirely exonerated of having said such things.
All these matters have been explained by the hadîth Master, Imâm Ab al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzî, who belongs to his [Imâm Ahmad’s] school. He has cleared the Imâm’s name of such foul slanders and has provided explicit proofs exposing the lies of the slanderers.
And beware of what Ibn Taymiyya, his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and others wrote; he [Ibn Taymiyya] is a man who took his lusts for his Lord, for which Allâh led him astray despite his learning, sealed upon his hearing and heart, and put a veil upon his sight; and who can guide him after Allâh let him be misguided? Why should He not, when these heretics have gone past the boundaries set by the Sharî`a and trampled them? Yet they imagine that they are the guided ones, that they are guided by their Lord Almighty when the truth is that they are not. Rather, they are on the wrong path, the most heinous, misleading way and most abominable traits. They are afflicted by vices and have incurred a great loss. May Allâh humble their followers and wipe the earth clean from their likes!
A contemporary example of this difference
A contemporary example of the disparity between Hanbal `Aqîda and puristic Taymiyyan views is the recent edition of the Hanbal Shaykh al-Islâm, the Imâm and Musnid Shams al-Dîn Muhammad ibn Badr al-Dîn ibn Balbân al-Dimashqî al-Sâlihî’s ( 1006- 1083) compendium of fiqh, adab and `Aqîda titled Mukhtas.ar al-Ifâdât fî Rub` al-îbâdât wal-âdâb wal-Ziyâdât by a “Salafî” student and his teacher Muhammad Sulaymân al-Ashqar who injected into the work the following aberrations
Examples:
Ibn Balbân’s text … …Conclusion: On knowledge of Allâh (swt) and what pertains thereto and what the legally qualified person must believe [p. 485]
Salafi Injections:
The author was not blessed with success – Allâh forgive him! – in reporting the `Aqîda of the Salaf that Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the expert authorities of the Madhhab held.
footnote and rebuttal Ibn Balbân – Allâh reward him! –
shows mastery of the `Aqîda of the Sunni Salaf including Abû Hanîfa, Ahmad, and al- Ash`arî with a view to confront innovations current in his time in and outside his own School, including tajsîm and i`tizâl.
Ibne Balban’s Text2:
It is obligatory to categorically affirm (al- jazm) that He (swt) is one, indivisible and not made of parts, single not in the sense of number… [p. 487]
Salafi injections:
Shaykh al-Islâm [Ahmad] Ibn Taymiyya warned against such newfangled terms and cites the very same terms used by the author as examples of what not to say.
footnote and Rebuttal:Ibn Balbân echoes Ash`arî (Ibn Khafîf) and Mâturîdî (Fiqh al-Akbar) `aqîda while Ibn Taymiyya innovated triple-tawhîd terminology never used by Imâm Ahmad and claims that Ahmad believed Allâh has a limit whereas it is established he held the opposite.
============
Some further evidences from Hanbali Text: Which shows that these so called followers of (Hanbali fiqh) i-e Wahhabis are just maskurating their own Kharijite ideas and falsely showing that they are followers of Imam Ahmed Who has nothing to do with them and their false believes:
1 – “It’s not allowed to describe Him as being in very place or in a place”
Al-Mu’tamid fi Usul ad-Din by Qadi Abu Ya’ala.
2 – “’Imaduddin Ahmed bin Ibrahim al-Wasiti al-Hanbali, student of Ibn Taymiyya about whom he said, “’Imaduddin is the Junayd of our time” said,
“Allah ‘azza wa jallah was when there was no makan, ‘arsh water… and how He was in pre-eternity… He is now as He was…”
Nasihatul Ikhwan li Imam al-Wasiti al-Hanbali
3 – “He’s not restricted or contained in a place, He’s not subjected to time, nothing resembles Him, nothing escapes His knowledge or will, He’s Exalted from Tharfiyya (time and place).”
‘Allama Mari’
4 – “So whoever believes or says that Allâh is, in His essence (bi-dhâtihî), in every place or in a place, is a kâfir. It is obligatory to categorically affirm that He (swt) is separate (bâ’in) from His creation. Allâh (swt) was when there was no place then He created place and He is now as He was before He created place.”
[p. 489] the Hanbali Shaykh al-Islâm, the Imâm and Musnid Shams al-Dîn Muhammad ibn Badr al-Dîn ibn Balbân al-Dimashqî al-Sâlihî’s ( 1006- 1083) titled Mukhtas.ar al-Ifâdât fî Rub` al-îbâdât wal-âdâb wal-Ziyâdât.
5 – Ibn Balbân’s words are reiterated verbatim by Sulaymân ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhâb in his epistle on `Aqîda titled al-Tawdîh. `an Tawhîd al-Khallâq fî Jawâb Ahl al-`Irâq
6 – “Whoever believes or says, “Allah ta’ala with His essence is in a place, then he’s a kafir. Rather it’ necessary to believe that He… was and there was no makan, then he created makan, and He is as He was before he created makan.”
Page 35-36 al-‘Ayn wal Athar fi ‘Aqaid ahl al-Athar li Shaykh Abdul Baqi al-Hanbali.
7 – “Exalted is He that He have as an attribute/description of being contained in places, this is corporeality in essences.”
Ibn ‘Aqil Shaykh ul Hanabilah.
8 – “It’s necessary for us to believe that His essence isn’t contained in any makan…”
Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanbali.
9 – Ibn ‘Adil al-Hanbali in various places in his tafsir, entitiled ‘Al-Lubab fi ‘Ulum al-Kitab’
10- Dhun Nun al-Misri negation of Hadd (limit), location and modality as quoted by ‘Hafidh Abi Nu’aym in his Hilya.
11 – The Mufassir’s, Az-Zajjaj, negation of Makan in his Tafsir Asma’ullah al-Husna.
12 – “Because He was whenthere was no Makan, then he created Makan, and He is now as He was before creating Makan”, ” (if someone says)He is with His Essence in every makan or in a Makan, then he’s a Kafir”.
Ibn Hamdan al-Harrani al-Hanbali, 690 Hijri, work entitled ‘Nihayatul Mubtadi’in fi Usul ud Din, page 31.
13 – Abu Nasr As-Sijsi said, “He was when there was no Makan, then He created Makan, and He is as He was before creating Makan”. Page 34 Nihayatul Mubtadi’in.
14 – Abu Muhammed Rizqullah bin ‘Abdil Wahhab at-Tamimi said, “we don’t say the ‘Arsh is His Makan, because places are His creation”. Page 35 Nihayatul Mubtadi’in.
15 – “The Scholar of the Hanbalis in Hijaz, and Sham, their Imam, the Faqih, Righteous Muhaddith, the ‘Abid, Shaykh ‘Abdullah bin ‘Udah bin ‘Abdillah Sufan bin Shaykh ‘Isa bin al-Haj Salamah al-Qudumi An-Nabulusi al-Hanbali of Athari Madhab resident of Medinah, born 1247 Hijri.” Agrees with and quotes the words of Imam Ibn Balban and ‘Shaykh AbdulBaqi regarding makan in agreement. “(from what we will mention) a small portion of the ‘Aqaid of the Imams of Hanabilah, which we have taken and studied from our great scholars and Imams, which indicate them being free from Tashbih and Tajsim, and from every vile belief.”On page 145 the author says, “whoever believes He ta’ala is in a Makan or in every Makan, then he’s a renegade (Mulhid), misguided innovator.” Source: Al-Manhaj al-Ahmed fi Daru’ al-Mathalib al-lati Tunma li Madhab al-Imam Ahmed.
And finally
« قال شيخنا – يعني الحافظ ابن حجر العسقلاني – : إنَّ علـم الله يشمل جميع الأقطار ، والله سبحانه وتعالى منـزه عن الحلول في الأماكن ، فإنه سبحانه وتعالى كان قبل أن تحدث الأماكن »
Hafiz al-Sakhawi relates that his teacher al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said (roughly translated):
…. and Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala is free from dwelling in places, for Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala existed before places came into existence.
NOTE: YOU CAN READ FULL REFUTATION TO ANTHROPOMORPHIC IDEOLOGY OF WAHHABISM FROM OUR FORUM IN THE SAME SECTION OF RAD_E_BADMAZHAB