Regarding the Term 'Kayfiyyah' and Its Usage Among Scholars

Historically, some scholars of Kalām have employed the term 'Kayfiyyah' when discussing Allāh, while many others have explicitly rejected its application. This raises an intriguing question: how can scholars assert that Kayfiyyah, translated as modality, is impossible for Allāh and anthropomorphism, yet also claim that only Allāh knows His Kayfiyyah?

The reality is that the term 'Kayfiyyah' has various usages. It can refer to the modality and state of a thing, but it can also denote its reality, quiddity, and quality/description.

Below are two significant quotes. The first is by Imām Bāqillānī, elucidating the different intended meanings of this term. Following that is a quote by Qadhi Abu Bakr Ibn al-'Arabi demonstrating that even Kalām scholars would affirm that only Allāh knows the Kayfiyyah, clearly intending reality or description, and not anthropomorphic meanings.

Imām Bāqillānī writes:

"If it is asked, 'How is He?' It is said, if by Kayfiyyah you mean composition, form, and genus, then He has no form or genus that we can describe. And if by your question, 'How is He?' you mean upon which description is He? [Then we say] He is living, knowing, powerful, hearing, and seeing."

— Tamhīd al-Awā'il, 300

Qadhi Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi writes:

"It may also be that it is not interpreted, as Mālik and others have said: that istiwā’ is known, meaning its source in the language, and the Kayfiyyah that Allāh intended from the meanings that are possible is unknown. So, who can determine it?"

— ‘Āridat al-Ahwadhī li-Ibn al-‘Arabī [2/236]

The hatred scholars in the past generation like Sh. Abu Ghuddah and Sh. Sabuni received were due to their lifelong denial to submit to tyrants who practice dhulm against Muslims.

The hatred which Mufti Taqi and Sh. Qaradaghi are receiving is just a continuation of the same reason.

The term “Islamophobia” is nonsense.

1 - It is ideologically rooted in liberalism and secularism.
2 - It gives the impression that Muslims are weak, self-victimizing, and desperate for acceptance.
3 - Use of the term is an implicit acceptance of the morality and secular worldview of the kuffār.
4 - The term implies that it is wrong for kuffār to fear Islām.

I really shouldn’t need to elaborate further on any of these points.

‘Allāmah Zāhid al-Kawtharī writes in his article Ḥijāb al-Mar’ah (“The Ḥijāb of a Woman”):

“The one who speaks pretentiously about (the validity of) a woman’s judgeship in some cases does not comprehend that her ruling’s validity in them, according to some jurists, is coupled with her falling into sin. This is similar to how rulings in some cases involving legal stratagems are valid despite the one employing them being sinful. Thus, if a woman were to be appointed as a judge unjustly and beyond rightful limits, her judgment would be valid in some cases according to some jurists, while she would still be falling into sin by assuming the role of judge. This is akin to the validity of rulings in some cases involving legal stratagems being coupled with sin. Whoever imagines that the validity of a ruling negates sin has strayed far from understanding.” (Maqālāt al-Kawtharī, al-Maktabah al-Tawfīqiyyah, p.231)

Read More Here: https://ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/1094/anaf-madhhab-on-woman-acting

__
Join the Ahlus Sunnah Forum Telegram Channel: https://t.me/AhlusSunnahForum

Some of the reactions to this post show just how brainwashed a lot of you are and how weak your understanding of language truly is. This is precisely what I posted about a couple days ago 👇🏻.

https://t.me/Simsimiyyah/530

Spreading terms and slogans with ideologically loaded language is an extremely effective way to cause mass confusion and cognitive dissonance within any group. Combine this with decades of carefully planned and well-funded psy-op propaganda and we get our current circumstances. It is nothing short of brainwashing.

Go do some research on where the slogan “Islām means peace” actually came from. Not only is it not true, but it was pushed for a very specific reason, and judging by how the vast majority of Muslims in the west now think, it did exactly what they wanted it to do.

After noting that a woman may not be a ruler in Islām, Egyptian Shāfi‘ī scholar Abu ‘l-‘Abbās Aḥmad al-Qalqashandī (756 – 821 AH) explains:

“The reasoning behind this is that the ruler cannot do without mixing with men and consulting with them in matters, whereas such a thing is prohibited for women.” (Ma’āthir al-Ināfah fī Ma‘ālim al-Khilāfah, ‘Ālam al-Kutub, 1:32)

Read More Here: https://ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/975/prohibition-ikhtilat-mixing-men-women

__
Join the Ahlus Sunnah Forum Telegram Channel: https://t.me/AhlusSunnahForum

‘Alā’ al-Dīn al-Ḥaṣkafī states in al-Durr al-Mukhtār:

“According to (Ibn Nujaym’s) al-Ashbāh wa ‘l-Naẓā’ir, under the rulings of females, Ibn al-Humām in al-Musāyarah favoured the view that it is possible for a female to be a prophet (nabiyyah) but not a messenger (rasūlah) given the situation of women is grounded in concealment.”

Ibn ‘Ābidīn, following al-Ṭaḥṭāwī, comments:

“Meaning, a messenger (rasūl) needs to mix with males (mukhālaṭāt al-dhukūr) in teaching and establishing proofs against them and so on, which can only occur from males. The possibility (of a prophet being female however) does not necessitate (it) having occurred. According to Bad’ al-Amālī, a prophet has never been female.” (Radd al-Muḥtār, Dār al-Thaqāfah wa ‘l-Turāth, 16:581)

Note: Ibn al-Humām attributes the view that a prophet can be female to some Ẓāhirīs and Ḥadīth scholars. Although he characterises one explanation supporting this view as "not far-fetched," it remains unclear whether he personally endorsed it. (al-Musāyarah, 124, 126–7) Thus, some commentators have questioned whether this attribution to Ibn al-Humām is accurate.

Read More Here: https://ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/975/prohibition-ikhtilat-mixing-men-women

__
Join the Ahlus Sunnah Forum Telegram Channel: https://t.me/AhlusSunnahForum

Was Shifā’ bint ‘Abdillāh (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anhā) in Charge of the Market Under ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh)?

By Mufti Zameelur Rahman

A common talking point amongst deformists seeking to promote gender mixing (ikhtilāṭ) and women assuming positions of authority over men is an alleged incident involving the eminent female companion Shifā’ bint ‘Abdillāh (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anhā). It is claimed she was put in charge of the market by ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (raḍiyAllāhu ‘anh).

But what is the reality of this claim?

Read Here: https://ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/1095/shif-bint-abdill-charge-market

__
Join the Ahlus Sunnah Forum Telegram Channel: https://t.me/AhlusSunnahForum

Muftī Zameelur Rahman constantly putting out gold! ❤️

Can’t help but notice this trend where they pick and choose when they want to argue for “nuance and new ijtihādāt”, and when they want to be “ardent defenders of traditionalism”.

“Such was the religious life of the Arabians before the advent of Islam. The role that the religions prevalent played was so marginal, in fact it was next to nothing. The polytheists, who faked Abrahamism, were so far detached from its precepts, and totally oblivious of its immanent good manners. They plunged into disobedience and ungodliness, and developed certain peculiar religious superstitions that managed to leave a serious impact on the religious and socio-political life in the whole of Arabia.

Judaism turned into abominable hypocrisy in league with hegemony. Rabbis turned into lords to the exclusion of the Lord. They got involved in the practice of dictatorial subjection of people and calling their subordinates to account for the least word or idea. Their sole target turned into acquisition of wealth and power even if it were at the risk of losing their religion, or the emergence of atheism and disbelief.

Christianity likewise opened its doors wide to polytheism, and got too difficult to comprehend as a heavenly religion. As a religious practice, it developed a sort of peculiar medley of man and God. It exercised no bearing whatsoever on the souls of the Arabs who professed it simply because it was alien to their style of life and did not have the least relationship with their practical life.

People of other religions were similar to the polytheists with respect to their inclinations, dogmas, customs and traditions.”

— The Sealed Nectar, Pg.42

I no longer subscribe to any particular creedal school.

For those asking for more details:

Most people who claim labels to different creedal schools don’t actually understand their own school’s positions or the positions of other schools and how exactly they differ.

Differences continue to be oversimplified or misrepresented by people who have no clue what they’re talking about or don’t have the knowledge to be delving into such topics to begin with.

I also find the ʿaqīdah debates to be dragged out and bordering on unnecessary. A lot of you treat these polemics like your own personal form of entertainment. It is cringe and inappropriate. ʿIlm deserves more respect than this.

This also extends to the polemics between Ṣūfīs and Salafīs. I am over all that. There are charlatans in both camps just as there are decent and sharp brothers in both camps (I wouldn’t say it is equally distributed though lol).

There is nothing wrong with subscribing to a creedal school. Students of knowledge should stick to the curriculum that their teachers set up for them, which will usually correspond with their respective creedal school. No issue at all in this.

I just don’t find the labels indicative of any actual firmly held positions that have been established through actual contemplation and knowledge.

ʿAbdulRaḥmān Ḥasan says being friends with an Ashʿarī is the same thing as being friends with a Dāʿishī… 💀

Enjoy, InshāʾAllāh :)