Ibn Hamdan states on Page 29 of Nihayah al Mubtadi'in: فمن قال القرآن مخلوق أو محدث أو حادث… أو ادعى قدرة بشر على مثله كفر "Whoever states that the Qur’an is created, temporal or emergent… or claims that a person has the ability to come up with something like it has disbelieved.” Ibn Hamdan further states on Page 32 of Nihayah al Mubtadi'in: ويجب الجزم بأن الله تعالى… لا تحله الحوادث ولا يحل في حادث ولا ينحصر فيه “And it is obligatory to believe that Allah the Exalted is not… subject to temporality or subsisting within what is temporal or dependent upon it.” On Page 96, Ibn Balban says the same as Ibn Hamdan did regarding whoever says the Qur'an is Muhdath and it being obligatory to believe that Allah is not temporal or dependent. He states: فمن قال القرآن مخلوق أو محدث أو حادث… أو ادعى قدرة بشر على مثله كفر...ويجب الجزم بأن الله تعالى… لا تحله الحوادث ولا يحل في حادث ولا ينحصر فيه NOTE: We see that Ibn Hamdan and Ibn Balban both completely reject the idea that the Speech of Allah is subject to temporality, but rather, it is eternal. We also see that they reject the idea that temporality can subsist within Allah's Essence. This further reinforces the view that they are upon tafwidh. With this in mind, it cannot be claimed that they affirmed the meanings for the verses and reports pertaining to the Attributes.
So you leave all early Hanbali books and jump 400 years to prove your claim. Haha You skipped Khalal, House of Mandah, Maqdisis, etc to prove a bogus claim.
Ibn Hamdan states on Page 29 of Nihayah al Mubtadi'in:
فمن قال القرآن مخلوق أو محدث أو حادث… أو ادعى قدرة بشر على مثله كفر
"Whoever states that the Qur’an is created, temporal or emergent… or claims that a person has the ability to come up with something like it has disbelieved.”
Ibn Hamdan further states on Page 32 of Nihayah al Mubtadi'in:
ويجب الجزم بأن الله تعالى… لا تحله الحوادث ولا يحل في حادث ولا ينحصر فيه
“And it is obligatory to believe that Allah the Exalted is not… subject to temporality or subsisting within what is temporal or dependent upon it.”
On Page 96, Ibn Balban says the same as Ibn Hamdan did regarding whoever says the Qur'an is Muhdath and it being obligatory to believe that Allah is not temporal or dependent. He states:
فمن قال القرآن مخلوق أو محدث أو حادث… أو ادعى قدرة بشر على مثله كفر...ويجب الجزم بأن الله تعالى… لا تحله الحوادث ولا يحل في حادث ولا ينحصر فيه
NOTE: We see that Ibn Hamdan and Ibn Balban both completely reject the idea that the Speech of Allah is subject to temporality, but rather, it is eternal. We also see that they reject the idea that temporality can subsist within Allah's Essence. This further reinforces the view that they are upon tafwidh. With this in mind, it cannot be claimed that they affirmed the meanings for the verses and reports pertaining to the Attributes.
So you leave all early Hanbali books and jump 400 years to prove your claim. Haha
You skipped Khalal, House of Mandah, Maqdisis, etc to prove a bogus claim.
Can ya do a commetary on jake and khalils debate an ashari view of the matter would be very helpful
@@traveler9212huh🤔 did you watch the video?
Would love to see the differences between ibn Taymiyah and the classical hanbalis