u/turkish_akhi

>And he (ie: Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Qaṣṣāb) said: Any attribute that Allah has ascribed to Himself or that His Messenger has ascribed to Him, then it is not a Ṣifah majāz (ie: metaphorical Attribute). If it was metaphorical, then it would have been necessary to explain it in a manner different from the apparent meaning (ie: known understanding).

>So it would have been said: “What is meant by al-Baṣar (ie: vision) is such and such, what is meant by al-Samaʿ (ie: hearing) is such and such, and so on.” It would have been explained in a way different from what one would understand from the apparent meaning.

>As the approach of the Salaf is to affirm the attributes without taʿwīl (interpreting), different from the known meaning (what is apparent), this proves that they are not to be understood metaphorically; rather they are clear truth (ie: plain facts).

al-Ḏahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ 16/213

https://shamela.ws/book/10906/10062

>And he (ie: Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Qaṣṣāb) said: Any attribute that Allah has ascribed to Himself or that His Messenger has ascribed to Him, then it is not a Ṣifah majāz (ie: metaphorical Attribute). If it was metaphorical, then it would have been necessary to explain it in a manner different from the apparent meaning (ie: known understanding).

>So it would have been said: “What is meant by al-Baṣar (ie: vision) is such and such, what is meant by al-Samaʿ (ie: hearing) is such and such, and so on.” It would have been explained in a way different from what one would understand from the apparent meaning.

>As the approach of the Salaf is to affirm the attributes without taʿwīl (interpreting), different from the known meaning (what is apparent), this proves that they are not to be understood metaphorically; rather they are clear truth (ie: plain facts).

al-Ḏahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ 16/213

https://shamela.ws/book/10906/10062

>And he (ie: Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Qaṣṣāb) said: Any attribute that Allah has ascribed to Himself or that His Messenger has ascribed to Him, then it is not a Ṣifah majāz (ie: metaphorical Attribute). If it was metaphorical, then it would have been necessary to explain it in a manner different from the apparent meaning (ie: known understanding).

>So it would have been said: “What is meant by al-Baṣar (ie: vision) is such and such, what is meant by al-Samaʿ (ie: hearing) is such and such, and so on.” It would have been explained in a way different from what one would understand from the apparent meaning.

>As the approach of the Salaf is to affirm the attributes without taʿwīl (interpreting), different from the known meaning (what is apparent), this proves that they are not to be understood metaphorically; rather they are clear truth (ie: plain facts).

al-Ḏahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ 16/213

https://shamela.ws/book/10906/10062

>And he (ie: Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Qaṣṣāb) said: Any attribute that Allah has ascribed to Himself or that His Messenger has ascribed to Him, then it is not a Ṣifah majāz (ie: metaphorical Attribute). If it was metaphorical, then it would have been necessary to explain it in a manner different from the apparent meaning (ie: known understanding).

>So it would have been said: “What is meant by al-Baṣar (ie: vision) is such and such, what is meant by al-Samaʿ (ie: hearing) is such and such, and so on.” It would have been explained in a way different from what one would understand from the apparent meaning.

>As the approach of the Salaf is to affirm the attributes without taʿwīl (interpreting), different from the known meaning (what is apparent), this proves that they are not to be understood metaphorically; rather they are clear truth (ie: plain facts).

al-Ḏahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ 16/213

https://shamela.ws/book/10906/10062

>And he (ie: Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Qaṣṣāb) said: Any attribute that Allah has ascribed to Himself or that His Messenger has ascribed to Him, then it is not a Ṣifah majāz (ie: metaphorical Attribute). If it was metaphorical, then it would have been necessary to explain it in a manner different from the apparent meaning (ie: known understanding).

>So it would have been said: “What is meant by al-Baṣar (ie: vision) is such and such, what is meant by al-Samaʿ (ie: hearing) is such and such, and so on.” It would have been explained in a way different from what one would understand from the apparent meaning.

>As the approach of the Salaf is to affirm the attributes without taʿwīl (interpreting), different from the known meaning (what is apparent), this proves that they are not to be understood metaphorically; rather they are clear truth (ie: plain facts).

al-Ḏahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ 16/213

https://shamela.ws/book/10906/10062

In-sha-Allah, this will be a compilation of the 'Aqīdah of the scholars of the Salaf al-Ṣāliḥ. This thread will be locked, in-sha-Allah, to not drive further confusion.

قَالَ الْحَسَنُ:

الدُّنْيَا ثَلَاثَةُ أَيَّامٍ: أَمَّا أَمْسِ فَقَدْ ذَهَبَ بِمَا فِيهِ، وَأَمَّا غَدٌ فَلَعَلَّكَ لَا تُدْرِكُهُ، وَالْيَوْمُ لَكَ فَاعْمَلْ فِيهِ.

Al‑Ḥasan said:

“The world is three days: as for yesterday, it has gone with all that was in it; as for tomorrow, perhaps you will not reach it; and today is yours, so act in it.”

كلام الليالي والأيام لابن أبي الدنيا (١/٤٠)

قَالَ الْحَسَنُ:

الدُّنْيَا ثَلَاثَةُ أَيَّامٍ: أَمَّا أَمْسِ فَقَدْ ذَهَبَ بِمَا فِيهِ، وَأَمَّا غَدٌ فَلَعَلَّكَ لَا تُدْرِكُهُ، وَالْيَوْمُ لَكَ فَاعْمَلْ فِيهِ.

Al‑Ḥasan said:

“The world is three days: as for yesterday, it has gone with all that was in it; as for tomorrow, perhaps you will not reach it; and today is yours, so act in it.”

كلام الليالي والأيام لابن أبي الدنيا (١/٤٠)

قَالَ الْحَسَنُ:

الدُّنْيَا ثَلَاثَةُ أَيَّامٍ: أَمَّا أَمْسِ فَقَدْ ذَهَبَ بِمَا فِيهِ، وَأَمَّا غَدٌ فَلَعَلَّكَ لَا تُدْرِكُهُ، وَالْيَوْمُ لَكَ فَاعْمَلْ فِيهِ.

Al‑Ḥasan said:

“The world is three days: as for yesterday, it has gone with all that was in it; as for tomorrow, perhaps you will not reach it; and today is yours, so act in it.”

كلام الليالي والأيام لابن أبي الدنيا (١/٤٠)