The aqidah of the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah is Based Around Expressing The Negation of Innovated Terms

The Salaf declared as kafirs those who appeared in the early to mid second century hijri and initially did not explicitly reveal that their greatest goal was to reject Allaah is above the heaven, above the Throne. The Salaf however, due to their perspicacity figured out their evil intentions and as early as 129H, Ayyub as-Sakhtiyaanee, from the Taabi'een, had started exposing their saying which revolved around kufr.

The Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and whoever followed them (the later Ash'ariyyah and the Maturidiyyah), used the language of negation to deny that Allaah is separate and distinct from the creation, above the heaven, above the Throne, and so they started saying, "He is not above, below, right left, he is not in a Makaan (location), and not in a hayyiz (space), and not in a Jihah (direction), and does not have a hadd (limit)" and so on, and this became the hallmark of the deen of the Jahmites, through the centuries, and of the enemies of the deen of the Messengers, such as the likes of the kafir, Ibn Sina (see here).

Sayyid Qutb and Negation of Spatial Occupation From Allaah

Qutb said in az-Zilaal (3/1267):

And it is not possible for the path to Allaah to be perceived (by the senses), for Allaah, the Sublime, is beyond occupying space (tahayyuz).

We have spoken about this in the previous articles and it is something that Qutb has repeated many times in his commentary. This proves that Qutb is a caller to this aqidah, it is not something he has casually mentioned only once. Rather it is a recurring theme mentioned in a variety of different contexts.

There is no dispute that Qutb was an Ash'ari (see here). It is also not disputable that Qutb was a caller to Ash'ariyyah through his writings, for if he was simply writing on the beauty of expression of the Qur'an, he could have done that without dropping in the aqidah of the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah throughout az-Zilal, and in certain issues, over and over again, in different contexts and passing off such issues as accepted standard truths. The fact that his brother Mohammad Qutb (who is responsible for the publishing of all of Sayyid Qutb's books after his death) has continued to publish these books decade after decade, leaving in the Jahmi, Ash'ari aqidah, is a proof that Mohammad Qutb, and Sayyid Qutb are callers to this creed.

There are a people who expend great efforts in refuting the As'hariyyah Jahmiyyah who speak with what Qutb has spoken with of expressing the negation of "Makaan" and "tahayyuz" and they show great earnest and zeal in refuting whatever these Ash'ariyyah Jahmiyyah bring with respect to this belief, scorning this belief, despising it, declaring it's intended meaning as kufr, mocking those who speak with it, feeling proud of having refuted them and repelled and considering all of this as jihaad in the path of Allaah. However, the sincerity of these actions are put to trial when it comes to Qutb's Zilaal considering that it is spread the world over, and read the world over, and used to nurture generations upon generations upon a particular way of thinking. If their refutations and efforts against the Ash'ariyyah Jahmiyyah are sincere, then we would see exactly the same towards the Jahmite doctrine that Qutb makes references in a manner that conveys that it is a standard, accepted truth, and which would certainly misguide people who read it, considering at the same time, that this book is published in the millions and is spread the world over.

What's the Difference Between the Books of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, an-Nawawi and those of Sayyid Qutb

Ibn Hajar, an-Nawawi: Take out the ta'weels that Ibn Hajr fell into in all of his various works and what are you left with? Tens of thousands of pages of truly beneficial knowledge in a wide range of subjects - in hadeeth, in fiqh, in aqidah, in adab, in mu'aamalah and so on and so on. We have great works such as Fath ul-Bari, and Buloogh ul-Mar'aam and really, this deserves a separate article on its own. Their errors are completely drowned in the mountains and oceans of goodness, which continue to benefit the Muslims in their deen to this day.

Sayyid Qutb: Take out all of the ta'weels and Jahmite Ash'ari beliefs out of Sayyid Qutb's works and you are left with the doctrines of the Rafidah in attacking the Companions and accusing them with nifaq, ghish, khadee'ah (hypocrisy, deception, treachery) and Takfir of all Muslims and declaring them as apostates, followed by the manifestos of secular atheist Jews in calling for bloody violent revolutions in the Muslim lands - which have left a trail of destruction and ruin in the Ummah, as well as allowing the ghazw of the Muslim lands to be justified. And spawning the various groups of Takfir and factions of the khawaarij and unleashing them upon the Ummah. So as a result today, we have the Ummah poisoned by the manifestos of secular atheist Jews of focusing on the rulers, governments and violent revolutions, in the name of Social Justice, the slogan of Dhul-Khuwaisarah at-Tamimi, whilst belittling and mocking the methodology of the Prophets in calling to Allaah, in which there is wisdom and intellect (see here). Is there any good in Qutb's books? There was no innovator who never had any good, or something of the truth - otherwise no one would have ever followed an innovator. So if Qutb had some good, then al-Harith al-Muhaasibee had mountains more goodness than any 20th century ignoramus - and the way of the Salaf towards him is known - and in general all the Innovators of Islaam had something of good.

And that's your answer in a nutshell.