Yes, check lesson 12, it was uploaded 8 days ago

@@adamshaikh2728oh ok jazakallahu khayran. I thought it hadn’t been uploaded cos it wasn’t added to the playlist

Regarding the question of whether Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855) was an anthropomorphist, this is something that has been asked since early times, particularly since someone forged an anthropormorphic tract called Kitab al-sunna [The book of the sunna] and put the name of Imam Ahmad’s son Abdullah (d. 290/903) on it. I looked this book over with our teacher in hadith, Sheikh Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ut, who had examined it one day, and said that at least 50 percent of the hadiths in it are weak or outright forgeries. He was dismayed how Muhammad al-Qahtani, the editor and commentator, could have been given a Ph.d. in Islamic faith (‘aqida) from Umm al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia for readying for publication a work as sadly wanting in authenticity as this. Ostensibly a "hadith" work, it contains some of the most hard-core anthropomorphism found anywhere, such as the hadith that "when He Most Blessed and Exalted sits on the Kursi, a squeak is heard like the squeak of a new leather saddle" (Kitab al-Sunna [Dammam, Dar Ibn al-Qayyim, 1986/1406], 1.301), or "Allah wrote the Torah for Moses with His hand while leaning back on a rock, on tablets of pearl, and the screech of the quill could be heard. There was no veil between Him and him" (ibid., 1.294), or "The angels were created from the light of His two elbows and chest" (ibid., 2.510), and so on. The work also puts lies in the mouths of major Hanbali scholars and others, such as Kharija [ibn Mus‘ab al-Sarakhsi] (d. 168/785), who is quoted about istiwa’(translated above as being 'established' on the Throne), "Does istiwa’ mean anything except sitting?" (ibid., 1.106)-with a chain of transmission containing a liar (kadhdhab), an unidentifiable (majhul), plus the text with its contradiction (mukhalafa) of Islamic faith (‘aqida). Or consider the forty-nine pages of vilification of Abu Hanifa and his school that it mendaciously ascribes to major Imams, such as that relating that Ishaq ibn Mansur al-Kusaj (d. 251/865) said, "I asked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, ‘Is a man rewarded by Allah for loathing Abu Hanifa and his colleagues?’ and he said, ‘Yes, by Allah’" (ibid., 1.180). To ascribe things so stupid to a man of godfearingness (taqwa) like Ahmad, whose respect for other scholars is well attested to by chains of transmission that are rigorously authenticated (sahih), is one of the things by which this counterfeit work overreaches itself, and ends in cancelling any credibility that the name on it may have been intended to give it. Sheikh Shu‘ayb told us he doesn’t believe it is really from Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s son ‘Abdullah, since there is an unidentifiable (majhul) transmitter in the book’s chain of ascription to ‘Abdullah. But the fact that such a work exists may give you an idea of the kinds of things that have been circulated about Ahmad after his death, and the total lack of scrupulousness among a handful of anthropomorphists who tried literally everything to spread their bid‘as.

'trust me bro'

Says who? The jahmis that believe the Qur'an is created?

A Giant from amongst the Salaf, Amir al-Mu`minin in hadith, Abdullah Ibn al-Mubarak (Khawarizmi of Turkmanish descent) said: ‏قال عبد الله بن المبارك: «من قال لك يا مشبه فاعلم أنه جهمي» [رواه ابن مندة في شرح حديث النزول 53]. ‘If someone says “O mushabbih (the one who likens Allah to His creation) to you, then know that he is a Jahmi.’ [Ibn Mundah in the explanation of the hadith of Nuzul 53]

And from the signs of the people of bid’ah and the zanadiqah (heretics) who attack the people of al-Athar (Ahlul-Sunnah) is that they call the people of the Sunnah (Ahlul-Sunnah) as Hashawiyyah. And from the signs of the Jahmiyyah is that they call Ahlul-Sunnah as mushabbihah (those who liken Allah to his creation).’ [Sharh Usul I’tiqad Ahlus-Sunnah by Al-Lalaka`i, 1/179]