Yūsuf ibn Abdul Hādī, Hanbalis and Istiwah

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

what is the authenticity of the following and it's accuracy?

Imām Yūsuf ibn Abdul Hādī states in Tuhfat al-wusul,

“Our companions are not in disagreement regarding Istawa ‘Alāl Arsh, but they do disagree on its manner. Ibn Hāmid said, “Istiwā is in the sense f contact (mumāssa), and He is sitting on the throne.” This is also the doctrine of Abdul Wahhāb Al Warraq [d. 476]; it is also the doctrine cited by Qādhī Abū Ya’alā as that of Ibn Hāmid. Abul-Hasan At-Tamīmī said: ‘The firm establishment is not in the sense of contact with the throne, nor in the sense of being separated from it.’ Qādhī Abū Ya’alā said: ‘This statement is comparable to that of Ahmad (ibn Hanbal).’ It is also the doctrine chosen by Ibn ‘Aqīl, who said: “Tamīmī’s doctrine is the most similar to our madh-hab’s doctrine and to Ahmad’s , whereas that of Ibn Hāmid is the most distant from that of our Madh-hab.” [funūn]

Ahmad ibn Hanbal is reported as saying, “We believe that Allah is above the throne, how he wishes and as he wishes without definition; and the attributes of the divine essence are not included under His will.’ This may be understood to mean that Allah’s ‘establishment’ on his throne does not come under the attributes of his essence, nor under the attributes of the act; so also the descent of Allah to the heaven closest to earth, and Allah’s placement of His ‘foot’ in Hell and the laying bare of the shin.

Reports on the authority of Ahmad differ. There are two reports on ‘whether Allah is firmly established on His throne with a limit or not?’ The first report is that it is without a limit; It was the doctrine chosen by Abul Hasan At-Tamīmī. The second report is that it is with a limit; this doctrine was chosen by Abul-‘Abbās. Ahmad was asked: “Is our Lord on the throne with limit?” He answered: “’That is the case, in our opinion.” Ibn ‘Aqīl said, “I asked our professor, Abu Muhammad At-Tamīmī, “How is this report to be understood?” He answered, “The ‘limit’ refers to the Throne, not to the divine essence.” [See Funūn 431]

Qādhī Abu Ya’lā the younger [d. 560] said, “He meant to show that the Throne, in spite of its greatness, is limited; and that is correct.” Thus it is known that, as regards the report of the absence of limit, there is nothing to be said. But as regards the report of the existence of a limit, it may be asked whether the limit refers to the Throne, the preferred doctrine of Qādhī Abu Ya’lā and ibn ‘Aqīl; or to the firm establishment as chosen by some of our companions; or to Allāh – Might and Majesty are His – as chosen by Abul Hasan al-Jaziri which is manifestly the doctrine chosen by Abul-‘Abbās; or does the limit refer both to Allāh as well as to the Throne? Ibn ‘Aqīl said, “Allāh has no need for places, or reliance on anything but Himself. Therefore, whoever believes the Throne supports Him is a kāfir.” This ends the passage of the Throne in Tuhfa. [funūn]

Nuzūl: Our companions agreed that Allāh descends to the Heaven closest to earth, but they differ on its modality. Abu ‘Abdullāh ibn Hāmid said, ‘The descent is one of translocation; this is the doctrine followed by the generality of the moderns (among our companions).’

Regarding Ibn Hāmid’s doctrine, Ibn ‘Aqīl said: ‘This is the statement of a pious man who has no knowledge of what may be said of the Eternal, or what may be applied of this statement to God; had he known what this statement entails, he would not have affirmed it.’ Abu ‘Abdullāh Ibn Batta and a group of our companions have said: ‘It is not to be understood in the sense of translocation. This statement was confirmed as sound by Ibn ‘Aqīl; he chose it and made it the explicit statement of Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) in the report of Hanbal, who reported asking his father: ‘Does God descend to the heaven closest to Earth?’ His father answered: ‘Yes.’ (Hanbal) asked: ‘Is His descent with His knowledge, or with what?’ He answered: ‘Pass over this in silence.’ And he became terribly angry and said: ‘Narrate the Tradition as it was received.’ Ibn ‘Aqīl remarked: ‘This, coming from Ahmad, calls for professing the doctrine of the descent; it is the word received from the revealed law, and silence should be kept regarding its import.’

This doctrine of Ibn Hāmid regarding the sitting on the Throne and the descent to the heaven closest to Earth is not valid; that of Ibn ‘Aqīl is valid. Ibn Hāmid cited a group of our companions as saying: ‘Allāh’s descent means that of His power,’ and they attributed this to the manifest statement of Ahmad. Ibn Hāmid cited also a group of our companions who said: ‘A descent was asserted, the meaning of which is not understood, whether it be with translocation or without translocation.’ This is what was chosen by Ibn Batta and Ibn ‘Aqīl. Qādhī Abu Ya’lā said: ‘This method is that of our guild; Ahmad made it explicit in a number of places.’ [Funūn 294] (source: Seeking Ilm)

got it from: http://nuqtah.muslimpad.com/2006/11/11/no-its-not/

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

salamu alaykum

akhi as far as the statements doesnt this fall into the kayf? We are suppose to affirm without kayfiyyah but it seems if we say its contact with the throne , and that he is sitting this is going into kayfiyyah and this is wrong.

Am i right on this issue or wrong?

jazakallah khayr

[moubeen]

It would be appropriate (in my opinion) to quote here, what is reported from Imaam Malik here, when he was asked about the the "how" of such things.

What is affirmed from the salaf is that you accept them (the attributes referring to istawa, nuzool etc.) as they come without asking "how". The narrations we do have from the salaf where the "how" question is asked are all answered by the A'immah in various ways, but all with similar conclusions. Basically accept them and affirm them on their apparent meanings, leaving aside asking "how".

And their recitation is their explanation. Which means the apparent meaning. So in my opinion delving into these issues leads to a methodology which opposes the salaf. And then it is much like what is related in the other thread about al-Qurtubi on istawa etc....which is while knowing the salaf were upon one thing yet choosing another way. We know sometimes scholars went into a certain matter to reply to the doubts of the philosiphers and heretics, but Let what the salaf said be sufficient and let us be content with that, no matter if Ibn Taymiyyah or anyone else said otherwise...

[Abu_Abdallah]

what is the authenticity of the following and it's accuracy?



got it from: http://nuqtah.muslimpad.com/2006/11/11/no-its-not/

al-Salamu 'Alaikum wa-Rahmatullah,

This is quoted from a work by the Hanbalite and anti-Ash'arite Yusuf b. 'Abd al-Hadi, known as Ibn al-Mabrid (d.909), who authored several important works on creed and was known for his knowledge of Hadith and compilation. In this passage, which has been quoted by G. Makdisi from a work of his that's still in manuscript in the Princeton library as I recall, Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi mentions the difference of opinion some Hanbalites had concerning the understanding of particular Attributes. This knowledge is not something new. It has been mentioned before by several scholars, incl. Ibn Taymiyyah.

In a published work by the Qadi Abu Ya'la b. al-Farrâ', the well-known Imam of the Hanâbilah in his age (d.458), entitled Kitab al-Riwayatayn wa'l-Wajhayn therein is already mention of the difference some Hanbalites had in matters of creed (see : al-Masâ'il al-'Aqadiyyah min Kitab al-Riwayatayn wa'l-Wajhayn p.51-62).

In another book, Nihâyat al-Mubtadi'in fi Usul al-Din by the Hanbalite of Harran: Ibn Hamdan (d.695), is mentioned something similar (see in particular p.28 and further).

Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi, who wrote two attacks against the Ash'arites (Kashf al-Ghita 'an Mahdh al-Khata' against Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari himself which is still in manuscript as far as I'm aware, and the Jam' al-Juyûsh wa'l-Dasakir 'ala Ibn 'Asakir against the Hafidh's Tabyin which has been edited as part of a master thesis in Madinah), based his knowledge about creed on the works of Shaykh al-Islam and those of the scholars before him. He intended to collect as much as possible on creed by Hanbalites, mention their differences and outline some of it. He wrote as a scholar in creed several books on 'Aqidah, incl. a recently published al-Tamhid fi al-Kalam 'ala al-Tawhid. What he mentioned in that particular book, i.e. the Tamhid, is nothing but one uniform creed of the Salaf and the Ahl al-Sunnah consisting of only Ayât and Athar - nothing more or less.

As for the work wherefrom Makdisi quotes, as can be read in his English book on Ibn 'Aqil fromwhere people quote, he mentions primarily the statements of the Mutakallimun of the Hanbalites, cf. Abu'l-Hasan al-Tamimi, al-Qadi Abu Ya'la, Ibn 'Aqil, Ibn al-Zaghuni and their likes. He does not mention the anti-Mutakallimun - as far as we can tell from that passage - except a few. The non-Mutakallimun from the Hanbalites are beside Imam Ahmad, his direct students and the early generations after them: al-Khallal, Ibn Abi Dawud, Ghulam al-Khalil, Ibn Batta al-'Ukbari, Abu Bakr al-Ajurri, Ibn Shihab al-'Ukbari etc. These scholars were closer to the Sunnah, than most mentioned in that passage. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that in the course of criticizing many of the persons mentioned in that passage.

It is not a secret for any reader of creed that there is a reality of differences on understanding. Rather, the surprise some may expierence when having to depend upon an orientalist's translation of a book's passage that has not been published nor been known by most scholars only shows how poor some people are in knowledge and defunct in understanding. I mean: you have to be really pathetic to realize that Hanbalites (or any other party) may have differed among eachother in matters of creed, based upon an English passage quoted by an orientalist who died years ago! Add to it that the source is probably unknown to most Shuyûkh! SubhanAllah!

I let brother Abuz Zubair comment on the contents of this - not hidden and well-known passage (since I have an important exame tomorrow morning) - but will comment on the following:

As a follow up to my previous post, I’ve decided to quote a Hanbali scholar Imam Yusuf Ibn Abdul Hadi. The content of the quote aside, what it does prove is the diversity of opinion and approach that has existed among the Ulema, even those who professed the “atahri” creed. Once again this goes on to prove my point that Aqeedah issues aren’t as monolithic as we might think they are.

The ignorance of some people can be demonstrated by such a small passage alone, so let me comment upon it in short:

* Calling Yusuf b. 'Abd al-Hadi an Imam by this anti-Athari/Salafi/Sunni personality, whose probably a fan of Ash'arism or another breed of Jahmism:

Guess what! This Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi wrote a fierce attack on your Imams, the Ash'arites; indeed, he devoted even a book against Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari himself! Oops..

So be carefull - O ignorasmus - before calling a Hanbalite, who incidently serves your purpose and agenda, an Imam! Do you wish me to quote some of his remarks against your likes, so you might drop the 'Imam', and spare you an embarassment? Or let me just quote the last sentence of Abu 'Ali al-Ahwazi, praised in heaven by this 'Imam' and declared a liar by Ibn 'Asakir, in his Mathâlib Ibn Abi Bishr?! Man, I was even - imagine that! - ashame to cite what he cited in his last sentences (would shock even the fiercest anti-Ash'arite here)! [For this reason I will never mention it in my forum on al-Ash'ari in the thread devoted to the Imam in praise and dispraise]

*As far as the contents concerns: why setting that aside? Is it because you can't understand its contents? What do you know of the points mentioned therein, and the opinions of Hanbalites about these points? It certainly does not indicate a difference in opinion and approach you have in mind, or what exists among Ash'arites. The Hanbalites do not have, any, difference in approach when it comes to creed, except with a handful of Hanbalites (cf. Ibn 'Aqil, Ibn al-Jawziy and a few others). As far as the differences: there are two types of them. Difference of form and difference of sense, just like you have with Tafsir among the Salaf (refer to: Ibn Taymiyyah, Muqaddimah fi Usul al-Tafsir). The Hanbalites in general - again with the exclusion of a handfull - all affirm the Attributes, be it al-Yad, al-Wajh, al-Istiwa, Nuzul etc. They all profess these Attributes upon a 'literal sense'. Wherein they differ, as Qadi Abu Ya'la informs us and Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi in fact too, is how to understand this - uniform - approach; and there the differences lie.

I e-mailed once brother the following in meaning, when asking me who of the Hanbalites were Ash'arites or like them, saying:

"You might say: the Hanbalites can be divided into three groups. One middle community, the major and leading one, and two extreme communities on the left and the right. The left wing consist of those who went extreme in affirmation, for example: Ibn Hamid, Yahya b. 'Ammar, Qadi Abu Ya'la, Abdallah al-Ansari and others. They made two fundamental mistakes: they relied either on weak narrations and understood textual passages in a faulty sense. Ibn Hamid and Qadi Abu Ya'la are the ones who used weak and fabricated narrations, unknowingly or without purpose, as has been highlighted by several Muhaqqiqin; Yahya b. 'Ammar and Abdallah al-Ansari, because of their very Jahmite environment, understood some authentic material in a wrong way. In this left wing you have also those Kalam-influenced scholars, in particular the Qadi Abu Ya'la himself. The right wing consists of those who went extreme in negation, for example: Abu'l-Hasan al-Tamimi, RizqAllah al-Tamimi, Ibn 'Aqil and Ibn al-Jawziy. They made two fundamental mistakes too: the most serious is their reliance upon the approach of the Mutakallimun, thereby negating several Attributes or - in the case of the extremist Ibn al-Jawziy - adopting a whole other approach, copying in fact the Mu'tazilah! Some were not so extreme therein, such as Ibn al-Zaghuni and Ibn 'Aqil in his later career; they still used Kalâm in some way, but were less negating. These two wings are very small in terms of numbers, even though they might have their influence later. The middle part, the overwhelming Hanbalites, were not affected by Ta'wil, Kalâm and misunderstanding. I mean the earliest generations of Hanbalites: al-Khallal, al-Barbahari, Ghulam al-Khalil, Ibn Abi Dawud, al-Ajurri, a-Daraqutni, Ibn Batta' al-'Ukbari, Abu 'Ali al-'Ukbari, Sharif Abu Ja'far, Ibn al-Banna', al-Barzabini, Ibn al-Hanbali, Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi, Muwaffaq al-Din and the rest of the Maqâdisa, the Banu Taymiyyah etc. all of them were not affected by these people or very very little. So if you see Shaykh al-Islam mention the Imam, al-Qadi Abu Ya'la, in one breath with the Jahmites, Mu'tazilites and the Kullabites - know that he criticize him for his Kalâmi approach and his denial or rejection of al-Sifat al-Ikhtiyariyyah; and if you see him speaking against the Imam, Shaykh al-Islam Abdallah al-Ansari al-Harawi, know that he speaks about his extreme attitude in affirmation or his apparent Ittihâdi statements. There are always scholars, Hanbalite or not, who diverge from an Imam they claim to follow. What is our task is to accept what they say correctly and reject what is incorrect; irrespective who he is, or whom he claims to follow. None is free of mistakes or immune of criticism, except Allah and His Messenger.."

* As for the Athari creed, you are ignorant about it. Your comment on the passage of Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi displays this.

For your knowledge: The Athari creed is not confined to Hanbalites or to any other party you might have in mind. The Athari, or also called 'Hanbali', creed is confined to whomsoever follows the Salaf al-Salih, who have nothing but the creed of Muhammad, alayhis salam! It is not confined to a Madhhab of Jurisprudence, nor to a Madhhab of grammar! It is confined to him who ascribes himself to it or to the Ahl al-Sunnah. We've made clear, here in this forum, what a Hanbalite is when it comes to creed. And not all Hanbalites (in Fiqh) are Hanbalites in creed; and those that claim to be or are in fact, then their Hanbalism in creed differs from person to person. The most Hanbalite (i.e. Atharite) are some of the scholars I mentioned as 'the middle Hanbalites'; you might recognize them as such close Atharis by the Hadith/Athar-based books on creed. But the persons mentioned - mostly - in the passage of Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi do not fit in that category, even though we might still claim them to be Atharites and Hanbalites in creed. Any reader can understand that when he sees the names of Ibn Hamid, the Qadi, Ibn 'Aqil, al-Jazari and the Tamimis! But an ignorasmus as you - you can not.

* This brings as to the last point I want to draw attention too, as if the above is not enough in displaying your incompetence to comment at all on such a passage! For nothing of that - or any other source Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi made use off and which you could not utilize at all - prove the point you desperately are trying to make. You do not know what Ikhtilaf is, nor the levels of Ikhtilaf, the types of Ikhtilaf and what is really evidence of it and what is not. It is as if someone opens a book on Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha, for example the small one of Imam al-Tabari, and concludes: the Muslims do not have a monolithic set of jurisprudence at all!

Had I more time, I would adress the contents in details. And on this forum - as elsewhere - these matters on Hadd, Istiwa' and their meanings, al-Nuzul etc. have already been adressed, even in the context of the Hanbalites alone. I will leave another to adress this, or else I will. I hope however that some ignorant people dont get confused by these idiotic comments some people make, in order to abrogate the Salaf's way for a Khalafi peripathetic path of pseudo-Aristotelians.. (so that's said).

wa-Salamu 'Alaikum.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

As-sallamu 'alaikum

jazakALLAHU Khairan brother Sharif, May ALLAH Ta'ala make your exam easy for you and may you contribute more here innsha'ALLAH.I for one enjoy your posts.


You posted here: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=1991

when we were discussing how these 'ash'arites try and put shubha upon the ghunya of al-jilani and you mentioned:



Tenth Saying is from Qadi Abu Ya'la b. al-Farra' (d.458):

The Qadi Abu Ya'la, rahimahullah, was the Imam of the Hanabilah in his time, and he was Qadi of Baghdad and the surrounding areas, as far as Harran in Syria, where he designated for instance the Imam Abu'l-Faraj al-Shirazi as substitute-qadi.

He's the author of many beneficial books, especially on Usul al-Din. Insha'Allah many saying of his will be brought in the future, incl. translations of substantial parts of his Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din and other works.

Only now, let me mention a particular quote of the Imam, who refuted the Ash'aris and others, in which I substantiate part of Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani's saying - and the affirmation and confirmation of his excelent book al-Ghunya.

I came across this saying of Qadi Abu Ya'la, and I found it very identical with the passage I quoted from al-Jilani. Let us remember first what Abd al-Qadir said:


QUOTE
"It is essential to carry the Attribute of al-Istiwa' (Allah’s Ascending) by His Essence over the Throne. Istiwa' does not mean sitting (qu'ud) and touching (mumassa), as the Mujassimah and Karramiyyah say, nor does it mean highness ('uluww) and elevation (rifa') as the Ash'ariyyah say; nor does it mean conquering (istila') or domination (ghalaba), as the Mu'' tazilah say. Nothing of this has been reported in the Law (shari'ah). Nor has this been related from any of the Salaf al-Salih, from the Companions and the Followers, or from the Ashab al-Hadith. Rather it is reported from them that they carried al-Istiwa' with its apparent meaning"

(Source: Abd al-Qadir al-Jili, Ghunya p. 50)



Now then, see what the Qadi says in his Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din:

"Allah has described Himself as 'established over the Throne' (20:5). It is essential to carry this Attribute without metaphorical interpretation.. not in the sense of sitting and touching, nor in the sense of height and elevation, nor in the sense of conquest and victory, contrary to what the Mu'tazilah have said, and contrary to the Asha'irah who say that it means highness by way of rank, position, majesty, and power; and contrary to the Karramiyyah and Mushabbihah that it means contact with the Throne by sitting on it. It is unlawful to understand it as sitting and touching, because no law has been revealed to that effect.. It only remains that this Attribute be understood in the absolute, free of qualification, as we did in the case of the Attributes of Hand, Face and Eye"

See: p. 44 of al-Mu'tamad, and other passages - his Mu'tamad is an summarized work originally called al-Mukhtasar al-Mu'tamad fi Usul al-Din, and it has been published since a few decades.

Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani was not ignorant of Qadi Abu Ya'la, nor any Hanbali after him. It is not overruled to say that al-Jilani made particular use of this text, i.e. al-Mukhtasar, or of its original, al-Mu'tamad, to write down the chapter on creed in his Ghunya. He may have taken this from Qadi Abu Ya'la al-Saghir, the grandson of Qadi Abu Ya'la - wa-Allahu A'lam.

What matters is:

Imam Abu Ya'la opposed the Ta'wil of the Ahl al-Bid'ah, and he opposes the Ta'wil of the Ash'ariyyah.

al-Jilani opposes them too, and in this he concur with the Hanbali grandmaster the Qadi, as they both concur with the Ahl al-Sunnah in general.

Would anyone still allege that al-Ghunya has been tampered with?

Wa-Billahi Tawfiq!

Ma'a Salam!

i think this would also be beneficial.

[Abuz Zubair]

JazakumAllahu Khayran brother Sharif Abu Ja'far for another excellent post...

But what new exactly is being presented here which was not presented before?

I had presented this information to the readers on al-Maghrib for nearly two years ago during my discussion with brother Shibli.

This is what brother Shibli had said:

Because there is a tendency amongst a certain group who are dominant here to want to say Allaah literally "sits" in a chair (wa-l `eeyaathu billaah). I wanted to avoid that controversy altogether and not get tied up on that since some are very passionate in believing Allaah literally "sits" in a chair (fa subhaan Allaah `ammaa yusifoon). That is the reason

I said to him in reply the following:

Strange indeed, I didn’t know people actually existed in our time who say ‘Istawa’ meaning ‘he sat’, I thought it was something of the old.

But whatever the case, in spite of it being a weak opinion, it is still one of the opinions amongst the Hanabilah. Al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la mentions in his Kitab al-Riwayatain wa al-Wajhain that his Sheikh Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Hamid as well as ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Warraq believed that Allah is sitting on the throne. This is because, the word ‘Istawa’ to them only means ‘Istaqarra’, meaning: settled, as the Arabs would say: Istawa ‘ala dhahri al-Dabbah, meaning: He settled (or mounted) on the back of the beast.

Do bear in mind that Ibn Hamid and ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Warraq are not just ordinary Hanbalis. While former is the Sheikh al-Hanabilah of his time, the last of the first Tabaqah of the Hanabilah, the latter is from the closest and the most respected followers and companions of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal – RadiAllahu ‘Anhu. When the Imam was asked, who should we refer to after you? He said: ‘Abdul-Wahhab al-Warraq, for he is righteous, and the likes of him are successful in attaining the truth.

In fact, even Sheikh Abu Zahrah in his book ‘Ibn Taymiyah’ (p. 220) accuses him of believing that Allah is sitting on the Throne (even though Ibn Taymiyah is free of that), because to Abu Zahrah, the literal meaning of ‘Istawa’ is nothing but (as he says): al-Iqti’ad, al-Julus, and al-Jismiyah (to be seated).

Even though the correct opinion is that ‘’ala al-‘Arsh Istawa’ means ‘He rose over His Throne’, the other opinion does not involve any Tashbih, just as Allah being over His Throne does not involve any Tashbih. The only problem with that opinion is that it lacks textual evidence. For if it was proven that ‘Istawa’ definitely means ‘istaqarra’, we would have no choice but to believe that, without Tashbih.


About less than a year ago I wrote in my refutation of apples and oranges:

8) As for the Qadhi that al-Saffarini is referring to, which the author of the rotten article could not determine who he was, then be certain, dear readers, that the term ‘al-Qadhi’ when used by the early and the middle Tabaqa of the Hanbalis, or in the Hanbali books of ‘Aqida, then it only refers to al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Farra, the Grand Sheikh, the undisputed authority and the champion of the Madhab of Imam Ahmad. In the Fiqh works of the latter Hanbalis, however, the term ‘al-Qadhi’ refers to al-Mardawi, the author of al-Insaf; but this, of course, only a genuine Hanbali will know!

9) al-Saffarini then quotes a number of Hanbali scholars, such as Ibn Hamdan, Ibn al-Banna, al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la and Ibn ‘Aqil, negating that Allah’s Descent necessitates movement (haraka) or relocation (intiqal), yet it does not necessarily mean, as the author suggests that al-Saffarini agrees with them. For he mentions the narration from Imam Ahmad himself, on page 261: ‘Imam Ahmad – may Allah be pleased with him – once heard a person narrating the Hadeeth of Descent and saying: He Descends without movement (haraka), relocation (intiqal), or change in state (taghayyur hal). Imam Ahmad reprimanded him over this and said: ‘Say as the Messenger of Allah – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam said it, for he is more jealous over his Lord than you!’ Therefore, if anyone al-Saffarini is more likely to tacitly agree with, is his own Imam, Ahmad b. Hanbal; that Allah is described as He described Himself, which means to affirm what He affirmed for Himself, and to negate what He negated from Himself, nothing more, nothing less.

10) al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la says in his mu’tamad (reliable) book in the Madhab, Kitab al-Riwayatayn wal-Wajhayn that the Hanbalis have agreed that Allah Descends every last third of the night, yet they differed with respect to the nature of this Descent. Some (such as his Sheikh Ibn Hamid) maintained that the Descent takes place with movement, while others simply hold on to the narration of Hanbal, that the Descent is actually His reward; while others literally affirm Allah’s Descent, yet refuse to affirm or negate movement from Allah, and that this is the Madhab, as reported in various narrations of Imam Ahmad; one of which al-Saffarini himself quoted in his Sharh as mentioned above. This is precisely the opinion of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim as stated in al-Sawa’iq.

Why do these brothers think that they are telling us something we didn't know, or that we are trying to hide?

And if, by this post, they mean that we should show tolerance to tafwid and ta'wil, then should we also show tolerance towards the belief that Allah is actually sitting on the throne, and in contact with it?

Just read the horrible comment by Ibn 'Aqil (may Allah forgive him) about Shaykh al-Hanabila Ibn Hamid:

This is the statement of a pious man who has no knowledge of what may be said of the Eternal, or what may be applied of this statement to God; had he known what this statement entails, he would not have affirmed it.

This is one of his attacks against the Salaf (http://www.hanbalis.com/index.php/%28book%29_The_Prohibition_of_Studying_Works_on_Sp eculative_Theology#.5BOn_Taqlid_in_beliefs.5D) for which his blood was fit to be shed, and from which he retracted.

This pious man, Ibn Hamid, was more aware of the Sunna and the madhab of Imam Ahmad, than Ibn 'Aqil who was nurtured on jahmi philosophy doctrines as indoctrinated into his brains by the two mu'tazila shaykhs: Ibn al-Tubban and Ibn al-Walid.

'had he known what this statement entails', and what exactly does it entail to attribute the word haraka (movement) to Allah?

What makes Ibn 'Aqil think that Ibn Hamid's definition of movement is how he understands movement to be?

Aristotelians categorised movement in three different ways, and Ibn Sina added further a forth category of movement, of which only ONE category actually involves vacating a place for another place, which the Jahmiyya like Ibn 'Aqil's Mu'tazili teachers are trying to flee from.

Lastly, why is it that those who are posting and propagating this would not say a word in my presence, but actually take advantage of my absence and on purpose endeavour to incite fitna? Is this, at all, the sign of one seeking the truth?

[Abu wakee]

Hummm JzakumAllahu khair. There was both benefit and words devoid of benefit in these posts.

What I don't understand is; why would a jahmi, ash'ari, heretic blah blah...would his blog link to Islamtoday and *gasp* Hanbalis.com?! Furthemore where's the explicit proof that he's an Ash'ari?

He might've just been a person who is learning and quoted something that he found interesting!

Whatever happened to 70 excuses?
Whatever happened to husn al-dhann?

For the umpteenth time, why don't you guys watch your tongues?

Mr. sharif, despite your knowledge which I respect I think you will benefit from reading this: http://islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=36&sub_cat_id=881

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

the problem is, not that he is an 'ash'ari etc, rather what is being probagated as being the positions of the hanabilah!

Even recently as I showed there are some people now "admitting" ibn qudamah was an "anthropomorthist" yet before the clarifications by brothers like abuz zubair, sharif, qadri etc on this forum,sunnipress,ahya, in, etc ibn qudamah was thought of as a mufawwid who supported the hanbalis who were deemed palatable to 'ash'aris.

Wa ALLAHU A'lam

[Abu wakee]

Humm I dont think he's promoting anything. I mean why don't you guys just chill out.

[qadri]

as salaamu 'alaikum.

For Hanbali creed see also this book:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/sunnipress/index.php?showtopic=146

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Humm I dont think he's promoting anything. I mean why don't you guys just chill out.


maybe read the context he is posting seeking ilm translations

[Abu wakee]

so what...?

[Abuz Zubair]

Abu Wakee,

Please be reasonable and if you have issues, be straight forward and forthright. I don't know if you are NeonKnight from IN forums, but this brother is responsible for initiating all the controversial threads on IN, stirring up the fitna every now and then, but each time I get involved, the brother becomes a spectator.

His comment on his blog has already spelt out that he has already taken sides, and he is not interested in understanding the issues objectively:

This quote touches upon a couple of important aspects of Creed. First of all, it establishes that even “Athariyah” differed in their understanding yet they all remaind upon “Athari” aqeedah. Secondly it is a beautiful summation of the Creed of Ahmad and those who followed him. Once again difference of opinion is Rahmah not a license to perform takfeer. BarakAllahufeekum
If a person really believes that next person has erred in his understanding, then please be forthright and correct the person concerned. But initiating fitna-threads, and then stepping out of it altogether when things get heated is hardly a behaviour of an upright Muslim.

This is the sort of fitna that has lead a person to become an apostate (Sas Jamal), and although he takes most of the responsibility for his apostasy, others who merely stir up fitna, without objectively looking for the truth or reach some sort of understanding, are also responsible for people going astray, and leaving Islam as in case of Sas.

Faith is no game. Deen is no joke.

[Abu wakee]

Akhee I don't think he's a knowledgeable person. Maybe he takes a sideline because he is trying to benefit?

[Abuz Zubair]

Well, if he is not knowledgeable, and is only trying to benefit, then why make bold claims and assertions, that are at the very least misleading and harmful? Indeed, why start up fitna threads to begin with, if not to actually push out certain misconceptions? People need to take responsibility for their actions, especially when other people's faith is at risk.

That is not to say that friendly discussions are not welcome and that we would not allow any debates. Far from it, as I am the only one here calling all these brothers for open and fair discussion.

But what naturally disgusts us all is their unwillingness to even have a honest discussion about these issues, since they have already made up their minds and decided to follow whoever they trust.

Whatever the case, knowledge, however little a person may have, it must be handed out with responsibility.

[Abd al Majeed]

If you're not Neon Knight from IN, then you surely ressemble him quite a bit. He also posts from Islamtoday, and he also seems to have posted that Jihad an-nafs article... the one you posted here.

Wallahu a'lam.