Tafwidh al Ma'ana Discussion Thread (also for links to old threads discussing this)..

[aboosafar]

As salamu 'alaykum,
I really am confused about this issue and I want to hear both sides of the story.

It's not easy to go through all the thread pertaining to this topic and would I really need is a consise, general explanation of both sides of the coin so I can see which position is strongest in accordance with the Quran and sunnah and, aqwal as sahabah and ijma' and in ambiguous aspects, which is most in accordance with logic (correct ijtihad) and then make a sound decision regarding it.

Anybody who can help please do.

I don't want to start this thread for debating, I just want a presentation of both sides like I said, including all the relevant information and I don't want to read articles of traditional sunni's presenting the salafi side or of salafi's presenting the traditional sunni side.

I want to have the traditional sunni's present their side with their evidence and the salafi's present their side with their evidence so I can make a sound decision insha'allah without any bias.

I will be posting this on the Islamic Awakening forum as well and I intend to do a thread similar to this on tawassul through the dead as these are the two issues that I see seperate the salafi's and traditional sunni's and I want to look at them both from a totally unbiased perspective, although I must admit that the issue of tawassul through the dead is much less confusing to me than this one but I haven't researched both sides on it so I want to see what the other side has to say insha'allah.

Please, I need knowledgable traditional sunni's and salafi's to participate in this thread and the one I intend to make on tawassul through the dead.

Allah yajzeekal khair.

P.S. please only link to old threads if there are any that clearly fit the above mentioned guidelines and that don't go into unnecassary arguing etc.

[justabro]

assalaamu alaykum

http://aqeedah.wordpress.com/202/

The link is completed devoted to Tawhid al-Asma was-Sifat according to the understanding of the Salaf and those who follow them. Most of it is taken from the writings and discussions of Abuz Zubayr and organized by another brother.

[Abuz Zubair]

It depends from which angle you want to discuss the topic.

Do you want to discuss the topic primarily on a rational basis, irrespective of who says what, and figure out yourself whether the idea of tafweedh is sound or absurd?

Or do you want to discuss whether or not Salaf made tafweedh, that is to negate the dhahir of the text?

What exactly are you confused about, and what exactly do you want to know?

[aboosafar]

Allah yajzeekal khair.

What I want to know is what is indicated by the texts of the kitab and sunnah, and then the ijma' of the salaf (if such a thing exists) regarding tafwidh.

I always just followed the narration of Imam Malik but now I've heard people who believe that tafwidh is correct say a lot of things that caused some confusion regarding whether I was understanding that narration correctly in assuming it was a radd on the mufawwidhah.

Now I'm unsure I understood that narration correctly but the easiest way would be to see if the issue is addressed clearly in kitab and sunnah and then if there is ijma' and then how the scholars explained it.

Then after that, it might be helpful to discuss some rational explanations insha'allah.

One thing I've been hearing has been that many attributes like the yad, could be open to more than one meaning linguistically, also the istawa has many meanings in the language.

Than, regarding the yad they say, if we go to the main meaning, that it is linguistially a body part and that Allah is far removed from having parts, but if we negate it being a body part, than we essentially are doing tafwidh by negating the linguistic definition.

Then I heard that yad just means kaf in the lughah, but that seems like a very vague definition that isn't much different then just doing tafwidh since it's a one word synonym in a nutshell which isn't very explanatory at all, wallahu a'lam. It's like saying qadm is rijl or something like that. It could either be taken vague, or it would indicate it being a body part linguistically other wise it has little if any meaning if we take that aspect away from it, wallahu ta'ala a'alam.

I appreciate your help akhi.

[Um Abdullah M.]

I will answer what I can and insha Allah I leave the rest to our brother Abu az Zubair -hafidhahu Allah- .



One thing I've been hearing has been that many attributes like the yad, could be open to more than one meaning linguistically, also the istawa has many meanings in the language.

The word "istawa" in the Arabic language has many meanings but to the Salaf it had specific meanings, here is what shaikh Ibn Uthaimin rahimahu Allah said regarding this in sharh al-Wasitiyah:

وأهل السنة والجماعة يؤمنون بأن الله تعالى مستوى على عرشه استواء يليق بجلاله ولا يماثل استواء المخلوقين.
فإن سألت: ما معنى الاستواء عندهم؟ فمعناه العلو والاستقرار.
وقد ورد عن السلف في تفسيره أربعة معاني: الأول: علا، والثاني: ارتفع، والثالث: صعد. والرابع: استقر.
لكن (علا) و (ارتفع) و (صعد) معناها واحد، وأما (استقر)، فهو يختلف عنها.
ودليلهم في ذلك: أنها في جميع مواردها في اللغة العربية لم تأت إلا لهذا المعنى إذا كانت متعدية بـ(على):
قال الله تعالى: { فإذا استويت أنت ومن معك على الفلك } [المؤمنون: 28].
وقال تعالى: { وجعل لكم من الفلك والأنعام ما تركبون (12) لتستووا على ظهوره ثم تذكروا نعمة ربكم إذا استويتم عليه } [الزخرف: 12-13].

Then I heard that yad just means kaf in the lughah, but that seems like a very vague definition that isn't much different then just doing tafwidh since it's a one word synonym in a nutshell which isn't very explanatory at all, wallahu a'lam. It's like saying qadm is rijl or something like that. It could either be taken vague, or it would indicate it being a body part linguistically other wise it has little if any meaning if we take that aspect away from it, wallahu ta'ala a'alam.

First of all tafwid is to leave the meaning to Allah 'azza wa jal, meaning that you do NOT know the meaning of it at all, u leave it to Allah 'azza wa jal, so u dont' say it means kaf or anything else.
As for it not being (explanatory at all), it is not supposed to be giving any details\description (a detailed definition) which would mean going into the kayf (الخوض في المعنى), becaue the kayf tells the description\details of the meaning >> how it is.

I hope I clearified the issue for you.

[justabro]

assalamu alaykum

this is a link for the notes from Sh. Yasir Qadhi's class on Tawhid al-Asma was-Sifat. This is an outline of the topics covered in these notes:

http://lotaenterprises.wordpress.com/aqeedah-2-light-upon-light/

Of particular interest to you will be the following links:

http://lotaenterprises.wordpress.com/2006/07/20/understanding-allahs-names-and-attributes-rule-5/

http://lotaenterprises.wordpress.com/2006/07/29/tafwid-and-its-dangers/

http://lotaenterprises.wordpress.com/2006/07/29/affirming-the-lucid-and-clear-language-of-the-divine-texts/

Concerning the Understanding of Allah's Istiwa and Uluww in the Qur'an, the Sunnah, Statements of the Salaf, and Other Scholars:

http://lotaenterprises.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/the-attribute-of-istiwaa/

http://lotaenterprises.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/allah-is-above-the-throne-quran/

http://lotaenterprises.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/80/

http://lotaenterprises.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/allah-is-above-the-throne-from-the-sahabah-and-madhhabs/

http://lotaenterprises.wordpress.com/2006/07/31/allah-is-above-the-throne-from-the-scholars/

[Um Abdullah M.]

akhi aboosafar

you must know that Ash'aris tafweed includes rejecting the appearant\literal meaning of the attribute.
so they don't just say "Allah knows what it means", they say "the literal meaning is NOT meant, and Allah knows its meaning"... so they did put their opinion in this issue.

why do they reject the literal meaning completely before doing tafwid to it?
because their logic rejects that, it can not comprehend Allah having attributes found in the creation, thus limiting Allah to their minds and logic.

if their logic or mind can not comprehend it/rejects it then they reject it.
which is basically what jahmiyyah and mu'tazila did when they deviated in this issue, except that jahmiyyah negated all of the sifat because of that, and mu'tazila did ta'wil to it, and ash'aris confirmed a small number of them (their meaning) while doing tafwid to the rest, and many in past did ta'wil but believed it is not a must to do ta'wil and they believe that tafwid is best and safest.

also, they don't believe Allah is above His throne, they don't believe Allah is above His creation, nor do they believe that He is separate from His creation.
They believe that Allah is NOT in His creation, NOR is He outside His creation.

for the issue of istiwa I will be posting a thread on that insha Allah, when I do I will post the link here insha Allah.

[Abuz Zubair]

What I want to know is what is indicated by the texts of the kitab and sunnah, and then the ijma' of the salaf (if such a thing exists) regarding tafwidh.

Dear brother, have you come across this quote by al-Dhahabi:

“The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the literal meaning is not intended (dhahiruha ghayr murad).’

This follows that the literal meaning (dhahir) could mean two things:

First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text (dilalat al-khitab), as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes.

Second; that the literal meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness”

What do you have to say about this quote?

Do you believe al-Dhahabi is right or wrong in this?

[Um Abdullah M.]

adh-Dhahabi's quote in Arabic:

المتأخرون من أهل النظر قالوا مقالة مولدة ما علمت أحدا سبقهم بها
قالوا هذه الصفات تمر كما جاءت ولا تأول مع إعتقاد أن ظاهرها غير مراد
فتفرع من هذا أن الظاهر يعني به أمران أحدهما أنه لا تأويل لها غير دلالة الخطاب كما قال السلف الإستواء معلوم
وكما قال سفيان وغيره قراءتها تفسيرها
يعني أنها بينة واضحة في اللغة لا يبتغى بها مضائق التأويل والتحريف
وهذا هو مذهب السلف مع إتفاقهم أيضا أنها لا تشبه صفات البشر بوجه إذ الباري لا مثل له لا في ذاته ولا في صفاته
الثاني أن ظاهرها هو الذي يتشكل في الخيال من الصفة كما يتشكل في الذهن من وصف البشر فهذا غير مراد
فإن الله تعالى فرد صمد ليس له نظير وإن تعددت صفاته فإنها حق

It is in his book
العلو

[aboosafar]

I agree with that quote and it's what seems strongest to me, as I'm still athari in 'aqidah, but after seeing all the arguments they make in support of their views (the asha'irah) and a quote of ibn Hajr about the different ways of interpreting the sifat (six paths) I think it is a kind of ikhtilaf of variety rather then opposing the sunnah, kind of like the madhahib in fiqh, wallahu a'lam.

I also heard on sunniforum they said that Imam adh Dhahabi changed some of his opinions at other stages in his life and even wrote a sort of disclaimer on his book "al 'Uluw lil 'Aliyil Ghaffar" saying that he no longer holds to some of the beliefs contained in it.

Do you know anything about that?

But anyway, I'm still athari in 'aqidah, I just don't consider asha'irah outside of ahlus sunnah because it appears they have evidences in support of their views and it's a valid matter of ikhtilaf, wallahu a'alam. I'm not calling anyone to any of these opinions or making wala' and bara' around them, I'm just being more open minded about certain issues like some of the scholars of the past were.

I appreciate your help and the beneficial quote, Allah yajzeekal khair.

Ma'as salamah,
Yousef Abus Safar

[Um Abdullah M.]

I agree with that quote and it's what seems strongest to me, as I'm still athari in 'aqidah, but after seeing all the arguments they make in support of their views (the asha'irah) and a quote of ibn Hajr about the different ways of interpreting the sifat (six paths) I think it is a kind of ikhtilaf of variety rather then opposing the sunnah, kind of like the madhahib in fiqh, wallahu a'lam.
akhi, first of all, the aqeedah of the Salaf was one, not many.
even Ash'ari scholars say that the Salaf didn't do ta'wil and they believed in the attributes like they came.
none of them said that the righteous Salaf differed in this issue.
not Ash'aris or the atharis say such a thing.

secondly: that was not the saying of Imam Ibn Hajar rahimahu Allah himself, Ibn Hajar was quoting what some people have divided the opinions of different groups regarding this issue into 6 opinions, if u check some of them you will know that those paths are totally false.

Here is the text in fath al-Bari in Arabic:
وَقَسَّمَ بَعْضهمْ أَقْوَال النَّاس فِي هَذَا الْبَاب إِلَى سِتَّة أَقْوَال
قَوْلَانِ لِمَنْ يُجْرِيهَا عَلَى ظَاهِرِهَا أَحَدهمَا مَنْ يَعْتَقِد أَنَّهَا مِنْ جِنْس صِفَات الْمَخْلُوقِينَ وَهُمْ الْمُشَبِّهَة وَيَتَفَرَّع مِنْ قَوْلهمْ عِدَّة آرَاء ، وَالثَّانِي مَنْ يَنْفِي عَنْهَا شَبَه صِفَة الْمَخْلُوقِينَ ؛ لِأَنَّ ذَات اللَّه لَا تُشْبِه الذَّوَات فَصِفَاته لَا تُشْبِه الصِّفَات فَإِنَّ صِفَات كُلّ مَوْصُوف تُنَاسِب ذَاته وَتُلَائِم حَقِيقَته ، وَقَوْلَانِ لِمَنْ يُثْبِت كَوْنهَا صِفَة وَلَكِنْ لَا يُجْرِيهَا عَلَى ظَاهِرِهَا ، أَحَدهمَا يَقُول لَا نُؤَوِّل شَيْئًا مِنْهَا بَلْ نَقُول اللَّه أَعْلَم بِمُرَادِهِ ، وَالْآخَر يُؤَوِّل فَيَقُول مَثَلًا مَعْنَى الِاسْتِوَاء الِاسْتِيلَاء ، وَالْيَد الْقُدْرَة وَنَحْو ذَلِكَ ، وَقَوْلَانِ لِمَنْ لَا يَجْزِم بِأَنَّهَا صِفَة أَحَدهمَا يَقُول يَجُوز أَنْ تَكُون صِفَة وَظَاهِرهَا غَيْر مُرَاد ، وَيَجُوز أَنْ لَا تَكُون صِفَة ، وَالْآخَر يَقُول لَا يُخَاض فِي شَيْء مِنْ هَذَا بَلْ يَجِب الْإِيمَان بِهِ ؛ لِأَنَّهُ مِنْ الْمُتَشَابِه الَّذِي لَا يُدْرَك مَعْنَاهُ .

if u look at some of the opinions, they are definitly deviant with no doubt.

[Abuz Zubair]

I also heard on sunniforum they said that Imam adh Dhahabi changed some of his opinions at other stages in his life and even wrote a sort of disclaimer on his book "al 'Uluw lil 'Aliyil Ghaffar" saying that he no longer holds to some of the beliefs contained in it.

Do you know anything about that?

Old news, I had responded to that long time ago. And for the record, there is not an argument thee brothers bring forth, except that we have refuted it 10 times over and 10 different ways, al-Hamdulillah. So it would be rare if you bring something which hasn't already been responded to. So do feel free to ask if you have any doubts about anything, I am sure other members will be able to direct you to the right threads if I am busy.

But here are my comments on al-Dhahabi's supposed retractation of his own book:

Haddad’s comments are his own wishful thinking.

Here is a breakdown of what al-Dhahabi states:

1) This book contains many weak Hadeeth, which is true and hence the Mukhtasar of al-Uluw by al-Albani with only authentic narrations.

2) This book contains many unfounded statements by some scholars, which is why al-Dhahabi – in this very book – negatively comments on some of those statements, such as the usage of the term ‘bi dhatihi’, even if he agrees with the meaning.

3) Hence, his regret is only over i) weak ahadeeth, and ii) some unfounded comments by some scholars. Take note: he does NOT repent from any of his own comments! Meaning, his own words represent his true belief.

This cannot be, remotely considered repentance from his creed, as GF Haddad would like to claim. Moreover, if al-Dhahabi had repented, al-Subki wouldn’t have singled him out with his violent attack. For if al-Subki knew of al-Dhahabi’s so-called repentance (his own Shaykh!), he would have innovated a third ‘Eid in Islam!

Therefore, what I actually quoted above are al-Dhahabi’s own words, which he did not recant. What did al-Dhahabi say?

He said, Dhahir could refer to two things:

i) The actual linguistic meaning of the word, which is what the Salaf affirmed.

ii) An image that may be formed in our minds of human attributes, which the Salaf negated.

These are the view he never recanted. Fact. Learn it and accept it.

Another view of al-Dhahabi at the end of his book, which he never recanted:

al-Dhahabi says: "Then you (the Ash'aris) say: He is not inside the world, nor outside of it, nor above the Throne, nor beneath it, nor is He in the heavens. If this is something you can comprehend, then by Allah, we cannot comprehend this! However, if such negation was stated in religious texts, we would have believed therein and followed it. Rather, when the texts have affirmed that Allah is above the Throne, and that He is in the heavens, and so on, we also say the same, believing therein, and following the textual proofs."

These are al-Dhahabi's own words, which he never retracted. Fact. Learn it and accept it.

But anyway, I'm still athari in 'aqidah, I just don't consider asha'irah outside of ahlus sunnah because it appears they have evidences in support of their views and it's a valid matter of ikhtilaf, wallahu a'alam. I'm not calling anyone to any of these opinions or making wala' and bara' around them, I'm just being more open minded about certain issues like some of the scholars of the past were.

A sect that believes that the Quran is created, could it be regarded as a Sunni sect or a heretical sect? In other words, those who say that the Quran is created, can they be Sunnis?

[Um Abdullah M.]

I also heard on sunniforum they said that Imam adh Dhahabi changed some of his opinions at other stages in his life and even wrote a sort of disclaimer on his book "al 'Uluw lil 'Aliyil Ghaffar" saying that he no longer holds to some of the beliefs contained in it.

Do you know anything about that?

It is answered here:
http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showpost.php?p=120192&postcount=1

But anyway, I'm still athari in 'aqidah, I just don't consider asha'irah outside of ahlus sunnah

They consider you out of ahl assunnah because ur aqeedah is ash'ari\maturidi, and they believe we are ahl bid'ah and not from ahl assunnah.
u can see them labeling us as "wahhabis" all the time, and saying we are not ahl assunnah.

ahl assunnah have the beliefs of as-Salaf, and the salaf didn't differe in this issue, they held one belief.
so u can't say it is a matter of ikhtilaf.
this is not fiqh, this is aqeedah.

[aboosafar]

As salamu 'alaykum,
Ya Ustadh, Allah yajzeekal khairan for the clarifications.

I had been wavering quite a bit but the issue seems very clear now.

If I have any other confusion I will come to you again.

One thing, on a different topic, is that they say of tawassul was a fiqh issue, not an 'aqidah issue, but did the scholars of the past consider istighathah with the dead an 'aqidah issue and if not, why not (I think I may know the answer but I don't want to go off assumptions).

And thanks for the info on ijazah, that was very helpful. I hope I can find Shaykh 'Abdul Fattah's book on the topic somewhere as well in the future because I always like to read things in the original arabic too. If you know where they sell it in the states, please let me know.

[Um Abdullah M.]

akhi aboosafar
the issue of tawassul has to do with both fiqh and aqeedah.

if it touches issues of belief (creed) like tawhid, Iman ..etc.
then it does have to do with aqeedah
like tawassul by doing duaa directly to the dead, believing they answer their duas and grant them what they asked, this touches the tawheed of a person, he has made ibadah (dua) to someone other than Allah, so he negated his tawhid = shirk.

so is this kind of tawassul a fiqh issue or aqeedah issue?

maybe brother Abuz Zubair can add more to the topic.

[aboosafar]

Allah yajzeekal khair ukhti.

I was also wondering about the claim some people make about a narration from Kitab at Tawhid as well as Taqwiyatul Iman that states that towards the end of time this ummah would return to idol worship, or something like that.

Some claim that Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul Wahham took this out of context and Shah Isma'il Shahid followed him in that, and that this narration is referring to after the souls of all the believers have been taken and not referring to muslims practicing idol worship.

They mentioned, I believe, Imam an Nawawi as having explained it this way and perhaps other than him.

They use this apparent misuse, or misintrepretation of this hadith to call into question the knowledge of Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul Wahhab as well as Shah Isma'il Shahid.

I need clarity on this as well.

[Abuz Zubair]

I had been wavering quite a bit but the issue seems very clear now.

Sorry, I was actually referring to the question I posed in the post:

A sect that believes that the Quran is created, could it be regarded as a Sunni sect or a heretical sect? In other words, those who say that the Quran is created, can they be Sunnis?

Is this what you were referring to that seems very clear to you? Or is it something else?

With respect to tawassul what sister Asma has said is correct.

The blameworthy Tawassul is of two types: i) Bida'i and ii) Shirki.

the Shirki tawassul is clearly an 'aqida issue. That is for someone to pray to the dead.

The bida'i tawassul is in and of itself a fiqhi issue, but since it leads to Shirk, as we have clearly seen in our day and age, and even before, then it is surely by extension an 'aqida issue.

[aboosafar]

Ok, as for the question, I didn't even know that ash'ari's believed the Qur'an was created.

I couldn't really tell what they were trying to say from what I had read from them but it sounded like it could have been indicating that they believed the meaning is from Allah and the words are created, but I tried to give them husn adh dhann and assume that wasn't what it meant.

If they believe that, then the issue is even clearer, but could you show me some of their statements from their books that clearly show they held that belief?

The little amount I've read from them on the topic seemed somewhat allegorical so I tried to just give them husn adh dhann, wallahu a'alam.

[abu hafs]

This should be of help ,
The Issue of the Qur’an Being Created

Ash’aris Believe the Qur’an is Created and ibn Qudama’s Refutation of Them (http://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/09/01/asharis-believe-quran-is-created-and-ibn-qudamas-refutation/)
Ash’aris/Maturidis - Is the Quran Speech or Meaning? (http://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/09/13/asharismaturidis-is-the-quran-speech-or-meaning/)
Ash’ari Textbooks - Qur’an is Created (http://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/09/21/ashari-textbooks-quran-is-created/)
Maturidis Believe the Quran is Created (http://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/10/15/maturidis-believe-the-quran-is-created/) these are orginally written by Abuz Zubair and Sharif Abu Jafar of sunnipress

[abu hafs]

About Shirk in the Ummah , Its a response to someone so the style is polemical , please try to bear with it.
http://almijhar.net/la_shirk.htm

[Um Abdullah M.]

what I understood is that Ash'aris say that Kalam of Allah is not created
but say that the words in the mushaf are created right? (not talking about the ink and paper, I mean the words like "qul huwwallahu ahad")
meaning the quran in the mushaf is created
and that the words in mushaf are hikayah حكاية 'an Allah- hikayah of what He said (translation in English??)

correct me if I am wrong

and we ahl assunnah believe that kalam Allah and the Quran in the mushaf is not created, but our recitation of it and the paper and ink are created.
but the words themselves are not, because they are the words of Allah, and that it is not hikayah 'an Allah, for it is what Allah said, His exact words that He sent down to Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam through Jibreel 'alayhi assalam.

correct?

[Abuz Zubair]

Absolutely...

What it boils down to is that the Ash'aris and the Mu'tazilis both agree that the Quran is created. This was the essence of debate at the time of Imam Ahmad, and not whether or not Allah has an attribute subsisting in Him called Kalam.

It was all about THE QURAN, being the KALAM ALLAH, which is GHAYR MAKHLUQ.

But the most simplest questions to ask an Ash'ari heretic is the following:

Who said Alif-Laam-Meem?

and if you have cameras and lighting on, it is even better.