Are Hanbalis and Salafis the same? [Archive]

View Full Version : Are Hanbalis and Salafis the same?

imran30

27th April 2006, 09:02 AM

salam Abu Zubayr,

Please have a look at this thread http://talk.islamicnetwork.com/showthread.php?t=8403

Some brothers claim Ibn Taimiah (or Salafi) aqeeda is different from Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal. Is this true?

Abuz Zubair

27th April 2006, 08:28 PM

As-Salaamu ‘alaikum, 

To my knowledge, no Hanbali authority has ever made such claim, that Ibn Taymiyya departed from the doctrine of Imam Ahmad in the slightest way. 

After all, there are tens and tens of books written on biographies of Hanbali scholars (books of tabaqat and tarajim), and although, I don’t claim to have access to them all, let alone to have read them all, I can confidently challenge anyone to bring me something from a recognised Hanbali source which espoused such claim. 

For if there was a slight mention of such claim in one of the books of Hanabilah, there may be some room for an academic discussion. Claims from the anonymous and self-style ‘Hanbali experts’ in the internet world carry not weight and thus should not be entertained. 

I remember having a discussion with a brother over this issue who claimed that Ibn Taymiyya was some how guilty of ta’wil, whereas the Hanbalis have always had a ‘hands-off’ approach. This claim alone blew me apart, as it would anyone who is slightly familiar with Ibn Taymiyya’s antagonism towards ta’wil and his stance on majaz (allegory) in the Quran. It later turned out that the brother hadn’t a clue what ta’wil meant, after which I realised, that perhaps, I am not conversing with a ‘Hanbali expert’ after all! 

Moreover, the brother was arguing how Ibn Qudama’s lum’at al-I’tiqad is not meant to have any Sharh, yet, during course of our discussion, he couldn’t even translate or even understand the text of lum’ah properly. That’s when I realised that the person has very little knowledge about the Madhab, but has no qualms about feigning Hanbalism, like: ‘Hi, I am a professional Hanbali and here is my card, please ask me your questions’, who managed to (I believe unintentionally) dupe many gullible youngsters into thinking that he is a reference point on Hanbali Madhab in the West. 

Therefore, only someone like the brother mentioned, is expected to come up with a far-fetched and unprecedented claim that Ibn Taymiyya, ‘departed’ from the Aqida of Imam Ahmad in some issues. Otherwise, my challenge is still open to the brother, or his blind followers to quote to me from one recognised Hanbali source backing their claim. I am not saying there isn’t any proof for their claim, but I am saying it is yet to be seen. 

If the origin of this claim is the self-styled anonymous ‘Hanbali experts’ on the internet, then the claim is not even worth looking into. For anyone can make a claim, and as the Prophet SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam said: لو يعطى الناس بدعواهم لادعى رجال أموال قوم ودماءهم ولكن البينة على المدعي 

‘If people were to be given what they claim (without proving their claim), people would have made claims over other people’s lives and property. However, the burden of proof is upon the claimant.’ 

If someone is still confused and doesn’t know who to trust, and who to believe, then my advice is that he should begin his long path of seeking knowledge by learning Adab, morals and ethics, by accompanying the scholars to learn from them manners first before knowledge. When that instils in one’s heart, Allah’s love and fear, a sense of humility and love for obscurity and dislike of fame, coupled with a dislike for issuing one's opinions and verdicts, perhaps then one can begin to learn knowledge by studying a basic book of Fiqh, cover-to-cover with comprehension under a reliable teacher. If then, one develops more interest in the Madhab, he can read the books of tarajim and tabaqat (bios of Hanbalis), and more advance books of Fiqh, books on Usul, etc, and then everything will fall into place. Surely, then, one will easily be able to discern who is fake and who is not. 

wasalam

Abuz Zubair

28th April 2006, 05:15 AM

Just as there was an attempt on part of the Ash’ari movement to obtain legitimacy by infiltrating the Shafi’i Madhab, or on part of the Mu’tazili movement by infiltrating the Hanafi Madhab; there is a new attempt on their part today to obtain further legitimacy by infiltrating the last bastion, the Hanbali Madhab.

For example, the so-called ‘Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali’ who deliberately pretends to be a Hanbali, but when one reads his writings, it becomes clear that the guy is simply making up most of his information. Of course, his tricks work on the sincere people in the West because they are not knowledgably apt enough to be able to discern whether what he is saying is true or not.

For example, someone emailed me his comments about the Hanbali Aqida recently where he claims that Ibn al-Jawzi’s books on creed are in fact reliable in the Madhab (again, another baseless claim), and that his book Sayd al-Khatir is a reliable book on creed! Whereas Sayd al-Khatir is not at all a book on creed, it is as the title suggests, a collection of Ibn al-Jawzi’s random thoughts about whatever. What probably happened, is that he read some authors quote Ibn al-Jawzi’s anti-Hanbali rants, referenced to Sayd al-Khatir; he then thought perhaps Sayd al-Khatir is a book on creed!

This is just one example of his pseudo ‘expertise’ in the Hanbali madhab, and it also shows to what lengths these people will go in their hatred, that they will stoop to such disgusting levels, bordering with nifaq; as it also clearly shows their deliberate attempt to infiltrate the Hanbali Madhab.

imran30

28th April 2006, 08:54 AM

may Allah give you reward akh. y dont you register with talk.islamicnetwork.com and benefit us all?

are you the owner of hanbalis.com website? someone was complaining that it is editable by anyone and someone has changed your article on Imam Ahmad.

Once again, I thank you.

asharee_salafi

28th April 2006, 02:25 PM

Assalaamulekum wr wb.

Jazak Allahu Khairun for your beneficial replies Brother Abu Zubair,

Your right about your comments. About the taw'eel and Ibn Taymiyyah issue, I came across a similar argument from Imam Murad ( hizb ut tahrir ) in his book ark of salvation,

He tries to argue that Ibn taymiyyah said that when we see Allah on Qiyamah that this is refering to "the pleasure" as a remember.

But this is wrong because when Ibn taymiyyah says that he does not mean that it is metaphorical in place of pleasure, as the Ulema have said that the greatest pleasure is indeed seeing Allah on Qiyamah!

On a similar note I see what you mean by taweel, as to what I understand , taweel means explanation rather then allegorical meanings.

So Indeed we do ask for the taweel of certain ayats, and teh only taweel we do is of tafsir, not the taweel of tahreef, am I right?

Thanks WS

asharee_salafi

28th April 2006, 03:59 PM

http://www.lamppostproductions.org/articles_abdullah_bin_hamid_ali.shtml

While your attention is caught, I thought you may want to read this article as it addresses what you wrote. It done by some asharees, its fairly complicated.

I think they hint here that the Quram is created.

WS

Abuz Zubair

28th April 2006, 05:56 PM

As-Salaamu ‘alaikum…

Jk for the URL. alHamdulillah, it seems I have extensively responded to many of the points raised by the article ‘The Speech and Word of Allah’ in my discussions with you on these forums? (correct me if I am wrong)

Btw, did you notice the quote from al-Bayjuri:

it is still only permitted to say “The Qur’an is emergent (or created)” in a classroom setting

Didn’t I say they are hidden Mu’tazila?

The rest of the article is full of contradictions that reach comic proportions. Apart from that, the problem with the author is, as I have previously stated numerous times: not every thing Muhdath (anew) is necessarily created.

Anyway, he says in his conclusion:

So it becomes clear that the true position of the Salaf was to limit themselves to saying, ‘The Qur’an is Allah’s word uncreated.’ As for stating that they are composed of letters and sounds or not, this was a later development in Islamic history. So it is sufficient for one to limit his/her statements to the same that the Salaf limited themselves to

Deal with this:

‘Abd Allah said: I asked my father about a people who say: When Allah spoke to Musa, He did not speak with a sound. My father [Ahmad} replied: In fact, your Lord spoke with a sound, for we narrate these Ahadeeth as they have reached us.

[Abdullah says] My father said: the Jahmiyya deny this fact. (al-Sunnah 70-271)

Or deal with this:

Abu Ya’la said: Imam Ahmad explicitly stated in narrations collected by a group of his students that Allah speaks with a sound (Ibtal al-Ta’wilat)

Moreover, the author does not quote a single person from the Salaf who claimed that Allah speaks without sound or letters. All he quoted was their censure of those who believe that our voices, when we recite the Quran, are eternal and not created; something we have no qualms about. How can we deny this, when we say that our actions are Allah’s creation, and our speech, which includes sounds and letters, are from our actions and therefore created?

What he needs to answer is this fundamental question:

That which is recited, which consists of letters and meaning, is it the speech of Allah or not?

Mostly likely he would reply: The meaning is the speech of Allah, and not the letters.

To which we would say: If only the meaning is the speech of Allah, then no matter what letters one recites and how he recites, he will still be reciting the speech of Allah.

For example: If one recites: al-Rahman Fawq al-‘Arsh istawa; then that should still be considered the speech of Allah, because the speech to the Ash’aris is just the meaning, and the meaning here remains intact, even if the words change. Or would the Ash’aris confess that Allah’s speech is in fact the meaning AND the letters?

Anyway, let's leave this thread for Hanbali/Salafi discussion, shall we? You can create another thread on the topic if you like.

Abu wakee

28th April 2006, 09:25 PM

aslamu alaikum wa rahmatallah

this is indeed an interesting topic

brother abuz zubair******* i would like to know about your opinion on the claims of mufawidheen; like there are some "hanbalis" who beleive heavily in tafweedh.******* How are we to answer them?

barakAllahu feek************** ************** ************** **************

Abuz Zubair

29th April 2006, 09:46 AM

‘alaikum as-salaam wrt wbk,

Generally speaking, there have been a number of Hanbali scholars who have leaned towards tafweedh; yet, it would be unjust to call them pure mufawwidha, because they very often contradict themselves by affirming the dhahir – the obvious and apparent meaning – of the text.

Take al-Saffarini, for example, on page 95 of the 1st volume of Lawami’, where he claims that all the legal texts that give the impression of anthropomorphism, are from the mutashabih, the meaning of which we do not know. (Lawami’ 1/95)

However, on page 111 he admits that the reason ‘ilm al-kalam was censured by the early Imams was because it was based on falsafa, ta’wil and changing the meanings of Quranic text from their obvious implications (dhahir); meaning, he deems incorrect to reject the dhahir of the texts and considers it heresy. (Lawami’ 1/111)

On page 116 he says that those who deviated from the path of the Salaf are of three types: i) Ahl al-Takhyil, free-thinkers like the philosophers; ii) Ahl al-Ta’wil who negate the literal meaning (dhahir) of the texts giving them a different meaning, and iii) Ahl al-Tajhil, those who live in a state of denial by refusing to accept the dhahir of these texts, i.e. the Mufawwidha; and then goes onto quote Ibn Taymiyya from his famous al-Hamawiyya that the Salaf made tafwidh of kayf (nature thereof) and not the literal meaning (dhahir). Here, he is definitely a muthbit and not a mufawwidh.

On specific attributes of Allah, we see him clearly making ithbat of the literal meaning, and has no qualms about affirming a direction for Allah, and to the end, he quotes from ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani, and defends Ibn Taymiyya on this issue.

So what is the end conclusion? There are two possible conclusions we can derive about such Hanbalis:

a) They are contradictory by professing tafwidh at times and making ithbat of the dhahir at times

OR

b) By tafweedh they mean the tafweedh of kayf, and not the tafweedh of the dhahir, which means in reality they are not at all mufawwidha, and that is why they do not find any problems whatsoever with the writings of Ibn Taymiyya.

Another point to note is that the so-called ‘mufawwidha’ of the Hanbalis made contradictory statements because they believed in some of the kalami principles without ever questioning them.

For example, al-Saffarini, and other Hanbalis before and after Ibn Taymiyya went at lengths in negating jawhar (atom) and ‘arad (accidents) from Allah, which is essentially the bedrock of the jahmi-ash’ari philosophy, which they borrowed in-bulk from Aristotle. Because they negated accidents from Allah on one hand, yet affirmed that Allah descends and speaks when He likes on the other hand, they could not but notice clear contradiction between the texts and the jahmite rationale.

This lead them to either make tafweedh, while saying: we must believe in the dhahir of the texts (another contradiction); or ta’wil in some of the sifat, as was the case with Ibn ‘Aqil and Ibn al-Jawzi, where the latter was merely a blind follower of the former.

Yet, the position of Imam Ahmad was never to acknowledge terms like jawhar and ‘aradh, and never to subscribe to, or give legitimacy to the Aristotelian view of the reality and categorisation, and hence, to him there was no case of contradiction between the texts and the so-called Aristotelian rationale, because he simply didn’t subscribe to it.

The same was the case with Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qudama and the bulk of Hanbalis, which is why Ibn Taymiyya is often quoted saying: terms like jawhar and ‘aradh are newly invented terms, that do not exist in the Quran and Sunnah, and thus, cannot be attributed to, or negated from Allah.

wasalam

Abu wakee

29th April 2006, 12:56 PM

aslamu alaikum some people translate words of ibn qudammah from lumat ul i'itiqad as such:

"...whatever of [these reports that we find] difficult to [comprehend] it is required to affirm its wording (ithbaatu lafth) and to forsake delving into its meaning..."

So, from this translation we get the impression that ibn qudammah was in favor of tafweedh?

Can you please comment, if possible with some detail, I would be indebted.******* BarakAllahufeek

wssalamu aalaikum************** **************

asharee_salafi

29th April 2006, 04:04 PM

Dear Brother Abu Zubair,

Assalaamulekum,

Yes you dealt with this in great depth already, I just thought you might like the link, I see what you mean in your refutation, they have totally dodged the issue.

By the way,

Its really praiseworthy what you are doing in relation to the hanbali madhab, you should set a site up especially for hanbali fiqh and aqeedah. Although this site shouldn't be like all the other Salafi sites we see.

Your right about the Hanbali aqeedah trying to be hijacked by the asharees, its strange you bring it up because at the time of Ibn Taymiyyah, the accused his posistion to be within the fold of *hanbali* doctrine. But Ibn Taymiyyah refused this as he said that it is the posistion if the SALAF. Period.

Also its good how you have not used the defunct title of "Salafi".

I spoke to one da'i from www.islaam.net (http://www.islaam.net) and he told me that we should not be running away from terms like "ahl sunnah wal jammah"******* as it rightly belongs to US not them.

We should not be running away from the title of "sunni" and neither should be*******be running away from the madhab to which our sheikhs are following.

After all, we truely represent the Imams of those madhabs. So why call ourselves salafees and bring out of this minhaj business. This title has backfired upon the Sunnis who thought it was a good idea to use this title as it puts us in a corner .

I have seen how you have also phrased you sentences, using the term "Hanbali" or "Sunni" and in your madhab article you have used a vast array of Ulema other then the usual ibn Taymiyyah and ibn Qayim,

I think also that we have put ourselves in a tight corner when many Sunni ulema just repetitively use ibn qiyam and ibn taymiyah, its as almost as if they were the only two*******Imam's on the planet. Its also poor research for the*******da'i that just sticks to these two Imams, esteemed as they are.*******

And Allah knows best

My two cents ;)

*******

*******

Abuz Zubair

30th April 2006, 10:39 AM

As-salaamu ‘alaikum dear brother Abu Wakee,

If one were to look at the quote you pasted alone, it would give the impression that Ibn Qudama is a Mufawwidh, and indeed, some scholars have opined that.

However, upon reading the rest of his statements in Lum’at al-I’tiqad, as well as his other books in theology, it is clearly noticed that he affirms the dhahir of the texts, and therefore, by the term tafwidh, he means tafwidh of the kayf and not negation the dhahir.

The following examples will prove beyond doubt that Ibn Qudama affirmed the dhahir, and he was not a mufawwidh.

1) Ibn Qudama says in Lum’at al-I’tiqad: ‘From the verses that have come in relation to Allah’s attributes is the saying of Allah, ‘the Face of your Lord…’, and His saying, ‘Rather His two Hands are outstretched’. He then mentions a number of verses affirming a self for Allah, His Coming, His Pleasure, His Love, His Anger and Dislike. He then mentions the Hadeeth about Allah’s descent every night, His Amazement, and His Laugh, and considering it all from His Attributes. He then says:فهذا وما أشبهه مما صح سنده وعدلت رواته نؤمن به ولا نرده ولا نجحده ولا نتأوله بتأويل يخالف ظاهره

‘These texts and the like, the chain of which has been authenticated, and the narrators of which are upright, we believe in them, and do not reject them nor deny them, nor do we give them a ta’wil which opposes their dhahir.'

From this we deduce, a) If he had negated the dhahir of the texts, he would not have affirmed the Face and Hands of Allah as His Attributes, and b) his objection to any ta’wil which opposes the dhahir of the texts clearly shows that he does not negate the dhahir, rather he affirms it, and therefore, he is not a mufawwidh.

2) He then quotes various textual proofs from the Quran and the Sunnah about Allah being above the heavens and clearly makes ithbat of the dhahir implications of such texts and believes that Allah is literally above the heavens. If he was a mufawwidh, he would have sufficed at simply narrating the texts as they are, without affirming the dhahir, which he did. In fact, he wrote a whole book called al-'Uluw, dedicated to affirming the dhahir of the texts pertaining to Allah’s literal highness over the creation, and thus he says in its introduction:اما بعد فإن الله تعالى وصف نفسه بالعلو في السماء ووصفه بذلك رسوله محمد خاتم الانبياء واجمع على ذلك جميع العلماء من الصحابه الاتقياء والأئمة من الفقهاء وتواترت الأخبار بذلك على وجه حصل به اليقين وجمع الله تعالى عليه قلوب المسلمين وجعله مغروزا في طباع الخلق اجمعين فتراهم عند نزول الكرب بهم يلحظون السماء باعينهم ويرفعون نحوها للدعاء ايديهم وينتظرون مجئ الفرج من ربهم وينطقون بذلك بألسنتهم لا ينكر ذلك الا مبتدع غال في بدعته

‘As for what follows, then surely Allah Ta’ala has described Himself with being Elevated in the Heavens, and similarly He has be described by His Messenger Muhammad, the last of the prophets; something upon which all of the scholars from the pious companions held a consensus, as did the Imams from the jurists. The reports concerning that became so numerous, that a level of certainty was achieved. Allah Ta’ala united the hearts of the Muslims on this issue, and made it a part of the natural instincts of Allah the creation, and therefore, you notice them when some calamity befalls them that they look with their eyes to the sky, and raise their hands towards it, waiting for alleviation of calamity from their Lord, while their utter [this belief] with their tongue. No one denies this except a heretic, fanatic in his heresy…’

This clearly shows that Ibn Qudama certainly affirmed the dhahir of the texts pertaining to Allah’s elevation over His creation, and therefore, he was not a mufawwidh.

3) He says about Allah’s speech and affirms that Allah speaks with a sound, a further proof that he affirmed the dhahir of the texts, which confirm that Allah Speaks with a sound. In fact, in his violent rebuttal of Ash’aris in his time, he calls them heretics for saying Allah speaks without sound and letters.

4) He then has a whole section about the Quran being the Speech of Allah, consisting of letters, words, ayat, surahs, in the Arabic language, a belief that a mufawwidh would never hold.

5) In his work Dham al-Ta’wil (Censure of Ta’wil), Ibn Qudama states:ومذهب السلف رحمة الله عليهم الإيمان بصفات الله تعالى وأسمائه التي وصف بها نفسه في آياته وتنزيله أو على لسان رسوله من غير زيادة عليها ولا نقص منها ولا تجاوز لها ولا تفسير ولا تأويل لها بما يخالف ظاهرها

‘The Madhab of the Salaf is to have Iman in the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala and His Names, with which He described Himself… without giving explanation, or a ta’wil that opposes its dhahir.’

It clearly implies that Ibn Qudama affirms the dhahir, due to which he opposes any ta’wil that contradicts the dhahir. For if he was a mufawwidh, he would have negated any type of ta’wil, irrespective of whether or not it opposes the dhahir.

6) Ibn Qudama then explains exactly what the Salaf meant when they negated the ‘meaning’:وعلموا أن المتكلم بها صادق لا شك في صدقه فصدقوه ولم يعلموا حقيقة معناها فسكتوا عما لم يعلموه

‘[The Salaf] knew that the one who conveyed to us [the information about Allah’s Attributes] is truthful, with no doubt in his truthfulness. Hence, they believed him, without knowing the reality of the meaning, and remained silent over that which they did not know.’

Hence, Ibn Qudama declares that the Salaf made tafwidh of the reality of the meaning, and not the dhahir itself, and therefore, he was not a mufawwidh.

7) In the same book he quotes the statement al-Hafidh Abu Bakr al-Tayyib in his support, without showing any discontent or disagreement:أما الكلام في الصفات فإن ما روي منها في السنن الصحاح مذهب السلف رضي الله عنهم إثباتها وإجراؤها على ظاهرها

‘As for the subject of Allah’s Attributes, then whatever has been narrated in the authentic collections of Sunan, the Madhab of the Salaf is to affirm them and accept the dhahir of it.’

This further proves that Ibn Qudama affirmed the dhahir, and therefore, was not a mufawwidh.

8) He also comments on Imam Malik’s statement on Istiwa, that ‘Istiwa is not unknown’, saying:وقولهم الاستواء غير مجهول أي غير مجهول الوجود لأن الله تعالى أخبر به وخبره صدق يقينا لا يجوز الشك فيه ولا الإرتياب فيه فكان غير مجهول لحصول العلم به وقد روي في بعض الألفاظ الاستواء معلوم

Their statement: ‘al-Istiwa is not unknown’, meaning, its existence is not unknown, because Allah Ta’ala informed about it, and His information is certainly the truth, and it is not permissible to doubt it, nor to waver therein, and hence, it [the rising] was not unknown, for the knowledge thereof has been achieved. It has also been narrated in some of the wordings: ‘The Rising is known’.

The mufawwidha explain this statement of Malik saying: the fact that al-Istiwa is mentioned in the verse is known, but what it actually means is not. While Ibn Qudama affirms more than the wording, for he affirms that The Rising actually took place, and therefore he was not a mufawwidh.

9) Ibn Qudama says in Dham al-Ta’wil:فإن قيل فقد تأولتم آيات وأخبارا فقلتم في قوله تعالى ( وهو معكم أين ما كنتم ) أي بالعلم ونحو هذا من الآيات والأخبار فيلزمكم ما لزمنا
قلنا نحن لم نتأول شيئا وحمل هذه اللفظات على هذه المعاني ليس بتأويل لأن التأويل صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره وهذه المعاني هي الظاهر من هذه الألفاظ بدليل أنه المتبادر إلى الأفهام منها وظاهر اللفظ هو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه حقيقة كان أو مجازا

‘If it is said: ‘You made ta’wil of verses and reports, for instance, you said with respect to Allah’s statement: ‘He is with you wherever you are’, meaning: with His knowledge, and the like of these verses and reports, and therefore, your arguments are as much applicable to you as us.

We say: We did not make ta’wil of anything, for to hold such texts in these meanings is not at all ta’wil, because ta’wil is to change the meaning of a word from its dhahir, and what we say here is the dhahir of the wording, that is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it is haqiqa or majaz.’

Hence, Ibn Qudama explicitly states that he believes in the dhahir of these texts, and therefore he is not a mufawwidh.

10) He says in his rebuttal of Ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali, Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam:

‘There is no need for us to have knowledge of what Allah meant with His Attributes. For no action is required of us based on that [the meaning of His Attributes], nor is there any legal responsibility (taklif) attached to it, except to have Iman therein. It is possible to have Iman therein, without knowing the meaning, for Iman in that which is unknown is correct. For Allah Ta’ala ordered us to believe in His angels, His books, His messengers, and what He revealed to them, even if we do not know of the aforementioned except names.’

Therefore, Ibn Qudama likens our belief in the verses about Attributes of Allah, like our belief in Angels, Books etc. Hence, just as we affirm the existence of Angels, literally, by accepting the dhahir of the texts, we also accept the verses and narrations about Allah’s Attributes, literally, acknowledging the dhahir of the text. This also proves beyond doubt that Ibn Qudama was not a mufawwidh.

11) In the same book, Ibn Qudama presents his argument against Ta’wil saying:

‘The muta’awwil combines between (two errors, a) describing Allah with an Attribute, Allah did not describe Himself with, nor attributed to Himself, (and b) denying the Attribute He attributed to Himself. So if one says: The meaning of Istawa (rose over) is Istawla (took control), then he has described Allah Ta’ala with istila (taking control), while Allah has not described Himself with that; as He has also negated the Attribute of Istiwa (rising over), even though Allah Tabarak wa Ta’ala mentioned it in the Quran in seven different instances.’

If Ibn Qudama negated the dhahir meaning of the text, he would not have condemned the muta’awwila for negating the Attribute Allah which He attributed to Himself, which is the dhahir of the text. For the mufawwidha negate the dhahir, and therefore, do not affirm any Attribute for Allah, whereas Ibn Qudama believes in the dhahir, and therefore, affirms the attribute.

12) In the same book Ibn Qudama says:
I heard some of our (Hanbali) colleagues say: A people said to us: ‘The Hanbalis say, ‘The Most Merciful Rose over the Throne!’ So I said to them: Dear people! For Allah’s sake! You are attributing to the Hanbalis something they are not worthy of! This is the statement of Allah, and you attributed it to the Hanbalis and elevated their status!’

If Ibn Qudama didn’t believe in the dhahir of these texts, he would have said in reply: In fact, we do not believe that Allah Rose over the Throne, we simply affirm the wording. But Ibn Qudama showed no qualms about affirming the dhahir, and that is: Allah literally Rose over the Throne.

13) In the same book Ibn Qudama says about Ibn ‘Aqil:
‘He clarified that if one asks us about the meaning of these words (with respect to sifat), We would say: We do not add more to the wording anything that will give a meaning. Rather, its recitation is in fact its meaning (tafsir), without any particular meaning or tafsir.’

Therefore, Ibn Qudama clearly believes that the texts about sifat have a tafsir, and that is the dhahir of the wording.

14) Ibn Qudama then says: ‘But we do know that these texts generally do have a meaning, known by the one who spoke these texts, and we believe in those meanings. Hence, if one took such stance, how can he be asked about the meaning, when he says: I do not know? How can he be asked of the kayfiyya, when he regards the question to be an innovation’. He then makes a reference to Malik’s statement about Istiwa.

This clearly shows that by the terms, ‘meaning’ and ‘tafsir’, he is referring to the ‘kayfiyya’, and not the tafsir/ma’na which is the recitation itself, i.e. the dhahir.

15) He then speaks about the Speech of Allah, and that He Speaks with a sound; then mentions the Quranic verse about Musa: ‘He was called out (nudiya): Indeed, I am your Lord’, to prove that Allah speaks with a Sound, and further says: ‘The Sound has been explicitly mentioned in the narrations’.

If he was a mufawwidh, he would have affirmed the wording ‘nudiya’ (he was called), without using that to affirm a sound for Allah. However, because he affirms the wording and the dhahir, he deduces from the word nida’, that Allah Speaks with a sound.

If he was a mufawwidh, he would have said that only the wording of ‘sound’ has been mentioned, although we negate the dhahir thereof, and simply do not know what it means. Nor would he have made a big deal out of Ibn ‘Aqil denying that Allah speaks with a Sound. However, Ibn Qudama is a muthbit, and not a mufawwidh, and hence, his fierce attack on Ibn ‘Aqil.

16) As for his book: Hikayat al-Munadhara fil-Qur’an Ma’a Ba’dh Ahl al-Bid’a, his rebuttal of the Ash’aris in the issue of Sound and Letters, then the book in its entirety proves that he is a muthbit and not a mufawwidh.

In light of the above quotes and references, it becomes more than clear that when Ibn Qudama affirms the wording, he affirms the dhahir of it as well, because ‘its recitation is in fact its tafsir’.

An important point to note is that one would only perform tafwidh, in the Ash’ari sense of the word, if he finds the dhahir problematic and contradictory to his kalami principles. For example, the Ash’aris negate any movement from Allah, because movement is an accident that comes into being from nothingness, and any object that allows movement to subsist in itself, then that object must also have a beginning.

If Ibn Qudama subscribed to this view, then it would make sense for him to negate the dhahir. But if he doesn’t subscribe to this view, which clearly is the case because he is not a mutakallim, why then would he find problematic affirming the dhahir of the texts that Allah Rose over the Throne, or that He descends to the lowest heaven, or that He will come on the Day of Judgement?

Another equally important point to note is that when the Salaf said: ‘transmit these narrations as they have been narrated’, they did not at all mean negating the dhahir of those traditions. Rather, ‘transmitting them as they have come’, while negating the dhahir, was a relatively new phenomenon, at least according to al-Dhahabi who says in his book al-‘Uluw: ‘The latter ones from Ahl al-Nadhar (people of Kalam), came up with a newly invented belief. I do not know of anyone who preceded them in that. They said: These Attributes are to be accepted as they are, and not made ta’wil of, while believing that dhahir is not the intent.’

This shows that the Salaf never negated the dhahir of these texts, and that to negate that was something newly introduced. Ibn Qudama, as shown above, was no different to the Salaf in his approach, and to him, the recitation was itself the tafsir, meaning the dhahir.

wasalam

abubakr

30th April 2006, 02:35 PM

Asalamu alaykum

Some good reponses brother abu zubair. I have some other queries regarding the position of Imam Ahmad.

Imam Ibn Qudamah quotes from his******* Lum’at al-I’tiqad:

Imam Abu `Abdullah Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal - may Allah be pleased with him - has said regarding the Prophet's statements - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam- that Allah descends to the lowest heaven, that Allah will be seen on the day of Resurrection, and what resembles such statements. "We have faith and believe in them without how or meaning. We do not reject any of [these reports]. We know that what the Messenger came with is the truth. We do not reject what the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has brought. Nor do we describe Allah with more than what He has described Himself without [ascribing to Him] a limit or an end. 'Like Him there is naught. And He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing.' (42:1 1). We say as He has said and we describe Him as He has described Himself. We do not transgress that. The descriptions of men do not reach Him. We believe in the whole of the Qur'an - its definitive (mukham) and its equivocal (mutashabih). We do not separate from Him any of His attributes due to the protests of anyone. We do not transgress the Qur'an and the hadith. Nor do we know the reality of [these attributes] except by believing the Messenger - sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam - and affirming the Qur'an."


Can brother Abu Zubayr please respond to this?

Jazakallah khair.

waziri

30th April 2006, 06:31 PM

brother Abu Zubair

I need to know more about Allah being literally above us when in aqeeda at tahawia it******* states.

38. He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are.

So if Allah is not contained by the six directions how do we understand the dahir of being above.

Im sorry brother i know youve probably explained this before so if you could just direct me to the right thread i would appreciate it.

Also brother im sorry i must be thick but could you please explain in very simple terms as alot of stuff just passes over my head.

JazakAllah khair

Abu wakee

30th April 2006, 11:09 PM

aslamu alaikum wa rahmatallah,

that wasy really helpful akhee abuz zubair, barakAllahu feek.******* Im just a layman trying to understand things.******* And I really appreciate it.

Pardon my ignorance but can you please elucidate this quote a bit more?

10) He says in his rebuttal of Ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali, Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam:

‘There is no need for us to have knowledge of what Allah meant with His Attributes. For no action is required of us based on that [the meaning of His Attributes], nor is there any legal responsibility (taklif) attached to it, except to have Iman therein. It is possible to have Iman therein, without knowing the meaning, for Iman in that which is unknown is correct. For Allah Ta’ala ordered us to believe in His angels, His books, His messengers, and what He revealed to them, even if we do not know of the aforementioned except names.’



Also brother I've heard of claims some people make that they say we need only to look at imam safirini's book to refute salafi 'aqeedah who according these people are mushaabihah and the traditional athari 'aqeedah.******* Im not very knowledgeable in this regard but is there any conclusive refutation to such a claim??

I would be indebted ....

barakAllahu feek once again

wssalamu alaikum wa rahmatallah************** **************

Abuz Zubair

2nd May 2006, 01:05 PM

As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,

Dear brother Ash’ari Salafi,

Its really praiseworthy what you are doing in relation to the hanbali madhab, you should set a site up especially for hanbali fiqh and aqeedah

I am in the process of doing that (hanbalis.com). It is being populated at the moment, and what that’s done to a standard, we’ll propagate it InshaaAllah.

After all, we truely represent the Imams of those madhabs. So why call ourselves salafees and bring out of this minhaj business. This title has backfired upon the Sunnis who thought it was a good idea to use this title as it puts us in a corner

True, but do remember that there were also a large number of scholars from the rest of the three Madhabs who were Hanbalis in creed; yet describing them as Hanbalis would not be totally accurate, because they simply weren’t. Hence, the suitability of the term ‘Salafi’, as it was always referred to the non-Mutakallimun/Atharis/Hanbalis.

I think also that we have put ourselves in a tight corner when many Sunni ulema just repetitively use ibn qiyam and ibn taymiyah, its as almost as if they were the only two Imam's on the planet

I see your point. Yet, there are many advantages of quoting IT and IQ instead of other Hanbalis. In fact, most probably it is wiser to stick IT and IQ, for they are the most diplomatic of Hanbalis, the most lenient and the most balanced and objective of them. We don’t want to be quoting the rest of the Hanbalis like al-Marrudhi, al-Khallal, ‘Abdullah b. Ahmad, Sharif Abu Ja’far, Ibn al-Hanbali, Ibn Qudama, etc, who call the Ash’aris Zanadiqa, curse Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari and make their blood Halal! We want to guide the Ash’aris to the truth, and not make them have a heart attack :)

Dear brother Abu Bakr,

I guess your question is about the following statement of Imam Ahmad in particular:

We have faith and believe in them without how or meaning. We do not reject any of [these reports]

What I said with respect to Ibn Qudama’s negation of ‘meaning’ is also applicable to Imam Ahmad, that by ‘meaning’ he does not refer to the dhahir of the wording, rather he refers to the kayf.

Again, as is the case with Ibn Qudama, the narrations from Imam Ahmad where he affirms the dhahir of the wording are numerous.

In fact, anyone who has read about the mihna (trial) of Imam Ahmad knows that he insisted on saying, not only that the Quran is the Speech of Allah, but also that it is not created. Whereas a mufawwidh would not go beyond saying: Kalam Allah, while denying the dhahir, and not delving into whether or not it is created.

Moreover, ‘Abdullah narrates in his Sunnah, that those who simply said, ‘The Quran is Kalam Allah’, without saying, ‘it is not created’, Imam Ahmad regarded them to be Jahmis!

Abu Dawud also narrated that Imam Ahmad was asked: Does any one have excuse to say that ‘[the Quran is] the Speech of Allah’, and then remain silent? Imam Ahmad said: Why would he remain silent? If it wasn’t for what the people have fallen into (i.e. the belief of the creation of the Quran), he may have remained silent. But since they (the Jahmis) have already spoken (that it is created), why would they (Ahl al-Sunnah) not speak?!

This is an important statement because Imam Ahmad states that if it wasn’t for the fact that the Jahmiyya denied the dhahir, that the Quran is literally the Speech of Allah, one may have an excuse for simply stopping at: ‘Kalam Allah’, without adding ‘not created’. But when the Jahmis denied the dhahir, Imam Ahmad obliged the Sunnis to use the terms and phrase not mentioned in the Quran to emphasise the literal meaning of the texts, that the Quran is literally the word of Allah, and not His creation.

How can then, he be a mufawwidfh?

How about Imam Ahmad affirming that Allah literally Speaks with a Sound and numerous narrations, such as the one I quoted previously: ‘Abd Allah says in his book al-Sunnah: I asked my father about a people who say: When Allah spoke to Musa, He did not speak with a sound. My father [Ahmad] replied: In fact, your Lord spoke with a sound, for we narrate these Ahadeeth as they have reached us.

Al-Khallal narrates in his Sunnah, that Imam Ahmad was asked:
Allah Ta’ala is above (fawq) the seventh heaven, upon His Throne, separate from His creation, while His power and knowledge are everywhere? He replied: Yes. He is upon the Throne, and nothing escapes His knowledge.

Al-Khallal also reports that Imam Ahmad was asked about someone who says: Allah is not above His Throne, to which he replied: Their entire statement revolves around Kufr.

He then quotes Imam Ahmad from his Sunnah: He is upon His Throne, above the seventh heaven.

In these narrations, it is obvious to anyone that Imam Ahmad articulated the dhahir of the texts in his own words, and that is only possible, if Imam Ahmad affirms the literal/dhahir of the texts.

The narrations are too many to quote, while the claim is too weak to refute, but I guess the point is clear to all.

The question then may arise that why did Imam Ahmad negate the ma’na/meaning?

A possible explanation could be that Imam Ahmad must have heard of Jahmis saying: Allah Rose over the throne; meaning: took control.

Naturally, Imam Ahmad’s response would be: ‘Allah Rose over the throne, without any meaning or tafsir’, intending by that, any meaning or tafsir that negates its dhahir.

Whatever the case, what is crystal clear from Imam Ahmad’s narrations is that he definitely affirmed the dhahir, and that no one can deny.

Also, I remind you of the quote from al-Dhahabi’s al-‘Uluw, that to negate the dhahir of the text (tafwidh, the Ash’ari way), was a relatively new phenomenon, invented by the latter mutakallimun.

Hope that helps

Dear brother Waziri,

I do recall explaining this on these forums sometime back. Perhaps of you search for ‘Tahawi’, six directions, etc, you will come across it.

But in summary, there is no objection to al-Tahawi’s saying: ‘nor is He contained by the six directions’, except that it would have been better if he were to avoid describing Allah, in a way He didn’t describe Himself. Yet, the meaning is correct, that Allah is not contained in anything, rather He encompasses everything else, as He says: Allah is All-Encompassing. Some could take this statement on its own and claim that al-Tahawi negates all directions from Allah, including His Highness (al-‘Uluw), then that is incorrect, for al-Tahawi explicitly states in his Matn:

‘He is All-Encompassing, and above everything’

Dear brother Abu Wakee,

Pardon my ignorance but can you please elucidate this quote a bit more?

10) He says in his rebuttal of Ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali, Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam:

‘There is no need for us to have knowledge of what Allah meant with His Attributes. For no action is required of us based on that [the meaning of His Attributes], nor is there any legal responsibility (taklif) attached to it, except to have Iman therein. It is possible to have Iman therein, without knowing the meaning, for Iman in that which is unknown is correct. For Allah Ta’ala ordered us to believe in His angels, His books, His messengers, and what He revealed to them, even if we do not know of the aforementioned except names.’

Ibn Qudama is responding of Ibn ‘Aqil who said: Ok, tell us how do you perceive the meanings of the words pertaining to Allah’s Attributes?

To that Ibn Qudama says that Ibn ‘Aqil knows very well how we perceive the meanings for he himself has written works (after his repentance) in rebuttal of the Jahmis and affirmation of Allah’s Attributes by saying: Its recitation is in fact its meaning.

Ibn Qudama then further says that we are not legally required to seek out the reality about the nature of Allah’s Attributes, such as: If Allah Speaks, how is the sound produced and how does it travel through the air etc. Rather, we simply believe in the dhahir that Allah speaks with a Sound that is heard, and that is it.

In case if someone objects and says: How can you believe in something the meaning/nature of which you do not know, like Allah rising, descending, etc? We would say: Just as we believe in Angels, for instance. We know they exist, because they have been mentioned in the Quran and the Sunnah, yet we do not know their nature, so we simply believe in the name: angels, and only know certain qualities about them, that Allah or His Messenger has informed us about, but that’s all we know, and that is all we believe, and the same is applied to Allah Attributes. We only know they exist, but the true nature of those Attributes, we do not delve into. For instance, we know Allah is living, but the nature of that life is beyond our imagination, and the same is applied to all the matters of the unseen, even the Paradise and the Pleasures it contains, that which no ears have heard, and no eyes have seen.

Also brother I've heard of claims some people make that they say we need only to look at imam safirini's book to refute salafi 'aqeedah who according these people are mushaabihah and the traditional athari 'aqeedah.******* Im not very knowledgeable in this regard but is there any conclusive refutation to such a claim??

Al-Saffarini’s poem on ‘Aqida is very popular, widely circulated and memorised amongst the Hanbalis across Najd and Hijaz.

However, the poem itself has been criticised by the Hanbalis for delving into Kalam. For example, he says:

‘Our Lord is not a substance (jawhar), nor is He an accident (‘aradh), or a body (jism), may His Highness be exalted’

Whereas Imam Ahmad often repeated in many of the narrations that Allah is not to be described, except with what He has described himself with.

In this regard, the great Hanbali authority of Damascus, Sh Ibn Badran al-Hanbali in his Madkhal (Intro to Hanbali Madhab) criticised al-Saffarini for taking a way between the mutakallimun and the Atharis.

Furthermore, Ibn Badran, in al-'Uqud al-Yaqutiyya, wrote a detailed criticism of al-Saffarini’s poem as well as his Sharh on various issues, concluding that often his Sharh contradicts the poem, and the Sharh itself.

An example of that is: In the poem he mentions that the saved sect is none but the Atharis. He then mentions in his Sharh that Ahl al-Sunnah are three, Atharis, Ash’aris and Maturidis. Later he says in the same Sharh that some scholars claim that the saved sect refers to the three aforementioned groups (Atharis, Ash’aris and Maturidis), whereas the dhahir of the Hadith (that my Ummah will be divided…) clearly contradicts that claim, and that the saved sect only applies to the Atharis.

The Sharh of al-Saffarini itself, in fact, refutes much of the poem, because during the Sharh he extensively quotes Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim, in support of his argument, clearly contradicting the actual verse in his poem, while there is not a hint of any negative remarks, or even disapproval towards Ibn Taymiyya or Ibn al-Qayyim.

For example, in the issue regarding Allah's actions whether they are based on a reason/wisdom (‘illah) or not (which the Hanbalis affirm and the Ash’aris deny) he states in his poem that it is permissible for Allah to punish His righteous servant for no crime of theirs, in agreement with the Ash’aris. Yet, in the Sharh, however, he states: We have already discussed this issue while explaining (the verse of the poem): ‘But Allah does not Create the creation without a purpose’. Let the reader refer back to that, for indeed the Imam, the Muhaqqiq, Ibn al-Qayyim, like Sheikh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyya), and a group of scholars, were not content with this view. They shattered this argument, and proved and affirmed the wisdom and reason for Allah’s actions…’

As far as the issue of tafwidh is concerned, then like Imam Ahmad and Ibn Qudama, al-Saffarini was not a mufawwidh.

He says (1/98), while commenting on his saying, ‘we accept the narrations as they have been narrated’: Allah is described as He described Himself, and as His Messenger –SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – described Him, and how the early companions described Him, without transgressing the Quran and the Hadeeth… The Madhab of the Salaf is not to delve into such (Attributes), to remain silent, and to render the meaning unto Allah Ta’ala. Ibn ‘Abbas said (with respect to verses pertaining to Attributes): ‘This is from the hidden which cannot be explained (tafsir).’ So it is obligatory upon a person to believe in the dhahir, and render the meaning unto Allah’

Perhaps, we cannot find something more explicit than this, that Imam al-Saffarini clearly believed in the dhahir, while rendering the meaning (i.e. the nature thereof) unto Allah.

With regards to Allah’s Speech and the Quran, al-Saffarini concludes (1/165): ‘In conclusion, the Mu’tazilites are in agreement with the Ash’arites, while the Ash’arites are in agreement with the Mu’tazilites, that this Quran contained within the two covers of the Mushaf is created and anew. The only difference between the two factions is that the Mu’tazila did not affirming any other Speech for Allah except this (the Quran, which they thought was created), whereas the Ash’arites affirmed al-Kalam al-Nafsi (self-speech/talking to oneself) subsisting in Allah’s essence. Whereas the Mu’tazilites say, the Speech of Allah is created (and not subsisting in Allah). The Ash’aris do not consider it (the Quran) the Speech of Allah. Yes, they call it ‘the Speech of Allah’, but only metaphorically, and that is the belief of the majority of their predecessors.’

Can anyone conclude from this that he was a mufawwidh?

Add to that, 23 pages of al-Saffarini’s Sharh where he quotes numerous scholars from the Salaf and the Khalaf from the four schools, literally affirming that Allah Rose over the Throne, and that He is literally in a direction (jiha), and then refutes the detractors of Ibn Taymiyya on the very issue of direction.

In light of this, I cannot see how al-Saffarini refutes the Salafi ‘Aqida, especially when his Sharh is crammed full with Ibn Taymiyya’s and Ibn al-Qayyim’s quotes.

This is also, another subtle refutation of the self-styled anonymous ‘Hanbali authorities’ on the net, who claim that Ibn Taymiyya departed from the Aqida of Imam Ahmad, for if that was the case, why didn’t any of the Hanbali Imams who wrote works on Aqida, after Ibn Taymiyya, comment on his departure? If even al-Saffarni’s work, which is the only book they seem to mention claiming it refutes the Salafi ‘Aqida, does not make even a slightest remark about the ‘Aqida of Ibn Taymiyya or his departure from the ‘Aqida of Imam Ahmad or the Madhab, in spite of extensively quoting him through out the course of the book, doesn’t it show that these ‘Hanbalis anonymous’ have no side to lean on, let alone a leg to stand on?

wasalam

Abu wakee

3rd May 2006, 06:09 AM

aslamu alaikum wa rahmatallah

barakAllahu feek akhee abuz-zubair

this was quite beneficial**************

abu imaan an-nepalee

3rd May 2006, 02:52 PM

As-sallamu 'alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

Akhuna abuz-zubair jazakALLAHU Khairan for your messages, very beneficial maashaALLAH 

Could you comment upon the following translations selected from Imaam as-safarini's Lawami' al-Anwar

I got it from a forum called www.sunniforum.com/forum (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum) by a brother called al-Hanbali.

originally posted by al-Hanbali
Apples and Oranges
A comparison between the Atharī creed as expounded by Imām as-Safarīnī and the Salafī creed

Bismillah,

This is not a refutation. Whoever agrees with this, then al-Hamdulillah. Whoever disagrees, then al-Hamdulillah. The purpose of this collection of quotes is not to prove who is right and who is wrong among the Muslim groups, but rather, it is to establish who is who among the Imāms of this Dīn.

Some have taken Imām Muhammad as-Safārīnī al-Hanbalī al-Atharī as a Salafi, whereas the reality is quite different. Some time ago, I said that whoever wants to see the real difference between the old Athari creed held by the non-Mujassim Hanābilah and the neo-Salafi Mujassim creed of yesterday and today, all they have to do is read Imām as-Safārīnī’s work and look for all of the salafi footnotes refuting him and even accusing him of lying.

This is not a research by any means. Some brothers requested that I make this information public and in the English language for general benefit, so here it is. My work in this is very insignificant. I did a cursory reading of Imām as-Safārīnī’a Lawāmi’ al-Anwār al-Bahiyyah wa Sawāti’ al-Asrār al-Athariyyah which is an explanation of his own poem in Atharī creed tittled: ad-Durrah al-Madiyyah fi Aqīdah al-Firqatil Mardiyyah. In this cursory reading. I highlighted the more obvious differences between the Atharī creed and Salafi creed of old and new. I have kept my comments to a minimum because I feel that the Imām’s words are enough. I didn’t bother to explain many of the Kalāmi terms used by Imām as-Safārīnī because, in all honesty, those who stand to benefit from his words already know what they mean, and those who don’t, probably shouldn’t be reading this in the first place until they learn those terms.

By no means have I gathered everything there is on this topic and by no means do I make the claim that there are no real differences between the Atharīs and their brothers from the Ashā’irah and Mātūrīdiyyah. But the time has come for us to mature and admit the valid diversity within Ahlus-Sunnah, they being all three together.

All Tawfīq is from Allāh. He is our Mawlā. May He unite the hearts of the believers and guide us to the path of true Tanzīh and remove us from the cesspool of Tajsīm and Tashbīh

.

al-Faqīr ila Mawlāhu

Abul Junaydah

4.4.06
PART ONE
Comments on issues pertaining to Allāh’s names and attributes

In the course of speaking of some of the deviated sects that have appeared in this Ummah, Imām as-Safārīnī said:

Six: The Mushabbihah; those who made Allāh to resemble His creation. They have differed regarding their methods of Tasbīh. From them there are the Musabbihah of the extreme Shi’ah as was mentioned earlier. From them are the Mushabbihah of the Hashawiyah who said that He the Exalted is from flesh and blood and that He posseses bodily limbs. Some of them said when asked by their companions: ‘leave the beard and private parts and ask me about anything besides them.’ And from them (the Mushabbihah) are the Karāmiyyah, the companions of Abdullāh Muhammad ibn Karām. They said that Allāh is upon the throne in the direction of Uluw (above) and that movement and descent is permissible for Him. It has been said (reported from them) that He fills the throne and they differed is that is the limit or is there something else besides it. From them (the Mushabbihah) are those who use the word Jism (corperal body) with regards to Him (Allāh the Exalted). In the Qāmūs it states: ‘And Muhammad ibn Karām like Shaddād the Imām of the Karāmiyyah who says that his object of worship (Ma’būduhu) is settled upon the throne (Mustaqirr, from the verbal noun Istiqrār) and that He is a Jawhar (matter), far exalted is He from that…(page 91)

Further on, Imām as-Safārīnī mentions the text of his poem in creed. He said:

so they (the Athariyyah) affirmed the Nusūs (the texts regarding the Divine Attributes) with Tanzīh

without Ta’til (denial of the attributes) or Tashbīh

so all that has come from the Ayāt or been authentically reported from the reliable ones

from the Ahādīth, we pass it on as it has come so hear my poem (Nadhm) and know.

In the course of explaining the meanings of his own words, he said:

from the Ahādīth- the authentic ones and the clear Athār that appear to imply Tashbīh or likeness (tamthīl), they are from the Mutashābih that none know but Allāh, so we believe in them and that they are from Allāh and (pass it on as it has come) from Allāh or from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi was sallam. (page 95-96)

He further said:

So the Madh’hab of the Salaf is that they describe Allāh the Exalted with what He described Himself and what the Messenger of Allāh sallallahu alayhi was sallam described Him with, without any altering (tahrīf) or ‘howness’ (Takyīf). And He the glorified there is nothing like unto Him-not in His Dhāt, not in His attributes, and not in His actions. All that necessitates deficiency or Hudūth (change), then Allāh is free from that in reality (Haqīqatan), for He, the Exalted is the one fully deserving perfection that is the peak (of perfection) having nothing beyond it. The Madh’hab of the Salaf is to not to delve into the likes of this (Ta’tīl and Takyīf), to remain quiet concerning it, and to relegate knowledge of it (Tafwīd Ilmihi) to Allāh the Exalted. (page 96-97)

speaking of the Madh’hab of the true Hanābilah regarding Allāh’s Divine attributes, Imām as-Safārīnī says:

“…and it is obligatory to affirm them for Him in the manner that they have appeared (in the texts- kama warad) and we entrust the meaning of it to al-‘Azīz al-Hakīm.” (page 107)

Speaking on the obligation upon every legally responsible person, Imām as-Safārīnī says:

“It is obligatory in the Sharī’ah on every legally responsible person to know Allāh the Exalted with the attributes of perfection and to explicitly declare (that He) the Exalted (is one) and that He is not composed of parts or divisible, He is one and absolute.”

On the Qur’ān, Imām as-Safārīnī says in his poem:

His speech, the Exalted is ancient (Qadīm) *******

He futher said:

“And it (speech-al-Kalām) is obligatory upon Him the Exalted, meaning; it is obligatory to explicitly believe that He the Exalted speaks with speech that is Qadīm (ancient), Dhātī (from His essence), Wujūdī (present with Him), not created or Muhdath (newly founded?) or Hādith.” (page 132-133)

He further said:

“The clarified position of the Salaf is that Allāh the Exalted is Mutakallim (speaks) as has proceeded, and that His speech is ancient (Qadīm), and that the Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh and that it is ancient (Qadīm) in both its letters and meaning.” (page 137)

Imām as-Safārīnī says in his poem:

and our Lord is not a Jawhar nor (is He) and ‘Ard or Jism exalted be He the possessor of grandeur.

Glorified is He, He has (performed the act of) Istiwā as it has appeared (in the text) without a ‘how’ indeed exalted and far removed is He from being confined by a limit (Yuhadd)

On Istiwā

Imām as-Safārīnī said:

“It has been narrated from ash-Sha’bī that he was asked about al-Istiwā. He replied: ‘This is from the Mutshābih of the Qur’ān. We believe in it and we do not delve into its meaning’.”

He further said:

“So the meaning of the statement of Umm Salamah radia Allah Anha in the Hadīth and those who traversed her path from the Imāms is that: Istiwā is known; meaning His description that He the Exalted is upon the throne (‘ala al-‘Arsh), (Istiwā) : meaning Istiwā that is known by way of textual evidence that is established by Tawātur (multiple chains of transmission)” (page 200)

Imām as-Safārīnī said in his poem:

so all that has come in the evidence is established without any resemblance

from the likes of, mercy and His Wajh, His Yad and all things like this.

His ‘Ain and the attribute of Nuzūl and His (act of) creation so beware of descending (into Tashbīh)

For the rest of the attributes and actions are Qadīmah (ancient) for Allāh the possessor of grandeur

however it is without ‘howness’ or resemblance despite (the opposition) of the people of deviation and Ta’tīl

so pass them on as they have appeared in the reminder (the Qur’ān) without any Ta’wīl and without any Fikr (thought).

Imām as-Safārīnī says in explanation of his own words:

al-Hāfidh al-Bayhaqī said: ‘ the earlier generation of scholars (the Mutaqqadimūn) of this Ummah did not explain what appeared in the Ayāt of Akhbār (the Sifāt not known without textual affirmation) in this area, all the while they possessed belief that Allāh is One and that it is not permissible that He be divisible…’

Imām as-Safārīnī went on to quote the famous words of Imām an-Nawawī concerning the Hadith that affirm the word Yad (lit. Hand):

“This is from the narrations pertaining to the Divine attributes.******* So we either believe in them and we do not speak with Ta’wīl of them and believe that the apparent (meanings-the primary meaning for the words used in the Arabic language) are not intended and that they possess meanings that befit Allāh, or they are interpreted in such fashion that it is said that what is intended by them both being right (the Hadith stating that both of His Yads are right) is that it means in a good condition or high rank. In his statement that both of His Yads are right contains a notice that what is intended is not that they are limbs and that His two Yads the Exalted possess that attribute of perfection without any deficiency in either of the two because the left is deficient when compared to the right.

Here Imām as-Safārīnī quotes Imām an-Nawawī without any opposition, rather, this quote indicates support for his words.

In the section affirming belief in the attribute of al-‘Ain, Imām as-Safārīnī says:

“…rather, we assent and submit and comply and believe in all of that and affirm it with the affirmation of existence and not the affirmation of ‘howness’ or Tahdīd (giving it a precise meaning).”

Imām as-Safārīnī does not say explicitly “Without giving it a precise meaning”, but this is what is understood from the word Tahdid. This word comes from Haddada, Yuhaddidu Tahdīd which means to give a Hadd to something. Hadd, in the nomenclature of the scholars means meaning given to something.

The logician and grammarian, Imām Ibn Sabban said in a line of poetry about the introduction to sciences:

Inna Mabadi’a Kulli Fannin Ashara

al-Haddu wal Mawdu’u Thumma ath-Thamara…

Indeed the basics of every subject are ten

(from them) al-Hadd (the definition), the subject matter, and the fruit…

In affirmation of the attribute called ‘Ain, as taken from the Hadith of the Dajjāl being blind in one eye, Imām as-Safārīnī says:

“…al-Bayhaqī, al-Qurtubī and others mentioned: ‘in this narration there contains the negation of Awr (blindness) from Allāh the Exalted and affirmation of al-‘Ain for Him as an attribute. We know from His words: “There is nothing like unto Him.” that it is not an organ.”

*******Imām as-Safārīnī states:

Our scholars say:

“The divine texts have established an attribute for Him the Exalted that is called al-‘Ain, so it is passed on just like (the attribute) of hearing and seeing. By affirming the Ain, it is not (affirming what is) a bodily organ whose description is a piece of flesh because that Ain (eye) is a body that has a beginning and Allāh is far removed from that. As for the Ain that the Creator-the Mighty and Exalted- is described with, it is one that is befitting His essence in that it is not a Jism, a Jawhar, nor an‘Ard. So there is not known for it a how nor reality (the Māhiyah of it- i.e. the actual essence of it in the Haqīqah).”

Speaking of Nuzūl, he quoted Imām al-Bayhaqī saying:

“The safest position is Imān in it without ‘how’, and remaining quiet about what is intended by it unless expounded upon by the truthful and confirmed one (i.e. the Messenger of Allah) sallallahu alayhi was sallam whereby we could hold to that…and from the evidence for that, is their agreement that the particular Ta’wīl is not obligatory, so in that case, Tafwīd is safer.”

Again, Imām as-Safārīnī quoted without anything but tacit approval and acceptance.

Imām as-Safārīnī quoted al-Qādī (I suppose he is referring to Qadī ‘Iyād, although there is a possibility that he means Qādī Abdul Wahhāb) in explanation of the Hadith of Nuzūl*******:

“We do not affirm a Nuzūl (that means a Nuzūl) from a high position to a lower one, rather, (we affirm) a Nuzūl whose meaning is not comprehended and it is not comprehended in reality.” (page 250)

In this same page, Imām as-Safārīnī explicitly affirms Nuzūl without movement (Harakah) or relocation (Intiqāl)

He goes on to quote the words of Shaykh ‘Imād ad-Dīn al-Wāsitī who said:

“His (Allāh’s) Nuzūl is established and known and not Mukayyaf (given a ‘how’) with movement and relocation that is fitting for something created. Rather, His Nuzūl is as befits His Grandeur and Might. So His attributes, the Exalted, are known in general and affirmed, not comprehended in terms of ‘howness’ and Tahdīd. So the believer sees them (understands them) from one angle, and is blind from another. He sees (understands) in the sense of affirming their existence, and he is blind in the sense of ‘howness’ and Tahdīd and by Allāh is all strength.” (page 250)

In this text quoted above, it is clearly shown that Tahdīd is not synonymous with a new fangled term called Tafwīd al-Kayf.

On page 252, Imām as-Safārīnī shows that the Athariyyah are in agreement with the Māturīdiyyah in affirming the attribute of Takhlīq (creation).

On page 257, Imām as-Safārīnī affirms that the Atharī position is that the attributes of action such as Istiwā, Nuzūl, Majī, Khalq, ect are Qadīmah, i.e. they are ancient according to the Salaf of this Ummah and the Imāms of the Dīn. He says: 

“Nothing of them are Muhdath, otherwise (if that were so) He would be subject to change and what is subject to change is created and Allāh is Exalted above that.”

The Salafi editors of this edition of Imām as-Safārīnīs book saw fit to place a footnote under his above mentioned words. They said after quoting a Salafi response from ibn Sahmān:

“So if you know this, it will become clear to you that the statement of the explainer (i.e. Imām as-Safārīnī) concerning Allāhs actions of Ikhtiyār (choice) that: ‘Nothing of them are Muhdath, otherwise (if that were so) He would be subject to change and what is subject to change is created and Allāh is Exalted above that’ -is not from the words of the Salaf and its Imāms, rather it is from the words of the people of innovation who are opposed to the Salaf.”

Explaining the line of poetry wherin he says ‘Without any Fikr (thought), Imām as-Safārīnī says:

“(without any Fikr) concerning its meanings for that is not within the capability of human beings for them to be responsible for that nor is it within their ability to know it. And upon that method, thus traversed the Imāms of the Salaf and the truth who passed

Concerning the Hadith mentioning the Isba’ (translated as finger), Imām as-Safarīnī quoted Imām ibn al-Hammām:

“The Isba’ and Yad are attributes of His, the Exalted, not with the meaning of a bodily part, rather, in a manner that befits Him and He the Glorified knows best.”

Imām as-Safārīnī went on to quote from Hujjatul Islam, Imām Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī’s monumental tract on creed, called Iljām al-‘Awām ‘an Ilm al-Kalām wherein he said:

“Know, that the correct truth that contains no doubt therein according to the people of insight is the Madh’hab of the Salaf, and I mean the Companions and the Tābi’ūn, may Allāh be pleased with all of them…”

Then he said:

“The reality of the Madh’hab of the Salaf- and it is the truth according to us- is that all who reach them a Hadith from the Hadith of the Akhbār (the attributes) from the general body of the people, it is obligatory upon that person to (hold to) seven things;

1.*********************************** at-Taqdīs (declaring Allāh far removed from having a Jism)

2.*********************************** at-Tasdīq ( believing in what was said)

3.*********************************** al-‘Itirāf bil ‘Ajz (admitting that one cannot comprehend)

4.*********************************** as-Sukūt (remaining silent)

5.*********************************** al-Imsāk (the hold back from altering the words used)

6.*********************************** al-Kaff (holding back from thinking deeply and pondering its reality)

7.*********************************** at-Taslīm li Ahlil Ma’rifah (submitting to the people of knowledge)…”

Imām as-Safārīnī quoted Imām al-Ghazālī and supported his words, so what can be said about this in comparison to the Salafi creed?

Pat two: Qadr, Kasb, at-Tahsin and at-Taqbīh al-Aqli

coming soon in sha Allah.

waAllahu Alam

Abuz Zubair

3rd May 2006, 05:10 PM

as-Salaamu 'alaikum...

I would be delighted to deal with this post, just give me some time.

In fact, not only that I would deal with the post, I would also deal with the ignorance and pretentiousness of Shibli Zaman, aka al-Hanbali.

Bur for now, I leave you with the words of the Prophet*******- SallAllahu 'alaihi wa-sallam:

المتشبع بما لم يعط كلابس ثوب زور'The one who pretends to posses that which he does not, is like the one who wears a garment of falsehood' (Agreed upon)wasalam

realsalafee

3rd May 2006, 06:51 PM

as-salamu alaikum brother abuz zubair,

thank you for those informative posts. i was looking through some of the quotes you have kindly translated and it seems to me that you are equating the scholars statements of affirming the texts and leaving them upon their dhahir without making ta'wil of them and believing in them with their somehow knowing the meaning of these texts despite the fact that in many of the quotes you mention they appear to be stating the the meanings are to be relegated to Allah subhahanhu wa ta'ala i.e. they are practicing tafweed.



for example, you quoted Imam safarini as saying [emphasis mine]: 

He says (1/98), while commenting on his saying, ‘we accept the narrations as they have been narrated’: Allah is described as He described Himself, and as His Messenger –SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – described Him, and how the early companions described Him, without transgressing the Quran and the Hadeeth… The Madhab of the Salaf is not to delve into such (Attributes), to remain silent, and to render the meaning unto Allah Ta’ala. Ibn ‘Abbas said (with respect to verses pertaining to Attributes): ‘This is from the hidden which cannot be explained (tafsir).’ So it obligatory upon a person to believe in the dhahir, and render the meaning unto Allah’ 

So, it would appear that indeed the Imam is practising Tafweed here by cosnigning the meaning to Allah is he not? 

Similarly with point 5 in your discussion above when you quoted Ibn Qudama: 

5) In his work Dham al-Ta’wil (Censure of Ta’wil), Ibn Qudama states:
ومذهب السلف رحمة الله عليهم الإيمان بصفات الله تعالى وأسمائه التي وصف بها نفسه في آياته وتنزيله أو على لسان رسوله من غير زيادة عليها ولا نقص منها ولا تجاوز لها ولا تفسير ولا تأويل لها بما يخالف ظاهرها


‘The Madhab of the Salaf is to have Iman in the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala and His Names, with which He described Himself… without giving explanation, or a ta’wil that opposes its dhahir.’ 

unfortunately akhee you did not continue with the text and the translation and i can see why you did that.*******

I have seen the paragraphs in question translated as follows elsewhere: 

ومذهب السلف رحمة الله عليهم : الإيمان بصفات الله تعالى وأسمائه التي وصف
بها نفسه في آياته وتنزيله أو على لسان رسوله ، من غير زيادة عليها ، ولا
نقص منها ، ولا تجاوز لها ، ولا تفسير ، ولا تأويل لها بما يخالف ظاهرها ،
ولا تشبيه بصفات المخلوقين ، ولا سمات المحدثين ، بل أمروها كما جاءت ،
وردوا علمها إلى قائلها ، ومعناها إلى المتكلم بها .

وقال بعضهم : ( ويروى ذلك عن الشافعي رحمة الله عليه: آمنت بما جاء عن الله
، على مراد الله ، وبما جاء عن رسول الله ، على مراد رسول الله صلى الله
عليه وسلم ) . 

وعلموا أن المتكلم بها صادق لا شك في صدقه فصدقوه ، ولم يعلموا حقيقة
معناها فسكتوا عما لم يعلموه ، وأخذ ذلك الآخر والأول ، ووصى بعضهم بعضا
بحسن الإتباع والوقوف حيث وقف أولهم ، وحذروا من التجاوز لهم والعدول عن
طريقهم ، وبينوا لهم سبيلهم ومذهبهم ، ونرجوا أن يجعلنا الله تعالى ممن
اقتدى بهم في بيان ما بينوه ، وسلوك الطريق الذي سلكوه . . 



"The Madhab of the Salaf is to have Iman in the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala and His Names, with which He described Himself in the Qur’an and Sunnah without adding to it, and removing from it, and not exceeding the bounds of it, without giving explanation, or a ta’wil that opposes its dhahir, without resemblence to the attributes of the creation or the qualities of (things) brought into existance. Rather, they passed them on (narrated them) as they came and relegated the knowledge of them to the One who spoke them (Allah) and the meaning of them to the One that said them." 

And some said it was related from Imam Shafii: "I believe in Allah and what has come about Allah according to the intent of Allah. and what has come from the Rasool of Allah according to the intention of Rasool Allah [sallallahu alayhi wassallam]” 

And they (the Salaf) knew that the One who spoke them (Allah) was truthful without doubt, so they believed Him. And they did not know the real meaning (Haqiqah Ma'naha) of them (the attributes) so they were silent about what they did not know. The later and the earlier ones held on to this, and the later ones were the inheritors of the earlier ones in following of excellence and keeping quiet where the early ones kept quiet. and warned from exceeding their bounds and diverging from their path and explained for them their path and their doctrinal positions and we appeal to Allah that he makes us from the ones who followed them in explaining what they explained and following the path that they followed" 

so here again the imam is talking about relegating the meaning of the texts about the sifat to Allah - how is that not tafweed or how can you say that this means relegating the how and not the meaning despite the words which clearly mention the word meaning? 

i have also seen quotes from various hanbalee imams where they mention that the texts about the sifaat are from the mutashabihaat? what is your explanation of this? 

here are some quotes in this regard which i have seen translated elsewhere as follows: 

Imām Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisī (ra) said in ar-Rawdah an-Nādhir with the gloss of Ibn Badrān (1/186):




“What is correct is that the Mutashābih are: what has been narrated (textually) regarding the attributes of Allāh the Exalted.”




Ibn Muflih (ra) said in al-Usūl (1/316):


“The Muhkam is: that, the meaning of which is clear, not needing any clarification, and the Mutashābih are the opposite; either due to (the words) sharing (in meaning, Ar. Ishtirāk) or generality (in expression, Ar. Ijmal). A group of our companions (from the Hanābilah) and others (have defined it as): that which the apparent thereof (implies) resemblance (Ar. Tashbīh), such as the attributes of Allāh.”




Imām al-Mardāwī (ra) said in at-Tahbīr Sharh al-Tahrīr (3/1395):

“What is most correct is: The Muhkam is: that, the meaning of which is clear and the Mutashābih are the opposite either due to (the words) sharing (in meaning, Ar. Ishtirāk) or generality (in expression, Ar. Ijmal) or the apparent (implication) of resemblance (Ar. Tashbīh), such as the attributes of Allāh.” 

the other point regarding the quote of Imaam Ahmad quoted by ibn qudama - your assertion that the Imaam only practices tafweed of the kayf and not the ma'na seems to be completely contradictory to his own words بها لا كيف ولا معنى which were translated as follows elsewhere: 

Imam Abu `Abdullah Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal - may Allah be pleased with him - has said regarding the Prophet's statements - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam- that Allah descends to the lowest heaven, that Allah will be seen on the day of Resurrection, and what resembles such statements. "We have faith and believe in them without how or meaning. We do not reject any of [these reports]. We know that what the Messenger came with is the truth. We do not reject what the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has brought. Nor do we describe Allah with more than what He has described Himself without [ascribing to Him] a limit or an end. 'Like Him there is naught. And He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing.' (42:1 1). We say as He has said and we describe Him as He has described Himself. We do not transgress that. The descriptions of men do not reach Him. We believe in the whole of the Qur'an - its definitive (mukham) and its equivocal (mutashabih). We do not separate from Him any of His attributes due to the protests of anyone. We do not transgress the Qur'an and the hadith. Nor do we know the reality of [these attributes] except by believing the Messenger - sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam - and affirming the Qur'an." 

so akhee i don't see how you can equate the bila kayf wala ma'na with tafweed of the kayf only and not the ma'na. 

perhaps it is because of such quotes and others of ibn qudama that elsewhere somebody said:

read what shaikh muhammad ibn ibraheem rahemahullah said about al-lum'ah:


(128- قول صاحب اللمعة ( ) وجب الايمان به لفظًا)
واما كلام صاحب اللمعة فهذه الكلمة مما لوحظ في هذه العقيدة، وقد لوحظ فيها عدة كلمات أخذت على المصنف، إذ لا يخفى ان مذهب أَهل السنة والجماعة هو الايمان بما ثبت في الكتاب والسنة من أَسماء الله وصفاته لفظًا ومعنى، واعتقاد أَن هذه الأَسماءَ والصفات على الحقيقة لا على المجاز، وأَن لها معاني حقيقة تليق بجلال الله وعظمته. وادلة ذلك أَكثر من أَن تحصر. ومعاني هذه الأَسماء ظاهرة معروفة من القرآن كغيرها لا لبس فيها ولا اشكال ولا غموض، فقد أخذ أَصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عنه القرآن ونقلوا عنه الأَحاديث لم يستشكلوا شيئًا من معاني هذه الآيات والأَحاديث لأَنها واضحة صريحة، وكذلك من بعدهم من القرون الفاضلة، كما يروى عن مالك لما سئل عن قوله سبحانه: (الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى) ( ) قال: الاستواءُ معلوم، والكيف مجهول والايمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة. وكذلك يروى معنى ذلك عن ربيعة شيخ مالك، ويروى عن أُم سلمة مرفوعًا وموقوفًا.
أما كنه الصفة وكيفيتها فلا يعلمه إلا الله سبحانه، إذ الكلام في الصفة فرع عن الكلام في الموصوف، فكما لا يعلم كيف هو -إلا هو- فكذلك صفاته. وهو معنى قول مالك: والكيف مجهول.
أَما ما ذكره في ((اللعمة)) فانه ينطبق على مذهب المفوضة وهو من شر المذاهب واخبثها. والمصنف رحمه الله إمام في السنة ومن أَبعد الناس عن مذهب المفوضة وغيرهم من المبتدعة. والله أَعلم. وصلى الله على محمد وآله وصحبه وسلم.
(ص-ف 328 في 28-7-85هـ).

The Shaikh Rahimahullah ended the answer by saying:

"As for that which is mentioned in ((Al-Lum’ah)) then it is in accordance with the way of the mufawwidah which is the worst and most disgusting of ways. The author, may Allah have mercy upon him is an Imam of the Sunnah and from the furthest people away from the mufawwidah and other than them from the people of innovation. Allah knows best and may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon Muhammad, his Family and his Companions."

*******

*******

in addition i have see the following interesting scan from page 57 of
"Fundamentals of the Salafee Methodology: An Islaamic Manual for Reform" ascribed to the late Nasir al-Albani with numerous footnotes.******* on one of the forums:

*******

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/abulhasan/IbnQudamatheMufawwid.jpg

*******

*******

*******

so it looks like even some of our salafee imams seem to acknowledge what appears blatantly obvious to me but which you have tried to explain away.

also akhee, you seem to be quite harsh on Imam ibn Jawzi - do you consider him a Jahmee? 

and what is your opinion of the asharees and maturidees are they deviants to you or do you agree with what the Hanbali imaam safarini said about them belonging to ahlus sunnah wal jamaah? 

قال العلامة محمد بن أحمد السفاريني الحنبلي في لوامع الأنوار البهية ( ص73
أهل السنة والجماعة ثلاث فرق : الأثرية : وإمامهم أحمد بن حنبل رحمه الله تعالى ، والأشعرية : وإمامهم أبو الحسن الأشعري رحمه الله تعالى ، والماتريدية : وإمامهم
أبو منصور الماتريدي 

regarding*******some of the quotes you provided from imaam ahmad, do they have a saheeh isnaad back to the imaam? eg what you quoted from al-sunnah of Ahmad, etc?*******please*******could you provide the isnads or at least comments of the classical hanbalee scholars upon the authenticity of each of*******the statements. 

and finally, you seem to be equating the author of that article which was posted above re. imam Safarini with brother shibli zaman (whom you are unnecessarily slandering above).******* both brothers have used the username al-hanbali on different forums but they are not the same person.******* mashaAllah both brothers are hanbalis in fiqh and aqeedah.******* 

jazakAllah khair

Abuz Zubair

4th May 2006, 02:52 AM

As-Salaamu ‘alaikum dear brother ‘real Salafi’,

thank you for those informative posts. i was looking through some of the quotes you have kindly translated and it seems to me that you are equating the scholars statements of affirming the texts and leaving them upon their dhahir without making ta'wil of them and believing in them with their somehow knowing the meaning of these texts despite the fact that in many of the quotes you mention they appear to be stating the the meanings are to be relegated to Allah subhahanhu wa ta'ala i.e. they are practicing tafweed.

I think there are two main reasons for your misunderstanding:

1) You do not seem to understand what the usuli term ‘dhahir’ means; and if my assumption is correct, then it is inappropriate for you to delve into this topic, and read (or quote from) the books of Usul, without understanding what the terms actually mean. Shibli Zaman fell into the same error, as I will demonstrate in my forthcoming posts.

2) Apart from the issue with your understanding of ‘dhahir’, you seem to have completely ignored the passages after passages I referred to from the works of Ibn Qudama, and al-Saffarini, where they both clearly affirm the literal meanings of the texts pertaining to Allah’s attributes. You completely ignored the fact that al-Saffarini wrote 23 pages literally affirming Allah’s Rising over the Throne, and that He is literally in the upwards direction, and to that end showed a brilliant defence of whom he refers to as ‘Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya’. Hence, a humble Nasiha, read with an open heart and mind.

Now, to your post in detail. Reading your statement above, it seems you clearly acknowledge that the Hanbali scholars concerned affirmed the texts AND left them upon their dhahir. I quote you again for ease:

it seems to me that you are equating the scholars statements of affirming the texts and leaving them upon their dhahir…

The question is, what does the term: dhahir mean?

Ibn Qudama says in Rawdhat al-Nadhir (2/25 with Ibn Badran’s comments):

القسم الثاني الظاهر وهو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه عند الإطلاق معنى مع تجويز غيره وإن شئت قلت ما احتمل معنيين هو في أحدهما أظهر

‘The second type: al-Dhahir (literal), and that is the meaning that comes first to the mind when uttered, while other meanings might also be possible. If you wish, you may say: That which has two possible meanings, one of them more obvious than the other’

Ibn Badran al-Dimashqi al-Hanbali says in his Madkhal (p. 187, al-Turki’s edition):

اعلم أن اللفظ إما أن يحتمل معنى واحدا فقط أو يحتمل أكثر من معنى واحد والأول النص والثاني إما أن يترجح في أحد معنييه أو معانيه وهو الظاهر

‘Know, that the word may either only have one meaning, or more than one meaning. The first type is called al-Nass. The second type, is the obvious of the two or more meanings, and that is the dhahir.'

To give you an example of a dhahir; If one says: ‘He went to the training camp and met the Lion’

The dhahir of this is that he went to the training camp and met someone brave and courageous, because this is what comes first to the mind.

The less possible meaning is that met a four legged predator called ‘Lion’, and the reason why it is less possible because it is assumed that Lions aren’t usually located in training camps, and they are not domestic enough to meet and have a cup of tea with human beings.

Therefore, when Ibn Qudama, al-Saffarini or other Hanbali scholars relegate the meaning unto Allah, while believe in the dhahir, they believe in the literal meanings of the texts, the first and the most obvious meaning that comes to mind.

This I hope highlights the problem with many of us that haven’t learned the basics, due to which we fall into such errors, and even worse top it up with broadcasting our misunderstandings to others.

You then quoted me, quoting al-Saffarini, then adding emphasis to his saying: ‘and render the meaning unto Allah’. If you add emphasis to the phrase that came before it: ‘So it obligatory upon a person to believe in the dhahir’, then it would NOT ‘appear that indeed the Imam is practising Tafweed here by cosnigning the meaning to Allah’, as you said. Rather it would be crystal clear that Imam al-Saffarini is in fact ordering us to believe in the dhahir of the texts, that is the literal, or the first meaning that comes to our mind, would it not? And therefore, ‘relegating the meaning unto Allah’, could only be referring to the ‘in-depth meaning’, i.e. the kayf of the Attributes.

You then said:

Similarly with point 5 in your discussion above when you quoted Ibn Qudama:

5) In his work Dham al-Ta’wil (Censure of Ta’wil), Ibn Qudama states:

ومذهب السلف رحمة الله عليهم الإيمان بصفات الله تعالى وأسمائه التي وصف بها نفسه في آياته وتنزيله أو على لسان رسوله من غير زيادة عليها ولا نقص منها ولا تجاوز لها ولا تفسير ولا تأويل لها بما يخالف ظاهرها

‘The Madhab of the Salaf is to have Iman in the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala and His Names, with which He described Himself… without giving explanation, or a ta’wil that opposes its dhahir.’

unfortunately akhee you did not continue with the text and the translation and i can see why you did that

No. You clearly cannot see why I did not continue to quote, just as you cannot see the other quotes of Ibn Qudama affirming the literal meaning of the texts, or al-Saffarini affirming direction for Allah, etc.

Let me tell you why I didn’t continue the quote, as I guess, I am more aware of my intention than you?

The purpose of me quoting Ibn Qudama was to establish a fact, that Ibn Qudama believed in the dhahir. It wasn’t to establish that Ibn Qudama ever said: ‘we relegate the meaning unto Allah’. Can you point out in my post where I ever denied that Ibn Qudama made such statements? No. Why? Because we both agree that Ibn Qudama made such statements, so no need to quote over and over that which we agree on. What we disagree on, is what Ibn Qudama actually meant when he ‘relegated the meaning unto Allah’.

Your understanding is that Ibn Qudama does not affirm any sort of meaning to the texts, as this is what you understand from his tafwidh.

My claim is that Ibn Qudama does affirm the dhahir of the texts, and to that end, I quoted from him, explicitly, that he does not negate the dhahir, rather he affirms it.

In response you could not bring anything with respect to Ibn Qudama accepting the dhahir (literal) meaning – and this is where it ends.

You then continued the quote, JazakumAllahu Khairan, by quoting, what I had already quoted in my previous point as point 6, and that is Ibn Qudama’s statement:

وعلموا أن المتكلم بها صادق لا شك في صدقه فصدقوه ولم يعلموا حقيقة معناها فسكتوا عما لم يعلموه

[The Salaf] knew that the one who conveyed to us [the information about Allah’s Attributes] is truthful, with no doubt in his truthfulness. Hence, they believed him, without knowing the reality of the meaning, and remained silent over that which they did not know.’

To which I had already commented in my previous post:

Hence, Ibn Qudama declares that the Salaf made tafwidh of the reality of the meaning, and not the dhahir itself, and therefore, he was not a mufawwidh.

To elaborate on that, in case you didn’t get my point; there is a hint in Ibn Qudama’s statement as to what he actually means by ‘relegating the meaning’, and that is his wording: ‘without knowing the reality of the meaning’. This shows that Ibn Qudama is referring to more than just the meaning, i.e., the reality of the meaning, and not the dhahir, for that he clearly affirms, does he not?

i have also seen quotes from various hanbalee imams where they mention that the texts about the sifaat are from the mutashabihaat? what is your explanation of this?

I too have come across them, and there is nothing wrong with those quotes. Perhaps to your surprise, even Ibn Taymiyya says in is al-Musawwada in Usul al-Fiqh that the verses pertaining to the Sifat are from the Mutashabihat. The problem is, you do not understand the term ‘mutashabihat’ itself, and the different categories of it.

If you read what you quoted from Ibn Muflih and al-Mardawi, you will see that they categorised the mutashabihat, exactly as Ibn Taymiyya categorised them in his al-Musawwada as both were heavily influenced by Ibn Taymiyya.

The first type they mention is al-Ishtirak al-Lafdhi, i.e. when a word has two equally possible meaning. For example, the word Qur’ in Arabic refers to the menstrual period, as it also equally refers to the period between two menstrual periods.

The second type is ijmal, i.e. when Allah makes a general statement without mentioning the necessary specific details, such as ‘…and give its due (zakah) on the day of its harvest’, where we are literally ordered to give Zakah that is due on crops, but the amount due is not mentioned, and therefore, that makes this verse a mutashabih. Similarly, the Hanbali scholars, including Ibn Taymiyya, regarded the texts about Allah’s Attributes to be from the Mutashabihat, i.e. we literally believe that Allah Rose over the Throne, but the exact nature thereof remains a Mutashabih.

Secondly, the Mutashabih is not something we can never find out the true meaning of. Rather, even if a particular text on its own, due to its ambiguity is regarded to be mutashabih, other evidences from the Quran, the Sunnah or even Qiyas can clear that ambiguity to various extents.

For example, the above quoted verse: ‘…and give its due (zakah) on the day of its harvest’, on its own is Mutashabih, because Allah did not specify how much Zakah to give. However, the Sunnah clarifies this Mutashabih, that 10% on naturally irrigated crops, and 5% on manually irrigated crops.

Likewise, Allah’s statement: ‘The day when the Shin will be revealed, and they are called to prostrate, they would not be able to’, is Mutashabih, for number of reasons, most famous of them being: it is not clear whose Shin exactly is Allah referring to? His own? Or someone else’s?

However, the Sunnah clarifies this Mutashabih by explicitly stating that when Allah will reveal His Shin, all those who would prostrate to him on this earth shall prostrate, while the backs of the hypocrites would be made straight and they will try to prostrate but fall flat on their faces. (I wonder how these Ash’aris react to ‘anthropomorphic’ statements uttered by our Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam!)

This, one would only realise if he had formally studied Usul al-Fiqh, and hence, another reason why unqualified should not delve in issues they are ignorant of.

You then said:

the other point regarding the quote of Imaam Ahmad quoted by ibn qudama - your assertion that the Imaam only practices tafweed of the kayf and not the ma'na seems to be completely contradictory to his own words بها لا كيف ولا معنى which were translated as follows elsewhere

You then copied and pasted the quote I have already dealt with, the shahid there in is: ‘We have faith and believe in them without how or meaning. We do not reject any of [these reports]’

Dear brother, read my posts properly, as it is futile repeating myself again and again. I showed to you clear cut proofs from his own narrations that he affirmed the ma’na, i.e. the dhahir of the texts, and even articulated it in his own words by saying ‘Quran is not created’, and insisting that Sunnis should make this addition, otherwise they are Jahmis. He articulated his belief that Allah Speaks with a Sound. What else do you want to be convinced, that Imam Ahmad did not mean by ‘negation of the meaning’ that he negates the dhahir of the texts?

Take just one example from what I quoted above:

Al-Khallal narrates in his Sunnah, that Imam Ahmad was asked:

Allah Ta’ala is above (fawq) the seventh heaven, upon His Throne, separate from His creation, while His power and knowledge are everywhere? He replied: Yes. He is upon the Throne, and nothing escapes His knowledge.

Is it not clear that Imam Ahmad articulates Allah’s Highness by using the word ‘fawq’, whereas Allah uses the word ‘‘ala’ and ‘fis-samaa’? How could he do that without believing in the literal meaning of ‘Above the heavens’ and ‘over’? Where does Allah say He is separate from His creation? And how can Imam Ahmad describe Allah that way, unless he literally believes that Allah is above and separate from His creation (note: Ash’aris denied that Allah is separate from His creation, just as they denied that He is attached to, or inside his creation, as did the Jahmis)

A suggestion: instead of picking points in my posts here and there, please try to reply to ALL of my points I raised, and all of the quotations I mentioned, instead of turning a blind eye to them, for a) that is not a sign of objectivity, b) it will only be fair since I respond to every point you make, so I would appreciate you do the same with me, and c) that perhaps it will help you understand my arguments thoroughly.

You then said:

read what shaikh muhammad ibn ibraheem rahemahullah said about al-lum'ah:

"As for that which is mentioned in ((Al-Lum’ah)) then it is in accordance with the way of the mufawwidah which is the worst and most disgusting of ways. The author, may Allah have mercy upon him is an Imam of the Sunnah and from the furthest people away from the mufawwidah and other than them from the people of innovation. Allah knows best and may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon Muhammad, his Family and his Companions."

As it is clear to any reader, Ibn Ibrahim only criticised the wording Ibn Qudama used. He did not criticise Ibn Qudama’s belief and affirmed that he is not from the mufawwidha, and that, I have proven beyond doubt by extensively quoting from various works of Ibn Qudama himself, where he explicitly states that he affirms the dhahir, i.e. the literal and the first meaning that comes to mind, and he further affirms Allah’s Highness above His creation and believes that Allah Speaks with a Sound. You cannot convince someone who does not want to be convinced, and this is the root of the problem.

You then posted a scan from a book ascribed to Sh al-Albani, although I have never come across the book. You then state, referring to Sh ‘Afifi’s claim that Ibn Qudama was indeed a mufawwidh:

so it looks like even some of our salafee imams seem to acknowledge what appears blatantly obvious to me but which you have tried to explain away.

This is something I pointed out right in the beginning of my post, which you obviously seem to have missed out:

If one were to look at the quote you pasted alone, it would give the impression that Ibn Qudama is a Mufawwidh, and indeed, some scholars have opined that.

Again, you have not come with anything new.

Don’t quote to me which Sheikh said what. Tell me what Sheikh ‘real salafi’ thinks. Answer for me this simple question: Does Ibn Qudama affirm the dhahir (literal meaning) or not? In your post you seem to admit that he does. So if you claim that Ibn Qudama believes in the dhahir (literal meaning), what is left of tafwidh?

If you insist on believing that Ibn Qudama affirms the dhahir, yet he also makes tafwidh of the dhahir, than you surely do not know what you are talking about.

also akhee, you seem to be quite harsh on Imam ibn Jawzi - do you consider him a Jahmee?
Not sure what exactly you are referring to. I personally enjoy Ibn al-Jawzi’s writings and find them very relative to our time, especially with the growth of Ash’arism and Sufism. Ibn Taymiyya was also an avid reader of his works. I am currently writing a biography on him, which I hope Allah helps me complete soon.

As far as his views on theology are concerned, then he has been criticised since his age by Hanbali Imams like al-‘Althi, up until our time, including Ibn Qudama. Just pick up Dhayl by Ibn Rajab to see what I mean.

You then say:

and what is your opinion of the asharees and maturidees are they deviants to you or do you agree with what the Hanbali imaam safarini said about them belonging to ahlus sunnah wal jamaah?

قال العلامة محمد بن أحمد السفاريني الحنبلي في لوامع الأنوار البهية ( ص73

أهل السنة والجماعة ثلاث فرق : الأثرية : وإمامهم أحمد بن حنبل رحمه الله تعالى ، والأشعرية : وإمامهم أبو الحسن الأشعري رحمه الله تعالى ، والماتريدية : وإمامهم

أبو منصور الماتريدي

Dear brother, I shouldn’t have to repeat my self over and over. You obviously haven’t read my post properly, which only underlines your hastiness and lack of objectivity.

Here is what I said:

Furthermore, Ibn Badran, in al-'Uqud al-Yaqutiyya, wrote a detailed criticism of al-Saffarini’s poem as well as his Sharh on various issues, concluding that often his Sharh contradicts the poem, and the Sharh itself.

An example of that is: In the poem he mentions that the saved sect is none but the Atharis. He then mentions in his Sharh that Ahl al-Sunnah are three, Atharis, Ash’aris and Maturidis. Later he says in the same Sharh that some scholars claim that the saved sect refers to the three aforementioned groups (Atharis, Ash’aris and Maturidis), whereas the dhahir of the Hadith (that my Ummah will be divided…) clearly contradicts that claim, and that the saved sect only applies to the Atharis.

You said:

regarding some of the quotes you provided from imaam ahmad, do they have a saheeh isnaad back to the imaam? eg what you quoted from al-sunnah of Ahmad, etc? please could you provide the isnads or at least comments of the classical hanbalee scholars upon the authenticity of each of the statements.
What I quoted has always been unanimously accepted by the Hanbali scholars. I am quoting from the earliest Hanbali sources on Aqida such as Sunnah of the son of Imam Ahmad, Abdullah; and the Sunnah by al-Khallal, the compiler of the Madhab, and a student of Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi. To my knowledge, no Hanbali questioned these sources. If you know of a Hanbali who questioned these sources than please let me know.

I know about Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut’s supposed and unpublished view, narrated by his Jahmi student Keller, on the Sunnah by Abdullah, that he questions its legitimacy on account of unknown narrators in the chain. I have already responded to that on several occasions that isnad is just one of the ways of attributing works to the authors. Another way is for the reliable biographers to attribute books to their authors, and accordingly, al-Sunnah is correctly attributed to ‘Abdullah by leading Muhaddithin and historians from the Ash’aris and the Hanbalis alike, and none – to my knowledge – had a shadow of doubt in al-Sunnah of ‘Abdullah, except what is narrated from Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut via a mubtadi’, whose narrations that are in support of his bid’a are not accepted, as known by the rules of Jarh and Ta’dil. Even if you cast doubt on Sunnah of ‘Abdullah, then what would you do with dozens of other ‘Aqida treatise as preserved in Tabaqat al-Hanabila of Ibn Abi Ya’la? Or al-Radd ‘Ala al-Jahmiyya by Imam Ahmad, which al-Khallal personally copied from the handwriting of Imam Ahmad? There are just too many sources for you to cast doubt on, which is why your predecessors from the Ash’arites were clever enough not to ever go down that route.

and finally, you seem to be equating the author of that article which was posted above re. imam Safarini with brother shibli zaman (whom you are unnecessarily slandering above). both brothers have used the username al-hanbali on different forums but they are not the same person. mashaAllah both brothers are hanbalis in fiqh and aqeedah.

Sunni criticisms on heretics are slanders for the heretics, Jihad for the Sunnis. I have discussed with Shibli Zaman in enough depth to realise he does not know much of Mustalah, ‘Aqida, Usul, or even the language to understand or translate the Quran (then claims Lum’ah does not need a Sharh!), and by these standards, I doubt he has ever finished a basic primer in Hanbali Fiqh, and therefore he is just a layperson, who, according to the Hanbali Madhab, has no Madhab, even if he claims to be a Hanbali.

As for the other so-called ‘Hanbali’, then I don’t know who he is. But whoever believes that there is