Rotten ‘Apples and Oranges’: Goods Returned [Archive]

View Full Version : Rotten ‘Apples and Oranges’: Goods Returned

Abuz Zubair

11th May 2006, 09:11 PM

Rotten ‘Apples and Oranges’: Goods Returned

“From the Sunnah of Allah, is that when He decides to champion His religion, He gives rise to those who oppose it; thereby establishing the truth with His Words, and dashing the truth upon falsehood, smashing its brains, and behold, it vanishes!(21:18)”

(Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya al-Harrani al-Hanbali, during his last imprisonment, a few months before his demise, writes these lines using coal)

All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, who does what He wills, when He wills and as He wills, far from what the Jahmites attribute to him from deficiencies.

I recently came across an article called ‘Apples and Oranges’, written by an anonymous author who claimed to be a Hanbali. What struck me about the article is his dubious claim, in which he obviously has no predecessor, that the Hanbalis, supposedly represented by al-Saffarini, were in fact the mufawwidha of the Ash’ari type, negating the literal meanings of Allah’s Atributes that seem pagan and anthropomorphic to a handful of Neo-Aristotelians known as Ash’arites.

What disturbed me even more, is when I glanced through the article and found grave errors, deliberate misquotes, and a total lack of competence to speak on such, or any religious issues. Yet, what really broke the camels back, is when I noticed the sincere Muslims amongst the commoners being duped by someone, who was clearly a fraudster to me, and therefore, decided to write this short rebuttal.

Please do note that what you are about to read is far from an academic discussion, for such discussions can only take place between academics, who have studied the subjects they are discussing. The author of ‘Apples and Oranges’ on the other hand, deserves an exposure, not an academic discussion, and hence, the harshness displayed in the rebuttal.
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. This is a refutation and an exposure of self-styled anonymous and unknown ‘Hanbali’ (yet, he seeks to establish ‘who is who’?!), with the objective of establishing the truth as truth, falsifying falsehood, and highlighting the incompetence and dishonesty of the author.
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. Who exactly is the author referring to as ‘Mujassim Hanbalis’? Is it the Sheikh al-Madhab al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la that the author is referring to, in particular? Or is it Ibn al-Zaghuni? And has any Hanbali authority ever referred to them as such? If not, then on what basis is this infiltrator trying to distort the Hanbali view of history?

Perhaps, the only Hanbalis he can think of are four:

1) Rizq Allah al-Tamimi, whose entire Hanbali family was intimately close to the Ash’aris, and in particular, al-Baqillani, and hence, the Ash’ari influence on the Tamimis. It was under this influence that Rizq’s uncle, Abul-Fadhl al-Tamimi wrote his book: al-I’tiqad, where he, instead of transmitting narrations from Imam Ahmad, gave his own view of what Imam Ahmad believed. Hence, through out the book, he would say: ‘… and Imam Ahmad used to say, such and such’, attributing to the Imam, things he was never reported to have said, in any of the books of Sunan by any of his students.

Due to Rizq Allah’s odd love for the Ash’aris, he had immense hatred for the Sheikh al-Hanabila, al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la, about whom he said: ‘He urinated upon the Hanbalis in such a way that even the ocean cannot purify it!’

Yet, Rizq Allah is no match for al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la, and anyone slightly familiar with the history and biographies of Hanbalis knows and realizes that. Abu Ya’la is undoubtedly the leading authority in the Madhab, in spite of being a contemporary of Rizq Allah, and authored various books in the usul and the furu’ of the Madhab, such that the Madhab historically remains indebted to him. How can Rizq Allah’s status in the Madhab by compared to Abu Ya’la, while the former only contributed two books to the Madhab, and one of them is merely a Sharh of a manual in Fiqh?

Moreover, Rizq Allah was boycotted by some of the Hanbali Imams for his closeness to the Ash’aris which resulted in his hatred for Abu Ya’la.

Ibn ‘Asakir reports in his Tarikh Madinat Dimashq (52/356), that when Imam Ibn al-Banna al-Hanbali visited Rizq Allah al-Tamimi and informed him of the death of Abu Ya’la, Rizq Allah replied: ‘May Allah not be merciful to him! He defecated upon the Hanbalis, such that it would not be washed until the Day of Resurrection!’ Upon hearing this, Ibn al-Banna al-Hanbali boycotted him until he died.

Yet, Rizq Allah al-Tamimi, is no a match for either of the leading authorities of the Hanbalis, neither Abu Ya’la, nor Ibn al-Banna.

Having said that, even Rizq Allah al-Tamimi, along with his entire Tamimi family are considered anthropomorphists according to the author’s and the modern day Ash’ari standards. For Abul-Fadhl al-Tamimi, like the early Ash’aris, explicitly affirms many of the Attributes of Allah, saying that Allah has a Face, literally and not allegorically, just as He has Two Hands. (al-I’tiqad p. 17-23)

An interesting point to note is that the author, elsewhere, often refers to the ‘Rizq Allah family’ and the ‘Tamimi family’ as if they were two different families. However, anyone who has a scant knowledge of Tabaqat of Hanbalis, knows that Rizq Allah was from the Tamimi family, and not that there were two different families. This, of course, highlights the bogus claim of the author to Hanbalism.

2) Ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali, who was influenced by the Mu’tazila in his early days, by his own admission. His Mu’tazili influence lead him to write a book called ‘al-Nasiha’ (An Advice), which Ibn Qudama refers to as ‘al-Fadhiha’ (A Scandal). In this book he launched a ferocious Jahmite attack on the Hanbalis, which caused the Hanbalis, lead by Sharif Abu Ja’far to make his blood Halal. Ibn ‘Aqil then made an escape attempt and boarded a ship, only to meet a young man who said to him: ‘Who is this man, Ibn ‘Aqil? Tell me, so that I can kill him!’ Hearing this, Ibn ‘Aqil was struck with fear, so he returned to Baghdad, sat at the feet of Sharif Abu Ja’far and repented in presence of a group of Hanbalis!

In spite of this, Ibn ‘Aqil, confirming with the Hanbali tradition, was an avowed enemy of the Ash’arites, and in fact, he wrote a book refuting the Ash’arites: al-Radd ‘ala Al-Ash’ira.

3) Ibn al-Jawzi, was greatly influenced by Ibn ‘Aqil’s works, which is why the former held exactly the same opinions as the latter. It is well documented in all the major Hanbali historical and biographical works that Ibn al-Jawzi departed from the Madhab of Imam Ahmad in beliefs, something that even an amateur Hanbali is aware of. Ibn al-Jawzi, therefore, was never a reference point in Hanbali creed, not in his time, nor ever after his death. Not to mention that he was severely criticised by the Hanbali Sheikh of his time al-‘Althi, who bluntly told him to look for a different Madhab!

In spite of this, he too, like Ibn ‘Aqil whom he admired, was an avoid enemy of the Ash’arites, who once said of them: ‘The heretics claim; i) there is no god in the Heavens, ii) neither is there Qur’an in the Mushaf, and iii) nor is there a Prophet in the grave; ‘your three shameful facets’’

4) Najm al-Din al-Tufi al-Hanbali, is often mentioned as a great Hanbali critique of Ibn Taymiyya. Yet, one only needs to refer to Dhayl ‘ala Tabaqat al-Hanabila of Ibn Rajab to find out that al-Tufi, as he admitted himself, was an Ash’arite and a Rafidhi! Such a person’s testimony is rejected about himself, let alone Ibn Taymiyya or Imam Ahmad.

So if the author knows of any other Hanbali ‘authorities’ who referred to the Hanbalis as Mujassima, then please let us know.

Yes, al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la’s book, Ibtal al-Ta’wilat, did receive a fair share of criticism, but not due to anthropomorphism; rather, due to extremism in affirming Attributes for Allah, using extremely weak and often fabricated narrations.
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. Indeed, it is far from being called a research. In fact, this is a blatant example of cut-and-paste job of the words, the author managed to understand or misunderstand, from the passages, which if placed out of context may seemingly agree with his heresy. His only objective is to deliberately paint a false picture of the Hanbali creed, which I will now destroy in this document, with Allah’s leave.

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. At least, though surprisingly, he is honest enough to declare that he has not properly studied the source he is quoting from for the public, thereby, taking his fake ‘traditionalism’ to its lowest depths.

As for the author, al-Saffarini, his poem and his Sharh, I have commented on the three previously:
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 literal meaning (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…’
Further to that, it is worthy to note that al-Saffarini, when introduces his work, the methodology and the terminologies used, he mentions only three scholars, which indicates his heavy reliance on their works and statements. He says:
My intent by the term ‘The Sheikh’, or ‘Sheikh al-Islam’ when uttered is Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya. My intent with by term ‘al-Muhaqqiq’, is his student Ibn al-Qayyim, and by the term ‘al-‘Allama’: Ibn Muflih. Moreover, anyone who reads the two volumes of the Sharh, realises that the most often quoted scholar in the work, who is cited in nearly every chapter without a single rebuke or disagreement, is none other than Sheikh al-Islam IbnTaymiyya, and then Ibn al-Qayyim. A person does not even need to know Arabic well to discern the status of Ibn Taymiyya in Hanbali ‘Aqida, for he can do that just by flicking through the pages, searching for: ‘… and Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said…’

As for the author’s claim of apparently highlighting the differences between the Athari and the Salafi creed, while admitting that he has not even studied the book, is the most ridiculous of all claims, which only highlight the fact, that the author is ignorant of the Athari and the Salafi creed, and therefore unable to make any comparison.
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. This is simply pretentiousness from the author, who most probably did not translate the Kalami terms, because he has no acquaintance with Kalam. For if his knowledge of a supposedly simple Athari creed is zilch, how is he then supposed to have any knowledge of Kalam, when the Ash’aris themselves are ignorant thereof?!
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. The author here fakes maturity by claiming that there is diversity amongst Ahl al-Sunnah, which according to him, comprises of the so-called ‘Atharis’, and Ash’aris and the Maturidis, but not Salafis, whom are regarded to be a heretical sect by the author; and to this end, he endeavours to prove how the Salafis are not the traditional Atharis. Hence, the bottom line of his argument is, that Sunnism is simply Neo-Aristotelianism represented by the Ash’aris or the Maturidis, while the Atharis are only those less-intelligent who subdue to their negative theology, and negate the literal meanings of the Divine Attributes.

Furthermore, how can the author claim diversity and harmony amongst ‘Ahl al-Sunnah’, when the Ash’aris and the Maturidis, let alone the Hanbalis, have historically been at each other throats? May be the author needs to learn about the Maturidis imputing disbelief on the Ash’aris, and forbidding one to pray behind them, because they allow one to say: ‘I am a believer, InshaAllah’, or because they say that Iman is created? (See Fatawa al-Subki 1/53)

What would they say of the confession of their modern Ash’ari Sheikh, Muhammad Abu Zahra, that upon deep investigation it becomes clear that there is a great difference between the Ash’aris and the Maturidis, in that one is more inclined towards ‘aql than the other? How about his statement that the Maturidis are closer to the Mu’tazilas than Ahl al-Sunnah? (See Tarikh al-Madhahib 176)

Finally, why did the author ignore al-Saffarini’s statement in his poem and his Sharh where he regards the Atharis, the followers of Imam Ahmad, to be the only saved sect?

This text (about the saved sect) cannot be applied to any sect
Save the Ahl al-Athar

Why does not the author also refer to its Sharh:

‘Some scholars said: (the saved sect) meaning, Ahl al-Hadeeth, i.e. the Atharis, the Ash’aris and the Maturidis.

I say: The wording of the Hadeeth, i.e. his statement: ‘except one sect’, contradicts the idea of multiplicity, and thus I said:

This text (about the saved sect) cannot be applied to any sect
Save the Ahl al-Athar’ (1/76)

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 May Allah show the author the falsity of his Greek Imam, Aristotle, in whose name he carries out his mission of so-called Tanzih, which ultimately results in negation of god from the existence; and guide you to have Iman in the words of your Lord and His Messenger, Ameen.

Abuz Zubair

11th May 2006, 09:49 PM

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) Imam al-Saffarini, in this section, is only relating the beliefs of al-Karramiyya, as they have been described in the books of heresiographical works, irrespective of how much of it is correct or incorrect.

The one gifted with an atoms weight of sincerity in his heart would turn directly to very chapter which al-Saffarini dedicates to the discussion of Allah’s literal elevation upon His Creation, where he argues in support of Allah’s direction in twenty-three pages, the summary of which is as follows:

On page 190 of the first volume, he begins the section on Istiwa saying:
‘Glory be to Him’, the author mentioned the Glorification of Lord, referring to sanctifying Allah from the beliefs of the negators (mu’attila) and the beliefs of the anthropomorphists (al-mumathila). ‘He has risen’ over His Throne, above (fawq) the seven heavens, a rising that befits his Essence, ‘as has been mentioned in the text’ of the Quranic verses, and the Prophetic traditions, and the Salafi texts (from the Salaf), which are too numerous to be investigated. This is the Book of Allah, from beginning to the end, and the Sunnah of His Messenger, from the beginning to the end, then the general statements of the companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and the Successors to them in good, may Allah be merciful with them; then the statements of the rest of the Imams of religion, whose statements are held in high regard, and no one disputes therein, except every stubborn and arrogant person; that Allah Ta’ala is (mustawin) established above His Throne, separate from His creation. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya and his student al-Imam al-Muhaqqiq Ibn al-Qayyim said, in his book al-Juyush al-Islamiyya (which Keller calls anthropomorphic)…’ He then quotes Ibn al-Qayyim for about half of the page, then begins to quote the Quranic verses in support for Allah’s literal elevation upon His creation.

He then begins to quote Ibn al-Qayyim, quoting Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari in Ijtima’ al-Juyush al-Islamiyya, mentioning the story of Pharaoh, the story of the Prophet’s ascension where the Prophet traveled through the Heavens until he reached his Lord, and various other traditions from al-Bukhari.

Al-Saffarini then quotes al-Dhahabi from his work Kitab al-‘Arsh (which al-Kawthari says: I wish he didn’t write it!).

He then quotes Ibn Taymiyya literally affirming Allah’s elevation upon His creation saying: ‘Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said: As for the traditions and narrations from the Companions and the Successors, then no one knows how numerous they are accept Allah. He (Ibn Taymiyya) said: Either, that which these texts contribute towards from affirming Highness of Allah Ta’ala over His creation and Rising above the Throne, that it is the truth, or the truth is the opposite of that, since the truth must either be of the two opposing possibilities. Either He, Jalla Sha’nuhu, Himself (nafsuhu) above the Creation, or He is not above the Creation as the Jahmites say; those who say that He Subhanahu is not above them, nor in them, nor inside the world, nor outside of it, nor separate, nor attached. Often they say, He is in Essence everywhere, while in both beliefs, they avoid saying that He Himself is above (fawq)…’ The quote then continues over two pages, up until Ibn Taymiyya says: ‘The scholars of Hadeeth have compiled the narrations from the Salaf concerning affirmation (of Highness), that none can count except the Lord of the Heavens; yet, no one has been able to narrate from them in negation (of Highness) a single letter, except fabricated lies narrated by one who is the most furthest of all from understanding their statements.’

I say (al-Saffarini): ‘The scholars wrote numerous works, and greatly endeavored to produce books, in affirmation of (Allah’s) Highness and Rising, pointing it out using the verses and traditions and what they comprise of. Hence, from them is one who narrates the traditions with chains, whilst from them is one who excludes the chains bringing meaningful wording. From them is one who extensively elaborates, whilst from them is one who wrote small-sized, medium-sized works, or refined existing ones. From such works is Mas’alat al-‘Uluw (The Issue of Allah’s Elevation) by Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya; al-‘Uluw by al-Imam al-Muwaffaq, the author of various Sunni works; al-Juyush al-Islamiyya by al-Imam al-Muhaqqiq Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya; Kitab al-‘Arsh by al-Hafidh Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi, the author of highly precious works; and other works which cannot be counted except with difficulty, while Allah Ta’ala is the source of ability.’

He then quotes 'al-‘Allama al-Sheikh Mar’i al-Karmi al-Hanbali' from his work Aqawil al-Thiqat, literally affirming Allah’s Elevation upon His creation, who further goes on to quote ‘Sayyadina al-Sheikh al-Kabir, al-Sheikh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jayli al-Hanbali – May Allah hallow His secret! – in his book al-Ghunya fil-Fiqh, who said: And He is in the direction (jiha) of Elevation, settled upon the Throne…’; and then goes on to quote al-Qurtubi in his Tafsir of Surah al-A’raf: The early Salaf – may Allah be pleased with them – would not negate direction (jiha), nor would they utter such. Rather, they and the rest uttered in affirmation of that (i.e. direction) for Allah Ta’ala, as did utter His Book, and His Messengers informed – to his words: None from the Salaf al-Salih denied that Allah Ta’ala Rose over His Throne in reality (haqiqatan)’. He then goes on to quote Ibn Rushd al-Maliki in his book called al-Kashf: ‘As for this Attribute, i.e. the belief in a direction (for Allah), then the people of Shari’a did not cease to affirm it, until the Mu’tazila and the latter Ash’arites negated it, such as Abul-Ma’ali (al-Juwayni) and those who followed him. He then said: ‘It has become obvious that the affirmation of direction (jiha) is obligatory, legally and intellectually..’

He then quotes al-Imam ‘Abdullah b. al-Mubarak, followed by Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari from his al-Ibana, and then his Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, literally affirming Allah’s elevation above His creation. He then mentions al-Husayn b. Mas’ud from his tafsir, saying that he likewise followsing Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari in this opinion, and then quotes al-Baqillani from his Tamhid, literally affirming Allah’s elevation upon His creation.

He then quotes Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya stating that the Ash’aris opposed many of their early scholars.

Al-Saffarini then says (1/198): ‘Once you know this, then be certain, that many people think that the one who believes in a direction (jiha for Allah), or Rising (Istiwa), is from the Mujassima, for they think that this belief necessitates Tajsim.’ He then discusses at length that ‘lazim al-madhab laysa bi madhab’, what one’s view may necessitate, is not necessarily the person’s view; and that the Salaf affirmed these Attributes while negating the kayf, and therefore, why should it necessitate tajsim? To this end he quotes the narration of Umm Salama, Rabi’a al-Ra’i the Sheikh of Imam Malik, Imam Malik himself, al-Sha’bi who says it is from the Mutashabih of the Quran, Imam al-Shafi’i and Imam Ahmad.

The author of the rotten ‘Apples and Oranges’, completely ignores the ten (of 23!) pages which I have just summarised, and jumps straight to the following statement of al-Saffarini (after quoting al-Sha’bi on the verse being Mutashabih), and then does not even have the courtesy to complete it:
“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) He then omits the following continuation of al-Saffarini’s statement:
‘As for knowing the reality of the matter, which goes back to the kayfiyya, then that is unknown; and the reason why it is unknown is because there is no way for us to know the kayfiyya, for that always follows the Essence (i.e. we do not even know the kayfiyya of the essence, how can we know the kayfiyya of sifa?). He then goes on to explain that Allah Rising over His Throne does not necessitate that Allah has a limit. To this end he refers al-Qurtubi, Ibn Abi Zayd and al-Qadhi ‘Abd al-Wahhab from the Malikis, a group of Mashaikh of Hadeeth and Fiqh, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Qadhi Abu Bakr b. al-‘Arabi, Ibn Furak and countless many, that Allah is ‘Established above His Throne in person (bi dhatihi), and often said in some places: fawqa ‘arshihi (above His Throne)’. He then refers to al-Qadhi Abu Bakr and quotes extensively from Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya answering the objections of the Ash’aris saying that what they necessitate from our belief in highness and direction, is only applicable to bodies, whereas we affirm Allah’s Rising as it suits His Majesty and Greatness.

He then quotes al-Qurtubi saying: ‘The most correct of the beliefs (adhar al-aqwal), although I do not subscribe to it nor do I prefer it, is what is manifest in the verses and traditions, and (the statements of) the noble and the excellent ones, that Allah Subhanahu is upon His Throne, as He informed in His Books, without kayf, separate from His creation. This is basically the Madhab of the Salaf al-Salih.’

Al-Saffarini then says: ‘What is amazing from al-Qurtubi, that he says: ‘although I do not subscribe to it nor do I prefer it’! Perhaps he feared that some envious people may misconstrue his words, so he guarded himself with this statement. This was said by al-‘Allama al-Sheikh Mar’i. The vast majority of the Hanbalis held this belief, while saying: Allah Rose as it befits His Self (dhat)…’

He then quotes Ibn Taymiyya extensively on the issue of ambiguous terms introduced by the Jahmites to describe Allah, and in particular, in this quote, Ibn Taymiyya discusses the usage of the term ‘direction’, arguing that it is a newly invented term, and therefore, it is not accepted, nor rejected, unless after enquiring what one actually means by this term. Therefore: ‘It is said to the one who negates direction, do you mean by the word ‘direction’ that it is a created existence? If so, then Allah is not inside his creation. Or do you mean by the term ‘direction’, whatever is beyond the universe? For then, there is no doubt that Allah is above the universe, separate from His creation…’

Al-Saffarini also quotes Sheikh al-Islam from his Tadmurriyya (a classical Hanbali manual on creed): ‘As for Allah’s Elevation, and His separation from His creation, then that is known from the intellect (‘aql). And as for His Rising over the Throne, then the way to have knowledge of this is the texts. Whereas there is no description in the Quran and the Sunnah, saying that Allah is not inside the world, nor outside thereof…’

Al-Saffarini then quotes al-Jalal al-Dawani (an Ash’ari) who implies that Ibn Taymiyya is the first one to call the negators of direction (jiha), ‘the negators’ (mu’attila), and then responds to him saying:

‘I say (al-Saffarini): Sheikh al-Islam is not the first one to call the negators (of Allah’s elevation) ‘the negators’ (mu’attila), for here is Abu Muhammad ‘Abdullah b. Sa’id b. Kullab, whose doctrine was followed by Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari, although he differed with him in a few issues, nevertheless, he is still on his method of affirming the Attributes, Elevation (al-Fawqiyya), and Highness (al-‘Uluw) of Allah above His Throne…’

He further quotes Ibn Kullab saying: ‘If they say, He is not above (fawq), nor below (taht), they have negated him from existence! For that which is neither above, nor below is non-existence.’ He then further quotes Ibn Taymiyya, followed by ‘Imad al-Din al-Wasiti, referred to as ‘Junayd of his time’ by Ibn Taymiyya, literally affirming Elevation of Allah and a direction, from his famous work, Ithbat al-‘Uluw wa al-Fawqiyya; and thereby ending his long chapter on Allah’s literal Elevation upon His creation in 23 pages, which I managed to summarise in four pages.

Any reader, whether sincere or insincere, reading this summary knows for certain that the author is either terribly incompetent, or deeply insincere, or both, and perhaps latter is the case. For how could the author be blind to what I have quoted and summarised above – 23 long pages – and be deliberately selective by misquoting two sentences, and thereby, intentionally giving the impression to the reader that the Athari creed of al-Saffarini is different to that of the Salafi creed of Ibn Taymiyya?

Surely, it is more than obvious to anyone reading only the summary, the importance and the status given to Ibn Taymiyya by al-Saffarini.

Abuz Zubair

11th May 2006, 10:25 PM

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)
The author here implies that al-Saffarini, by saying: ‘we pass it on as it has come’, refers to the Ash’ari concept of Tafwidh, that is to affirm the wording as detached letters while negating the literal meaning thereof, whereas the Salafi Tafweedh is to affirm the literal meaning and negate the kayf thereof.

I have already responded to this:
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 literal meaning (dhahir), and render the meaning unto Allah’

Perhaps, we cannot find something more explicit than this, that Imam al-Saffarini clearly believed in the literal meaning (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/inner-speech) 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.
Then the author of the rotten ‘Apples and Oranges’ states:
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)
Firstly, the author translated Huduth as ‘change’, where as linguistically it means, something new, recent, or occurrence. It does not refer to change. Moreover, Huduth in the terminology of Kalam is completely synonymous with the term ‘makhluq’, i.e. the creation. Hence, the author should have correctly translated as ‘created-ness’, thereby, rendering the sentence as such:

'All that necessitates deficiency or Hudūth (created-ness), then Allāh is free from that in reality (Haqīqatan)'

Secondly, I have already explained extensively that the Salaf affirmed the literal meanings (dhahir), while relegating the meaning (or kayf) to Allah. The ‘meaning’ being negated here is precisely the ‘kayf’, otherwise, it will be senseless for these Imams to affirm the literal meanings (dhahir) and demonstrate it by explicitly affirming Allah’s Rising over the Throne, ascribing a direction to Allah, and affirming vigorously that Allah Speaks with Sound and Letters.

I have also extensively shown, by referring to at least four of the works of Ibn Qudama, and by quoting 16 different instances, who, like al-Saffarini, affirms the literal meaning (dhahir) of the texts, while negating the ‘meaning’, i.e. any ta’wil, other than it’s literal meaning (dhahir). Here are some of the examples I previous quoted:
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 literal meaning (dhahir).'

From this we deduce, a) If he had negated the literal meaning (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 literal meaning (dhahir) of the texts clearly shows that he does not negate the literal meaning (dhahir), rather he affirms it, and therefore, he is not a mufawwidh.
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 literal meaning (dhahir).’

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

This further proves that Ibn Qudama affirmed the literal meaning (dhahir), and therefore, 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 literal meaning (dhahir) of these texts, and therefore he is not a mufawwidh.
13) In the same book (refutation of Ibn ‘Aqil) 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 literal meaning (dhahir) of the wording.

The quote from al-Saffarini about the obligation of believing in the literal meaning (dhahir) while negating the ma’na (any meaning that opposes the literal meaning), has already preceded, and therefore, no need for repetition.

As for what literal meaning (dhahir) technically means, then that has also been dealt with:
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 literal meaning (dhahir).'

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

The literal meaning (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 he 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 literal meaning (dhahir), they believe in the literal meanings of the texts, the first and the most obvious meaning that comes to mind.

Abuz Zubair

11th May 2006, 10:43 PM

Then the pretentious author writes:
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.”
As mentioned in the section of Allah’s direction and elevation, al-Saffarini extensively quoted Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya on the usage of newly introduced terms, such as substance (jawhar), accident (‘aradh), direction (jiha), etc, that they are not accepted nor rejected unless and until the true intended meaning behind these words are known. Therefore, if one intends a false meaning by these terms, seeking to negate Allah’s Attributes, then that is completely rejected. However, if one intends the correct meaning, then there is no harm, although, it is always better to describe Allah How He described Himself.

The Ash’aris use the terms such as ‘parts’ and ‘divisibility’ with an incorrect meaning, to negate Attributes of Allah, such as the Speech of Allah being letters, or Allah’s Face, Hands, etc.

However, al-Saffarini uses the term with its correct meaning, that Allah is One and Self-Sufficient, who does not break apart or diminish. This is why he affirms the Attributes which the Ash’aris negate, for according to them, those Attributes necessitate ‘parts’ and ‘divisibility’ for Allah.

al-Saffarini also quotes Ibn Qudama from his work al-Burhan fi Haqiqat al-Quran: ‘Their statement, that the Eternal (qadim) is not divisible nor multiple (more than one), is not correct, for Allah’s Names are multiple. Allah Ta’ala said: ‘And to Allah belong the Beautiful Names’. The Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam said: To Allah belong 99 Names, whoever guards them enters Paradise’, while these (Names) are Eternal (qadima, yet multiple)’ 139

Al-Saffarini quotes Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya on page 169, trapping the Ash’arites in their own argument, who say on one hand that Allah is not parts nor divisible, and on the other hand, that Musa literally heard Allah’s Speech; that when Musa heard Allah’s Speech, did he hear all of it, or part of it? If he heard all of Allah’s Speech, then that means Musa heard everything that Allah has ever have Spoken to anyone else. If he hard only a part of his Speech, then the Ash’aris have confessed to the fact that Allah’s Speech is in parts or divisible, and this goes against their philosophy.

Abuz Zubair

11th May 2006, 10:54 PM

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)
On page 134 al-Saffarini quotes Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya from his Sharh of al-Asfahaniyya, declaring that Allah’s Speech is both, the Attribute of Essence, as well as Attribute of Action, for the Attribute of Speech for Allah ‘Azza Sha’nuhu is established by consensus of the prophets, that He Speaks, when He likes without kayf.

Al-Saffarani further quotes Ibn Taymiyya detailing the Kullabite doctrine, that Allah’s Speech is an Attribute of Allah’s Essence, like Allah’s Life, and not related to Allah’s will, i.e. Allah does not Speak when He wills, for He is forever ‘Speaking’ an ‘inner Speech’.

He then literally affirms that Allah Speaks with a Sound in over three pages, quoting ‘Abdullah’s narration from Imam Ahmad as reported in al-Sunnah. He then says: ‘Over forty traditions have been narrated in affirmation of letters and a Sound (for Allah’s Speech), some of them are authentic, while others are Hasan, which were narrated and used as proofs by al-Imam al-Hafidh Dhiya’ al-Maqdisi (al-Hanbali) and others. Our master, Imam Ahmad narrated most of them, using them as proofs. Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar also narrated most of them in Sharh al-Bukhari, while al-Bukhari used them as proofs, as well as others from the Imams of Hadeeth; that the Truth (Allah) Jalla Sha’nuhu, Speaks with letters and Sound. They deemed such texts to be correct, and believed therein (wa’taqiduhu), and relied thereupon, while sanctifying Allah Ta’ala from that which does not befit His Majesty, from the fallacy of created-ness (Huduth) and qualities of deficiency, just as they believed in the rest of the Attributes.’

On page 162, he relates from Abu Hamid al-Isfarayni saying that he literally believes that the Quran is the Speech of Allah, uncreated, which Jibril literally heard it from Allah, and the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – heard from Jibril, and that this is the very Speech contained between the two covers of a Mushaf.

On page 163, al-Saffarini quotes Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya extensively, accusing the Ash’aris of believing that the Arabic Quran is not the Speech of Allah, but that of Jibril or Muhammad – SallAllahu ‘alayhi wa-sallam. Backing Ibn Taymiyya, al-Saffarini, relates the Madhab of the Ash’aris, referring to Sa’d al-Taftazini and concludes:

‘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 affirm 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/inner-speech) 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.’

From page 161 to 170, he continues to quote Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qudama in refutation of the Ash’aris, arguing that Allah Speaks with a Sound.

Abuz Zubair

11th May 2006, 11:06 PM

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)
A reader only needs to have a glance at al-Saffarini’s introduction to this particular section to know the Salafism of al-Saffarini, and the reason he mentioned the terms like substance (jawhar), accident (‘aradh, and not ‘ardh, as the ignorant author transliterates), and body (jism). Al-Saffarini says:

‘Chapter: In regards to the Attributes of Allah that the Imams of the Salaf and the Athari scholars affirm, in exclusion to the others from the scholars of the Khalaf, the people of Kalam, let alone the misguide and corrupt sects, the masters of philosophy, and the heretics. However, because affirming these attributes gives rise to unexpected ideas for the philosophical intellects, the Kalami analogies, and the Khalafi imaginations, which may give impression of Tajsim, the author preceded the chapter (on sifat), with that which negates such (thoughts of tajsim), by saying:

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

From this we conclude the following:

1) al-Saffarini clearly states in the beginning of this new chapter, that he will affirm the forthcoming Attributes (such as, Allah’s literal elevation over His creation, a Face and Hands), which only the Salaf and the Athari scholars affirmed, in exclusion to the Khalaf and the people of Kalam (i.e. the Ash’aris and Maturidis)

2) He clearly outlines his reasons for mentioning the Kalami terms, such as jawhar and ‘aradh, and that is to put the corrupt philosophical and Ash’ari minds to rest. For they, as he says, unexpectedly understand the literal meanings of this text to be what they see in the creation, and therefore, they are guilty of tajsim by making analogy of Allah’s Attributes to that of His creation.

We have already mentioned Ibn Taymiyya’s attitude towards the newly invented ambiguous terms, which al-Saffarini agrees to, that neither do we accept them, nor do we reject them, until we know what one means.
Surely, by using such terms, al-Saffarini is not negating Allah’s Attributes, and how could he, when he has dedicated a whole chapter in affirming Allah’s Face, Hands, etc, which the Ash’arites deny as Attributes of Allah.

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)
I have already responded to that above by summarising 23 pages of al-Saffarini into four pages clearly showing that al-Saffarini not only affirms literal highness of Allah above His creation, but also affirms for him a direction, and to that end, quotes extensively, whom he refers to as ‘Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya’.

This also highlights the more-than-obvious deceit on part of the author, who selectively quotes a paragraph, from a twenty-three page long discussion, which, if taken out of context, may seem supporting the argument of Ash’arite tafwidh, while ignoring the glaring affirmation of a direction for Allah, which he considers anthropomorphism.

Abuz Zubair

11th May 2006, 11:38 PM

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: The author is guilty of gross misrepresentation of facts for the following reasons:

1) The author translates al-Saffarini’s poem as follows:
His ‘Ain and the attribute of Nuzūl and His (act of) creation so beware of descending (into Tashbīh)
Firstly, he refuses to render the Attributes such as ‘Ain and Nuzul into English, as Eye and Descent, even though al-Saffarini affirms their literal meanings (dhahir), as has already preceded and will be mentioned again.

Secondly, the author assumes that al-Saffarini by his words: ‘so beware of descending’, intends, descending into Tashbih. The author only needs to refer to page 257 where al-Saffarini explains what exactly he meant by the word ‘so beware of descending’. He says:

‘Due to the fact that the people of this religion have differed, for from them are those who negated all the Attributes but affirmed the Names, and they are the Mu’tazilites; as from them are those who negated the Attributes affirmed by reports (sifat khabariyya, such as Hands, Face, etc.) as they also negated Attributes connected to Allah’s will (sifat ikhtiyariyya, such as Speaking, Rising, Descending, Loving and Hating), such as the Ash’aris and those who agreed with them; while the Madhab of the Salaf, the rest of the Imams and the majority of the Ummah is to affirm the Attributes of Essence (such as Knowledge, Life, etc), the Beautiful Names (The Most Merciful, etc), the Attributes affirmed by reports (sifat khabariyya, such as Face and Hands), and the Attributes connected to His will (sifat ikhtiyariyya, such as Rising, Descending, etc); the author (al-Saffarini) encouraged you to follow the Salaf of this Ummah, and warned you from innovations, and opposing the Sunnah and the noble Imams, thus he said: ‘So beware of descending (or sinking)’ from the peak of Iman, the spear of religion, the certainty, the climax of high rank and cognition, to the lowliness of innovation, the filth of novelty. For safety only lies in following the first generation, the group upon whom we trust, not that which the offspring of the Jahmites innovated, nor that which the masters of philosophy professed from the Masha’i or the Ishraqi sects (of philosophers).’

Even though, anthropomorphism is no doubt descending to heresy, the objective here is to show that al-Saffarini is referring to the Jahmites like the author in particular, as it is obvious from al-Saffarini’s own Sharh.

Another important point to note from the above citation is that al-Saffarini makes a clear distinction between the Mu’tazilas, the Ash’aris and the Salafis/Hanbalis. For he states that the Ash’aris do not accept Sifat Khabariyya, such as Face and Hands, nor Sifat Ikhtiyariyya, such as Rising and Descending; while the Hanbalis/Salafis affirm both for Allah Ta’ala, and that is the essence of Hanbali/Salafi doctrine as expounded by Ibn Taymiyya, which is evidently clear from the abundant citations of Ibn Taymiyya through out the Sharh.

2) The author ignored the important aspects of the Sharh of al-Saffarini where he explicitly affirms for Allah the Attribute of Mercy, Love, Anger literally, over five pages, quoting Ibn Taymiyya through out. These are the Attributes that the Ash’aris – both the muta’awwila and the mufawwidha – negate.

3) al-Saffarini then goes on to literally affirm the Attribute of Face to Allah, thus he says: ‘He (al-Saffarani) then mentions the Attributes of Allah which the Salaf affirmed, in exclusion to others, and began with the Attribute of Face for Allah Ta’ala, by saying: ‘… such as His Face…’, meaning: from the Attributes affirmed for Him Ta’ala is the Attribute of Face, affirming by that its existence (wujud), and not its nature (kayf) or definition (tahdid). This is what al-Khattabi and others narrated, that this is the Madhab of the Salaf and the four Imams. This was the opinion of Abu Hanifa, the Hanbalis, and many of the Shafi’is and others, which is to affirm the verse and traditions of Attributes literally (‘ala dhahiriha), while negating the nature (kayfiyya) and likeness (tashbih) from Allah, arguing that the belief in Allah’s Attributes is branched off from the belief in His Essence (dhat)’

4) al-Saffarini then mentions the figurative interpretation by some Ash’aris, such as Ibn Furak and al-Qurtubi, and says in response: ‘The Madhab of the Salaf and the first generation upon whom we put our trust, is that the Face is an affirmed Attribute of Allah, which has come in the texts, and therefore wholeheartedly accepted.’ He then quotes al-Bayhaqi, al-Baqillani and al-Khattabi refuting the figurative interpretation of Face.

5) He then quotes al-Nawawi’s figurative interpretation of Allah’s Face, and then responds saying: ‘The truth in reality is the Madhab of the Salaf of this Ummah, and that which the Imams are upon, which is to affirm the Face, and the like…’ He then goes onto literally affirm Allah’s Hands.

Abuz Zubair

11th May 2006, 11:50 PM

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.

The author of the rotten ‘Apples and Oranges’, habitually and deliberately misrepresents the truth due to the following reasons:

1) The author ignores al-Saffarini’s own words literally affirming Allah’s Hands as he says: ‘… and thus, the author states: ‘…like His Hand…’ which is affirmed via the Quranic texts and prophetic traditions’, and then goes on to quote the textual proof in affirming Allah’s Hands over two pages.

2) He then quotes Ibn Taymiyya, as usual, affirming that narrations such as those affirming Allah’s Hands are numerous, which prove that the Heavens and the earth in Allah’s grasp are smaller than the smallest of particle in the hand of a human being. Al-Saffarini then says: ‘If you recall what we have mentioned, and understood the meaning of what we cited, then be certain, that the Madhab of the Salaf al-Salih and the Hanbali scholars, and those who agree with them from the Atharis, is that the intent behind (mentioning) Two Hands, is to affirm Two Attributes of Essence for Allah that are called Two Hands, that are more than just bounty (ni’ma) and ablity (qudra)…’

3) al-Saffarini then quotes al-Baghawi and al-Bayhaqi referring to figurative interpretation of Allahs’ Hands and says: ‘Then al-Bayhaqi nullified all of that (figurative interpretation), and affirmed that the Two Hands are in fact two Attributes, that are related to the creation of Adam, which honoured him (Adam) as opposed to Iblis.’ He then quotes Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari affirming the Two Hands for Allah, and says: ‘The Mu’tazilas, and a group from the Ash’aris believed that the meaning of ‘Two Hands’ is power…’

4) It is in refutation of such figurative interpretation that al-Saffarini quotes al-Bayhaqi explaining the Madhab of the Salaf, which is not to give tafsir, referring to the Ta’wil that al-Saffarini mentions just before he quotes al-Bayhaqi. Hence, al-Bayhaqi’s quote placed in its context, clearly shows that al-Bayhaqi’s and al-Saffarini’s negation of Tafsir speicifically refers to figurative interpretation, and not the literal meaning, which he explicitly affirms in his Sharh in many instances. This also clarifies the intention of those of the Salaf who negated the ‘tafsir’ of Allah’s Attributes, i.e. the ta’wil.

5) al-Saffarini then quotes al-Nawawi, the very quote the author of the rotten ‘Apples and Oranges’ mentions and says that al-Saffarini shows no opposition to al-Nawawi, and more ridiculously, that he in fact supports al-Nawawi’s words! Yet, al-Saffarini opposes al-Nawawi on no less than two counts; i) making ta’wil of both of Allah’s Hands being His Right, and ii) negating the literal meaning (dhahir) of the texts; for al-Saffarini quotes al-Khattabi and Ibn Khuzayma in refutation of al-Nawawi and others who figuratively interpret both of Allah’s Hands being on His Right, and ends Ibn Khuzayma’s quote saying: ‘He (Ibn Khuzayma) then insults them, curses them, and described them with Kufr, negation, and extensively reproaching and mocking those who figuratively interpret the texts, and divert them from their real meanings (haqiqatiha), and Allah is the source of ability.’

Al-Saffarini, later on refers to al-Khattabi who claims that nothing has been narrated in affirmation of Allah’s Fingers, and says: ‘This is amazing from him (al-Khattabi)! Rather, this is (i.e. the Fingers), is affirmed in the authentic Sunnah, which is beyond any doubt, authentic’. To this end, he quotes al-Nawawi to prove that there is indeed mention of Allah’s Fingers, yet, according to al-Nawawi, the literal meanings of such verses are negated. He likewise quotes al-Qurtubi making ta’wil of Allah’s fingers and says: ‘Some of the researches said: This Hadeeth is from the rest of the texts (on Attributes) which the Salaf refrained from making ta’wil of, such as the Hadeeth of Hearing, Seeing and Hands, for these texts are taken at their face value (literal meaning – ‘ala dhahirihi), and narrated using the same words with which it was narrated.’

In refutation of al-Nawawi’s claim, that the literal meaning (dhahir) must be negated, al-Saffarini then quotes Ibn Taymiyya:

‘Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya – May his soul rest in peace – said in his Tadmurriyya treatise: ‘If one says: Are the literal meanings (dhahir) of the texts intended, or not? It is said to him: There exists in the term ‘literal’ (dhahir), a sense of generality and homonymy (ijmal wa ishtirak). Hence, if the person believes that the literal meanings are in fact likening (Allah’s Attributes) with the attributes of the creation, or with what is specifically from the their qualities, then no doubt that is not the intended meaning (of those texts).

However, the Salaf and the Imams never referred to such (resemblance) as the literal meanings (dhahir) of the texts, nor would they be pleased with the idea that the literal meanings (dhahir) of the Quran and Hadeeth is Kufr and falsehood! For Allah is more knowledgeable and more wise, that there may exist in His Speech, with which He described Himself, the literal meaning (dhahir) of which is nothing but Kufr and misguidance!’

Al-Saffarini then ends this section on Allah’s Hands by affirming all of the narrations related to Allah’s Attributes, such as His Foot (rijl), Step (qadam) and Form (sura).

Abuz Zubair

12th May 2006, 12:13 AM

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…

What the author has quoted here from al-Saffirini is a proof against him and not for him. However, the unfortunate author, as we have clearly witnessed, is ignorant of Kalam, the Hanbali doctrine, Usul al-Fiqh and logic, due to which, we see him quoting texts like a blind-following parrot, in refutation of his own arguments, while he knows not.

1) The author refuses to translate the word ‘Ain into English as ‘Eye’, claiming that the literal meaning must be negated, while we have shown over and over, the explicit statements of al-Saffarini, affirming the literal meanings of the texts, and therefore, al-Saffarini literally attributes to Allah ‘Eyes’ and not just al-‘Ayn, as it will be demonstrated in the due course.

2) al-Saffarini’s quote which the author mentioned is a clear-cut refutation of the author’s Jahmite principles, for he clearer states: ‘rather, we assent, submit, comply and believe in all of that and affirm it (i.e. Allah’s Eye), thereby affirming its existence (wujud) without affirming the nature (takyif) or a universal definition (tahdid)’.

From this we deduce that al-Saffarini literally believes in the existence of Allah’s Eye, yet refuses to affirm a nature (takyif), or a give a definition (tahdid) thereof.

The author then makes the most ridiculous blunder by rendering the word ‘tahdid’ into ‘giving a meaning to something’, and then contradicts himself by quoting Ibn Sabban, that tahdid in fact means, ‘the definition’!

Firstly, why quote from Ibn Sabban, when al-Saffarini himself in his excellent section on logic, at the very end of the same Sharh the author is quoting from, defines for us what Hadd means to the logicians? How can then, this pretentious author, claim to decipher the Sharh of al-Saffarini, while he remains completely ignorant of the contents of this book? Does not this show to the readers, and perhaps to the author himself, that he has plunged too early into subjects that do not concern him?

Secondly, the author says: ‘This word comes from Haddada, Yuhaddidu Tahdīd which means to give a Hadd to something’.

Indeed, this much can be deduced by anyone who is slightly familiar with Arabic morphology. But what does the ‘term’ Hadd generally mean, and in particular in the context of our discussion, and whoever defined the Hadd to mean: ‘giving a meaning to something’?!

Hadd in theology means a limit, or limitation.

Hadd in Kalam and philosophy means a perfect definition which is universal and proper (jami’ mani’) that defines the essence of something, and this is the definition being referred to in the statement of al-Saffarini, because it is Kalam we are discussing here and not logic, although its definition in logic is not very off either.

Yet, I do not know, in which science the term Hadd means ‘meaning given to something’, unless of course, if the author is referring to Hadd lafdhi, and if so, then even that involves defining the meaning of a word, and not simply stating a meaning; and which al-Saffarini is clearly not referring to when his methodology, as he states, is to affirm the literal meanings of the Attributes.

To simplify for the readers, a Hadd for something means the definition, for al-Saffarini says in his own poem that 'the Hadd is the foundation of all sciences', i.e. the definitions, because it describes a thing with its most complete description (wasf muhit), which reveals (kashif) the essence of that thing, and distinguishes it from other things.

Al-Saffarini gives the following example for Hadd, which will clearly show the difference between meaning and Hadd:

‘Insan’ means a human being

The Hadd of ‘Insan’, however, is Haywan Natiq, i.e. A speaking animal.

Therefore, there is a clear difference between the meaning and Hadd, i.e. the definition. The former al-Saffarini affirms, while the latter he, and we all relegate the knowledge of to Allah.

Moreover, if the author claims to be a Hanbali, he should be aware that there are two narrations from Imam Ahmad concerning Hadd, as in 'limit'; one affirming it and the other negating it. Yet, in reality, there is only one narration in meaning, for Imam Ahmad negated the false meaning of Hadd (i.e. Allah being limited in His Attributes and therefore deficient), yet he affirmed the correct meaning of Hadd, in the sense that there is clearly a Hadd (limit) between Allah and His creation, that He does not intermix with His creation. This is also the opinion of ‘Abdullah b. al-Mubarak.

This further highlights the problem with using such ambiguous terms that can mean numerous things, while the Madhab of the Salaf, and that of the Hanbalis, is to describe Allah how He described Himself, without adding or negating anything from His Attributes.

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).”

1) The author here mentions al-Saffarini quoting al-Bayhaqi and al-Qurtubi affirming an Eye for Allah, while negating that it be a pupil (hadaqa), which obviously consolidates our position and not His, for our position is to affirm these Attributes literally.

2) He then quotes al-Saffarini, and thereby refuting himself as usual, demonstrating the glaring contradiction in his thought. He quotes al-Saffarini affirming ‘al-‘Ain’, exactly as he affirms for Allah Hearing and Seeing, yet the author himself makes Tafwidh of al-‘Ain by leaving it in Arabic, while translating al-Sam’ and al-Basar into Hearing and Seeing, while al-Saffarini makes no distinction at all between the affirmation of an Eye or the affirmation of Hearing and Seeing, as he affirms them all literally!

Simple logic dictates that if a) al-Saffarini negates the literal meaning, and b) affirms al-‘Ayn, just as he affirms al-Sam’ and al-Basar; then a+b should equal: al-Saffarini believing in al-‘Ayn, al-Sam’ and al-Basar.

Equally, if a) al-Saffarini affirmed the literal meaning, and b) affirms al-‘Ain, just as he affirms al-Sam’ and al-Basar, then a+b should equal: al-Saffarini believing in an Eye, Hearing and Seeing, literally.

What clearly defies logic, is what the deceptive author claims that a) al-Saffarini negates the literal meaning, b) al-Saffarini affirms al-‘Ayn, just as he affirms al-Sam’ and al-Basar, yet a+b equals: al-Saffarini believing an al-‘Ayn making tafwidh, but believing in Allah’s Hearing and Seeing literally!

3) The fact that al-Saffarini affirms an Eye for Allah literally becomes more obvious when he relates the Attribute of Eye with Allah’s Seeing, unlike the Ash’arites. He says: ‘(Our Hanabli scholars) said: The Mu’tazila and the Ash’aris refused that it be said that Allah has an Eye. As for the Mu’tazila, then they negated the Eye and Seeing, and therefore remained consistent. As for the Ash’aris, then they negated the Attribute of Eye, while they affirmed the Attributed of Seeing, which weakened their doctrine.’ Therefore, it becomes clear beyond doubt, that al-Saffarini affirmed an Eye for Allah with which He Sees, which he couldn’t have done unless He literally believed that Allah has an Eye. This alone destroys the hypothesis of Jahmites disguised as Hanbalis from its roots, that al-Saffarini was a mufawwidh in an Ash’ari sense, and that his creed is different to that of the Salafis.

Abuz Zubair

12th May 2006, 12:36 AM

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.
As usual, the deceptive author brings what he clearly does not understand, nor does he realise that his quotations are in fact in opposition to the Jahmite Madhab of tafwidh he adheres to, which is to negate the literal meanings.

1) al-Saffarini begins the chapter on Allah’s Descent by saying: ‘The Attribute of Descent, is what the Salaf affirmed without making ta’wil: the Attribute of al-Bari’s Descent – Jalla wa ‘ala – to the lowest Heaven’. Hence, al-Saffarini clearly affirms the Attribute of Allah’s Descent to the lowest Heaven, in accordance with his methodology of accepting the literal meanings of the Attributes.

2) al-Bayhaqi’s quote that the author is referring to is a proof against him and not for him, for al-Saffarini only quoted him to show that he affirms the Attribute of Descent, and does not deny it. As for the Tafwidh mentioned in the citation, then as demonstrated numerously, that is the very tafwidh of kayf, otherwise, affirming the literal meaning will be meaningless. Unless, of course, the author sinks to new depths of foolishness by making Tafwidh of al-Saffarini’s words, too!

3) What consolidates that al-Saffarini believes in the literal meaning is that he quotes al-Tufi al-Hanbali saying: ‘The famous opinion (which is also the mu’tamad) amongst the followers of Ahmad – May Allah be pleased with him – that they do not make ta’wil of the Attributes that are from the genre of movement, such as al-Maji’, al-Ityan (both in the meaning of Coming), al-Nuzul, al-Hubut (both in the meaning of Descent), al-Dunuw (to come close) and al-Tadalli (Descent), just as they do not make ta’wil of other Attributes, which is indicative of affirming the meanings that are disputed over’. Hence, do we expect the author to show justice and admit that al-Saffarini’s silence on al-Tufi’s belief in ‘Divine Movement’ and its ascription to the Hanbalis, is also a tacit approval?

4) He then quotes many narrations from the Salaf, literally affirming Allah’s Descent, such as al-Fudhayl’s statement: If a Jahmite says to you, ‘I disbelieve in a lord that descends from his position!’ Then say, ‘I believe in a Lord who does what He wishes!’

5) He then cites Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya from his Sharh of al-Isfahaniyya, quoting a number of scholars from the Salaf, literally affirming Allah’s Descent. Amongst the scholars Ibn Taymiyya cites, and al-Saffarini tacitly and explicitly agrees with, is Abu ‘Uthman al-Nisaburi who says about the Hadeeth of Descent that Ahl al-Hadeeth: ‘…narrate the authentic report as it has been reported, maintaining its literal meaning (‘ala dhahirihi).’

6) al-Saffarini then quotes al-Imam ‘Uthman b. Sa’id al-Darimi from his famous rebuttal of Bishr al-Marrisi, over two pages, literally affirming Allah’s Descent. Knowing that the author’s Imam, al-Kawthari, regards the whole book and its author to be pagans, there is hardly any need to quote from the book. He then quotes the Shafi’i Imam Ibn Khuzayma in this vein, and the reason for not citing him here is, again, testimony of al-Kawthari, who declared the book to be outright paganism. Since Imam al-Saffarini did not object to the so-called ‘paganism’ of al-Darimi or Ibn Khuzayma, it shows that he agreed with them tacitly, nay, explicitly by affirming the literal meaning of Allah’s Descent.

7) al-Saffarini then makes an import point: ‘That which is necessitated for the one who affirms the Attribute of Descent (i.e. tajsim), the same is necessitated for the one who affirms the Attribute of Allah’s Life, Hearing, Seeing, Knowledge, Speech, Ability and Will. For nothing can be understood from these Attributes accept accidents (a’radh), that do not subsist except in our limbs. Hence, just as we both say – us (Hanbalis) and them (Ash’aris) – that His Life, Hearing and Seeing are not accidents (a’radh), rather they are Attributes as they suit Him, and not as they suit us; likewise we say exactly the same of His Descent, Elevation (fawqiyya), Rising, etc.’ Hence, once again, al-Saffarini affirms Allah’s Descent literally, just as the Ash’aris affirms the seven Attributes for Allah literally. He then goes on to quote Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, as he always does in every chapter, discussing at length, how the truth is only with the Salaf.

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

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

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

11) The author then refers to ‘Imad al-Din al-Wasiti as quoted by al-Saffarini, as usual, being ignorant of who he is. ‘Imad al-Din al-Wasiti was a Shafi’i-Sufi scholar, a great admirer and supporter of Ibn Taymiyya, and one of the many ‘converts’ to Hanbalism from Ash’arism in creed, of course, thanks to Ibn Taymiyya’s efforts. ‘Imad al-Din said of Ibn Taymiyya addressing the latter’s students (Shadharat al-Dhahab 3/83): ‘For Wallahi! And again, Wallahi! And yet again, Wallahi! None has been seen under the heavens like your Sheikh Ibn Taymiyya, in knowledge, in action, in status, manners… We have not yet seen in our time, one who clarifies the Muhamaddan prophethood, and the traditions thereof, in speech and actions, except this man (Ibn Taymiyya). Every sound heart bears witness, that indeed, this is the true following (of Islam)’. The same author wrote an ‘anthropomorphic’ work according to the author’s standards called: risala fi Ithbat al-Istiwa wal-Fawqiyya (i.e. A treatise on affirming (Allah’s) Rising and Elevation), in which he distances himself from his early Ash’arism.

12) The very quote the ignorant author brings from al-Wasiti demolishes his Madhab of negation, for he clearly affirms, while negating takyif and tahdid. As usual, the author regards ‘tahdid’ to be ‘meaning’, and we have already shown his ignorance in theology, Kalam and logic, as we have also explained the term tahdid that it is indeed, a ‘definition’ and not a ‘meaning’. Therefore, al-Wasiti affirms the literal meaning of Descent, yet, like his role model, Ibn Taymiyya, relegates the ‘tahdid’, i.e. the definition thereof to Allah.

Abuz Zubair

12th May 2006, 12:53 AM

The author then says:
On page 252, Imām as-Safārīnī shows that the Athariyyah are in agreement with the Māturīdiyyah in affirming the attribute of Takhlīq (creation). There is no way to describe the above except deception, pretentiousness and deep ignorance.

Al-Saffarini makes this statement in refutation of the Ash’aris saying:

‘From the differed matters, which the Salaf and the Maturidis affirmed, in exclusion to the others from the Mu’tazila, the Kullabites and the Ash’arites, is the Attribute of the Act of Creation (khalq)’.

Therefore, al-Saffarini does not agree with the Maturidis, rather it is the Maturidis who agreed with the Salaf, who had always maintained that Allah has eternally been Creating, as opposed to the Mu’tazilite, the Kullabite and the Ash’arite blasphemous belief that Allah has NOT been Creating eternally, which is why if we notice, they do not include the Attribute of Creating amongst the only Seven Attributes, these miserly heretics affirm for their Lord!

However, the author obviously has not studied Kalam, neither Ash’ari nor Maturidi, and is therefore obviously in oblivion with respect to this major creedal difference between the Ash’aris and the Maturidis; hence, even al-Saffarini’s statement went completely over his head!

Looking at the author’s statement: ‘al-Saffarini agrees with the Maturidis that Allah Creates’, makes an average reader think: ‘So, do the Salafis and the Ash’aris believe that Allah does NOT create?’ Completely nonsensical, which is why it was necessary for the author to delve a little into this discussion and not leave a reader clueless by throwing at them such Kalami jargon. However, as they say in Arabic: faqid al-shay’ la yu’tihi, you cannot give that which you do not have, and that which you are completely ignorant of. Perhaps this is why, in order to hide behind an excuse, in case he is caught, he made a disclaimer right in the beginning of the document saying:
‘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’ A word to the wise, take your own advice. If he forbids people from reading this document if they do not understand Kalami terms, then why on earth has he allowed for himself to write the nonsense he is completely clueless about?

In any case, and for the benefit of the readers, I will briefly explain the creedal issue that al-Saffarini referring to.

As we know, the Ash’aris only affirm the seven Attributes of Essence, and not the Attributes of Actions (such as Speech with Sound, Descent, Anger and Pleasure, etc). This is because their belief is that Allah, along with His Attributes must be eternal, which necessitates, that He must not perform an Action, which He was not performing before, for that is contrary to Allah being eternal. Allah being eternal, for the Ash’aris is as they say: akhas wasf al-dhat, the most special quality of Allah, and likewise, whatever is not eternal is a creation by necessity.

This attracted obvious objections, such as: If Allah does not perform actions, then how does Allah Create the creation?

The Ash’aris replied with the most ridiculous concept, saying: The Act of Creating is in fact the Creation, and the verb itself is the object; thereby opposing the consensus of humanity.

The Maturidis, on the other hand, realised the falsity of this claim, and saved themselves the embarrassment by saying: The verb is not the object, and likewise, Allah’s Act of Creating, is not the Creation itself!

Therefore, they opposed the Ash’aris and accepted Allah’s Attributes of Action, however, they differed with the Salaf saying that the Attributes of Actions are all eternal. Therefore, for the Maturidis, Allah has Created everything eternally, while the creation was delayed by trillions of centuries or more, in coming into existence!

The Ash’aris picked up on this and said, thinking they are clever: How can you say that Allah Created you eternally, while you have just come into being?!

But the Maturidis as always, had the last card and said in reply: Just as you believe that Allah’s Will is eternal, while that which He Wills is happens much later on; likewise, we say that Allah created in eternity, while that which He Created, came into being much later on. And thus the Ash’arites were destroyed.

However, it is the Salaf who had the last laugh, for they did not view the God-Creation relationship as an Eternal-temporal one. Rather, they viewed as Deity-Worshippers relationship that the Quran calls to; and therefore, they had no problems with affirming that Allah Speaks when He likes and how He likes (as Imam Ahmad said), or that Allah spoke to Moses directly, after not having spoken to him before (for how could he speak to him when he was not even born!), just as Allah will become Angry on the Day of Judgement, the way He has never been angry before.

In this vein, in this very chapter, he extensively quotes Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya refuting the objections of the Ash’aris, saying that it was the Mu’tazila who used the same argument of negating accidents (a’radh) from Allah to negate All the Attributes of Essence and of Actions from Allah. While most of the Muslims opposed them, there were still those like the Ash’aris who opposed the Mu'tazilites only by affirming the Attributes of Essence, but agreed with them by negating the Attributes of Actions.

He then quotes Maturidis for over two pages in rebuttal of the Ash’aris, which there is no need to go into. He then quotes Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya’s rebuttal of the Ash’aris saying: ‘The Act of Creating is not the Creation itself’, and continues to quote him until the end of the chapter.

Abuz Zubair

12th May 2006, 01:08 AM

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.”
For the Mutakallimun, as mentioned earlier, ‘Eternal’ (Qadim) is synonymous with ‘Creator’, whereas ‘temporal’ (Hadith) is synonymous with the ‘Creation’, which is why when the Hanbali Imams say that Allah’s Speech is eternal, meaning it is not Created, not that it is ‘inner Speech’, as the Ash’arites claim; and this is further consolidated by the fact that they all affirm, literally, that Allah Speaks with a sound, or that He Descends last third of the night.

Precisely for this reason, as also mentioned earlier, the Madhab is not to use these terms that have two possible connotations, the right one and the wrong.

Hence, the statement that ‘no Hawadith take place in Allah’, if one intends by the term ‘Hawadith’, that no creation comes into existence in the Essence of Allah, or that Allah does not gain a new Attribute which He did not have before (which is what, ironically, the Ash’aris believe!), then this concept of Hawadith is certainly negated from Allah by the consensus of the Salaf and the Hanbalis.

However, if one intends by the term ‘Hawadith’, Allah’s Attributes of Actions, such as His Speech, His Descent, etc, as the Ash’aris do, then as it has already preceded us, al-Saffarini, like the rest of the Hanbalis, clearly affirms that Allah Speaks when He likes and how He likes, with a Sound, etc.

This makes clear beyond doubt that al-Saffarini uses the term Hadith/Hawadith synonymously with the term ‘Creation’; while uses the term ‘Qadim’ synonymously with the term ‘Creator’ and all His Attributes, irrespective of whether they subsist in Allah’s Essence, such as Hearing and Seeing, or they come into being preceded by non-existence, such as Allah’s Speech with a Sound, which Moses heard.

The author then refers to the footnote by Ibn Sahman al-Hanbali, in his effort to highlight the supposed differences between the Hanbali and the Salafi creed. If the author were to summarise the footnote for the readers, perhaps the readers would have a different picture. However, his heart is corrupt, and his objective is to deceive, yet Allah has decided to expose him and fail his efforts.

Firstly, all the Salafi comments the author is referring to, specifically object to the wording and the usage of certain terminologies, such as Hadd, Intiqal, Haraka, etc. For such terms have correct as well as incorrect connotations. Al-Saffarini himself quotes Imam Ahmad rebuking the man who negated Haraka and Intiqal from Allah. The comments do not, in any case, accuse al-Saffarini of being a Mufawwidh, or negator of Allah’s Attributes, because it is more than obvious that al-Saffarini affirms the literal meaning, as he explicitly states it himself.

Secondly, not all the comments are in criticism of al-Saffarini’s usage of newly invented terms. Rather, many comments simply add to, clarify, or support the statements of al-Saffarini. This is something the author himself must have realised, assuming that he simply flicked through the book without reading it, looking for the critical footnotes in particular, to support his flawed hypothesis.

Thirdly, the Salafi/Hanbali Ibn Sahman who placed the footnote, quotes from none other than Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim, whose statements are so extensively used through out the book in every chapter, that it is crammed full of them.

Fourthly, Ibn Sahman refers to Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim who explained that none of the Salaf ever used the word ‘Qadim’ to describe Allah’s Attributes of Actions, such as Allah’s Speech, His Descent, etc, even though what al-Saffarini intends is correct.

Fifthly, Ibn Sahman quotes Ibn Taymiyya saying that the Salaf unanimously affirmed the literal meaning of verses concerning Allah’s Attributes of Actions, such as Descent. While many of them, including a narration from Imam Ahmad, used the terms like Hadd (limit), movement (haraka) and relocation (intiqal) to describe Allah. Others, including Imam Ahmad, refused to describe Allah with such terms, simply because Allah and His Messenger did not use those terms. The Hanbalis, as mentioned earlier, were likewise divided, but they all affirmed the literal meanings of Allah’s Attributes of Actions. This has also been demonstrated earlier when al-Saffarini quoted al-Tufi saying that the Hanbalis by consensus believe in the literal meanings of the texts pertaining to movement, without objecting to any of it, and thereby tacitly agreeing with it, according to the methodology of the author.
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
The author missed out the line just before it, where al-Saffarini says: ‘Its tafsir is to narrate it as it is’, thereby, affirming that it has a tafsir, which is none but the literal meaning (dhahir). Moreover, al-Saffarini’s statements about affirming the literal meanings are too numerous, and we have extensively dealt with the whole issue previously.
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.”
Again, the author quotes a statement in rebuttal of his own doctrine. What is this statement, if not an affirmation of a Finger and a Hand of Allah, in a manner that befits His Majesty, while negating that it resembles anything of the Creation?

The only objection the mainstream Hanbalis would have, in accordance with the Madhab, is negation of terms Allah never negated from Himself, even though the meaning is correct. It is better to narrate the texts as they have come, without affirming this, or negating that, for Allah and His Messenger – SallAllahu ‘alayhi wa-sallam – feel ‘more jealous for Allah than you’, as Imam Ahmad stated.

Even then, this objection is very minor, especially when a person affirms the literal meaning, for many of the Salaf used such newly invented terms when required, and amongst them Imam Ahmad himself, as proven above.
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. 1. at-Taqdīs (declaring Allāh far removed from having a Jism)
1. 2. at-Tasdīq ( believing in what was said)
1. 3. al-‘Itirāf bil ‘Ajz (admitting that one cannot comprehend)
1. 4. as-Sukūt (remaining silent)
1. 5. al-Imsāk (the hold back from altering the words used
1. 6. al-Kaff (holding back from thinking deeply and pondering its reality)
1. 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?
Firstly, al-Saffarini never referred to al-Ghazzali as ‘Hujjatul-Islam’, or an ‘Imam’, neither did he regard his creedal work to be ‘monumental’, knowing that al-Saffarini and the Hanbalis are on one creedal planet, and al-Ghazzali on the other!

Secondly, the quote does not, anywhere and in any sense, negate the literal meanings of Allah’s Attributes, so why would the Salafis/Hanbalis have a problem with this?

Thirdly, so what if al-Saffarini quotes al-Ghazzali, and how does it show that the former is not a Salafi? I too, have a few books of al-Ghazzali, and from the works of his I love and hate to read is his terrible, yet a masterpiece, Ihya ‘Ulum al-Din. Does this make me a 'non-Salafi'?

All this proves is that the pretentious author is just a novice, who has wronged himself and others, by plunging into the ocean of sciences he is completely ignorant of.
Pat two: Qadr, Kasb, at-Tahsin and at-Taqbīh al-Aqli
coming soon in sha Allah.
If you still feel you have not been humiliated enough, and ‘you feel no shame’, said the Prophet: ‘do as you wish’
waAllahu Alam
Indeed, in fact, more aware and knowledgeable about himself than your Greek Prophet, Aristotle.

Abuz Zubair

12th May 2006, 01:20 AM

In conclusion, I ask the readers to read every section of this rebuttal carefully, not to realise who is right and who is wrong, but to realise who is genuine and who is fake.

Firstly, academic discussions are carried out with those who are balanced, objective and truthful. Not those who are pretentious, liars and deceitful, for such people are only exposed for who they really are.

Secondly, it is a fact that the deviant sects have been historically struggling to infiltrate the four Sunni schools of Fiqh to gain legitimacy and hijack traditionalism for themselves. This is exactly how the Mu’tazilites gained legitimacy and placed the real Sunni traditionalis