Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 94
Like Tree13Likes

Are Hanbalis and Salafis the same?

This is a discussion on Are Hanbalis and Salafis the same? within the Beliefs and Fundamentals forums, part of the Main Topics category; Dear Brother Abu Zubair, Assalaamulekum, Yes you dealt with this in great depth already, I just thought you might like ...

  1. #11
    Senior Member asharee_salafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,640

    Default



    Dear Brother Abu Zubair,





    Assalaamulekum,





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





    By the way,





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





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





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



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





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





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





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





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





    And Allah knows best





    My two cents









    *******









    *******



































    I can't take no more then 4 wives...Sorry!

  2. #12
    Peculiarly Ostrobogulous Expergefactionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Londonistan
    Posts
    13,421
    Follow Expergefactionist On Twitter Add Expergefactionist on Facebook Add Expergefactionist on Google+

    Default



    As-salaamu alaikum dear brother Abu Wakee,

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

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

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



    1) Ibn Qudama says in Lumat al-Itiqad: From the verses that have come in relation to Allahs 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 Allahs descent every night, His Amazement, and His Laugh, and considering it all from His Attributes. He then says:



    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 tawil which opposes their dhahir.'

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

    2) He then quotes various textual proofs from the Quran and the Sunnah about Allah being above the heavens and clearly makes ithbat of the dhahir implications of such texts and believes that Allah is literally above the heavens. If he was a mufawwidh, he would have sufficed at simply narrating the texts as they are, without affirming the dhahir, which he did. In fact, he wrote a whole book called al-'Uluw, dedicated to affirming the dhahir of the texts pertaining to Allahs literal highness over the creation, and thus he says in its introduction:



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

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

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

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

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



    The Madhab of the Salaf is to have Iman in the Attributes of Allah Taala and His Names, with which He described Himself without giving explanation, or a tawil that opposes its dhahir.

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

    6) Ibn Qudama then explains exactly what the Salaf meant when they negated the meaning:



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

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

    7) In the same book he quotes the statement al-Hafidh Abu Bakr al-Tayyib in his support, without showing any discontent or disagreement:



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

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

    8) He also comments on Imam Maliks statement on Istiwa, that Istiwa is not unknown, saying:



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

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

    9) Ibn Qudama says in Dham al-Tawil:

    ( )



    If it is said: You made tawil of verses and reports, for instance, you said with respect to Allahs 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 tawil of anything, for to hold such texts in these meanings is not at all tawil, because tawil is to change the meaning of a word from its dhahir, and what we say here is the dhahir of the wording, that is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it is haqiqa or majaz.

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

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

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

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

    11) In the same book, Ibn Qudama presents his argument against Tawil saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    16) As for his book: Hikayat al-Munadhara fil-Quran Maa Badh Ahl al-Bida, his rebuttal of the Asharis in the issue of Sound and Letters, then the book in its entirety proves that he is a muthbit and not a mufawwidh.

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

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

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

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

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

    wasalam


  3. #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    208

    Default



    Asalamu alaykum





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





    Imam Ibn Qudamah quotes from his******* Lumat al-Itiqad:





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


    Can brother Abu Zubayr please respond to this?



    Jazakallah khair.


  4. #14
    TIOCFAIDH AR LA Die for Allah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    up north
    Posts
    5,825

    Default Asalamulaykum



    brother Abu Zubair





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





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





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







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





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





    JazakAllah khair

    And say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely: This is lawful and this is forbidden, so as to invent lies against Allaah. Verily, those who invent lies against Allaah will never prosper. [al-Nahl 16:116].

    Syed Qutb (ra) when asked to seek pardon from nasser said
    Verily the index finger that testifies to the oneness of Allah in prayer utterly rejects to write even one letter that endorses the rule of the tyrant

  5. #15
    ... Sir Paindoo Pants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,845

    Default


    aslamu alaikum wa rahmatallah,

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

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





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

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



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

    I would be indebted ....

    barakAllahu feek once again


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

  6. #16
    Peculiarly Ostrobogulous Expergefactionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Londonistan
    Posts
    13,421
    Follow Expergefactionist On Twitter Add Expergefactionist on Facebook Add Expergefactionist on Google+

    Default

    As-Salaamu alaikum,

    Dear brother Ashari Salafi,

    Its really praiseworthy what you are doing in relation to the hanbali madhab, you should set a site up especially for hanbali fiqh and aqeedah
    I am in the process of doing that (hanbalis.com). It is being populated at the moment, and what thats done to a standard, well propagate it InshaaAllah.

    After all, we truely represent the Imams of those madhabs. So why call ourselves salafees and bring out of this minhaj business. This title has backfired upon the Sunnis who thought it was a good idea to use this title as it puts us in a corner
    True, but do remember that there were also a large number of scholars from the rest of the three Madhabs who were Hanbalis in creed; yet describing them as Hanbalis would not be totally accurate, because they simply werent. Hence, the suitability of the term Salafi, as it was always referred to the non-Mutakallimun/Atharis/Hanbalis.

    I think also that we have put ourselves in a tight corner when many Sunni ulema just repetitively use ibn qiyam and ibn taymiyah, its as almost as if they were the only two Imam's on the planet
    I see your point. Yet, there are many advantages of quoting IT and IQ instead of other Hanbalis. In fact, most probably it is wiser to stick IT and IQ, for they are the most diplomatic of Hanbalis, the most lenient and the most balanced and objective of them. We dont want to be quoting the rest of the Hanbalis like al-Marrudhi, al-Khallal, Abdullah b. Ahmad, Sharif Abu Jafar, Ibn al-Hanbali, Ibn Qudama, etc, who call the Asharis Zanadiqa, curse Abul-Hasan al-Ashari and make their blood Halal! We want to guide the Asharis to the truth, and not make them have a heart attack

    Dear brother Abu Bakr,

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

    We have faith and believe in them without how or meaning. We do not reject any of [these reports]
    What I said with respect to Ibn Qudamas negation of meaning is also applicable to Imam Ahmad, that by meaning he does not refer to the dhahir of the wording, rather he refers to the kayf.

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

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

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

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

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

    How can then, he be a mufawwidfh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The question then may arise that why did Imam Ahmad negate the mana/meaning?

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

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

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

    Also, I remind you of the quote from al-Dhahabis al-Uluw, that to negate the dhahir of the text (tafwidh, the Ashari way), was a relatively new phenomenon, invented by the latter mutakallimun.

    Hope that helps

    Dear brother Waziri,

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

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

    He is All-Encompassing, and above everything

    Dear brother Abu Wakee,

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


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

    There is no need for us to have knowledge of what Allah meant with His Attributes. For no action is required of us based on that [the meaning of His Attributes], nor is there any legal responsibility (taklif) attached to it, except to have Iman therein. It is possible to have Iman therein, without knowing the meaning, for Iman in that which is unknown is correct. For Allah Taala ordered us to believe in His angels, His books, His messengers, and what He revealed to them, even if we do not know of the aforementioned except names.
    Ibn Qudama is responding of Ibn Aqil who said: Ok, tell us how do you perceive the meanings of the words pertaining to Allahs Attributes?

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

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

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

    Also brother I've heard of claims some people make that they say we need only to look at imam safirini's book to refute salafi 'aqeedah who according these people are mushaabihah and the traditional athari 'aqeedah.******* Im not very knowledgeable in this regard but is there any conclusive refutation to such a claim??
    Al-Saffarinis 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-Saffarinis 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, Asharis and Maturidis. Later he says in the same Sharh that some scholars claim that the saved sect refers to the three aforementioned groups (Atharis, Asharis and Maturidis), whereas the dhahir of the Hadith (that my Ummah will be divided) clearly contradicts that claim, and that the saved sect only applies to the Atharis.

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

    For example, in the issue regarding Allah's actions whether they are based on a reason/wisdom (illah) or not (which the Hanbalis affirm and the Asharis 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 Asharis. 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 Allahs actions

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

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

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

    With regards to Allahs Speech and the Quran, al-Saffarini concludes (1/165): In conclusion, the Mutazilites are in agreement with the Asharites, while the Asharites are in agreement with the Mutazilites, 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 Mutazila did not affirming any other Speech for Allah except this (the Quran, which they thought was created), whereas the Asharites affirmed al-Kalam al-Nafsi (self-speech/talking to oneself) subsisting in Allahs essence. Whereas the Mutazilites say, the Speech of Allah is created (and not subsisting in Allah). The Asharis 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-Saffarinis Sharh where he quotes numerous scholars from the Salaf and the Khalaf from the four schools, literally affirming that Allah Rose over the Throne, and that He is literally in a direction (jiha), and then refutes the detractors of Ibn Taymiyya on the very issue of direction.

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

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

    wasalam

    A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.

    Albert Einstein

  7. #17
    ... Sir Paindoo Pants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,845

    Default

    aslamu alaikum wa rahmatallah

    barakAllahu feek akhee abuz-zubair

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



  8. #18
    Rep-manz
    Abu'l 'Eyse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    12,030

    Default Abuz-Zubair Culd you comment upon the following piece:



    As-sallamu 'alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu




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




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




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




    originally posted by al-Hanbali


    Apples and Oranges


    A comparison between the Atharī creed as expounded by Imām as-Safarīnī and the Salafī creed




    Bismillah,




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




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




    This is not a research by any means. Some brothers requested that I make this information public and in the English language for general benefit, so here it is. My work in this is very insignificant. I did a cursory reading of Imām as-Safārīnīa Lawāmi al-Anwār al-Bahiyyah wa Sawāti al-Asrār al-Athariyyah which is an explanation of his own poem in Atharī creed tittled: ad-Durrah al-Madiyyah fi Aqīdah al-Firqatil Mardiyyah. In this cursory reading. I highlighted the more obvious differences between the Atharī creed and Salafi creed of old and new. I have kept my comments to a minimum because I feel that the Imāms words are enough. I didnt 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 dont, probably shouldnt be reading this in the first place until they learn those terms.




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




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




    .




    al-Faqīr ila Mawlāhu




    Abul Junaydah




    4.4.06


    PART ONE


    Comments on issues pertaining to Allāhs 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 Shiah 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 (Mabūduhu) is settled upon the throne (Mustaqirr, from the verbal noun Istiqrār) and that He is a Jawhar (matter), far exalted is He from that(page 91)




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




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




    without Tatil (denial of the attributes) or Tashbīh




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




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




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




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




    He further said:




    So the Madhhab 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 Madhhab of the Salaf is to not to delve into the likes of this (Tatīl 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 Madhhab of the true Hanābilah regarding Allāhs Divine attributes, Imām as-Safārīnī says:




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




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




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




    On the Qurān, 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 Qurān is the speech of Allāh and that it is ancient (Qadīm) in both its letters and meaning. (page 137)




    Imām as-Safārīnī says in his poem:




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




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




    On Istiwā




    Imām as-Safārīnī said:




    It has been narrated from ash-Shabī that he was asked about al-Istiwā. He replied: This is from the Mutshābih of the Qurān. We believe in it and we do not delve into its meaning.




    He further said:




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




    Imām as-Safārīnī said in his poem:




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




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




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




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




    however it is without howness or resemblance despite (the opposition) of the people of deviation and Tatīl




    so pass them on as they have appeared in the reminder (the Qurān) without any Tawīl and without any Fikr (thought).




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




    Inna Mabadia Kulli Fannin Ashara




    al-Haddu wal Mawduu Thumma ath-Thamara




    Indeed the basics of every subject are ten




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




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




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




    *******Imām as-Safārīnī states:




    Our scholars say:




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




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




    The safest position is Imān in it without how, and remaining quiet about what is intended by it unless expounded upon by the truthful and confirmed one (i.e. the Messenger of Allah) sallallahu alayhi was sallam whereby we could hold to thatand from the evidence for that, is their agreement that the particular Tawīl 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 (Allāhs) Nuzūl is established and known and not Mukayyaf (given a how) with movement and relocation that is fitting for something created. Rather, His Nuzūl is as befits His Grandeur and Might. So His attributes, the Exalted, are known in general and affirmed, not comprehended in terms of howness and Tahdīd. So the believer sees them (understands them) from one angle, and is blind from another. He sees (understands) in the sense of affirming their existence, and he is blind in the sense of howness and Tahdīd and by Allāh is all strength. (page 250)




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




    Imām as-Safārīnī went on to quote from Hujjatul Islam, Imām Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālīs 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 Madhhab of the Salaf, and I mean the Companions and the Tābiūn, may Allāh be pleased with all of them




    Then he said:




    The reality of the Madhhab 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 Marifah (submitting to the people of knowledge)



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




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




    coming soon in sha Allah.




    waAllahu Alam


  9. #19
    Peculiarly Ostrobogulous Expergefactionist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Londonistan
    Posts
    13,421
    Follow Expergefactionist On Twitter Add Expergefactionist on Facebook Add Expergefactionist on Google+

    Default



    as-Salaamu 'alaikum...





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





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





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



    'The one who pretends to posses that which he does not, is like the one who wears a garment of falsehood' (Agreed upon)

    wasalam


  10. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    69

    Default



    as-salamu alaikum brother abuz zubair,




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






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







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









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









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







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



    The Madhab of the Salaf is to have Iman in the Attributes of Allah Taala and His Names, with which He described Himself without giving explanation, or a tawil that opposes its dhahir.







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







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





    :



    .

    : ( :

    ) .







    . .









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




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







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











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







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







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




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





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





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



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





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

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









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







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







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











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







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


    (128- ( ) )
    ɡ ݡ ҡ . . ֡ ɡ ɡ : ( ) ( ) : ȡ . ߡ .
    ݡ - - . : .
    (()) . . . .
    (- 328 28-7-85).




    The Shaikh Rahimahullah ended the answer by saying:

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



    *******



    *******



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



    *******





    *******



    *******



    *******



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









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









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




    ( 73
    : : : :











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











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









    jazakAllah khair






Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Yūsuf ibn Abdul Hādī, Hanbalis and Istiwah
    By Abu'l 'Eyse in forum Beliefs and Fundamentals
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 13th June 2009, 10:41 AM
  2. Did Imam at-Tabari issue an apology to the Hanbalis?
    By JayshAllah in forum Islam in General
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10th November 2007, 12:09 AM
  3. tayammum for hanbalis
    By _Abu_Bakar in forum Fiqh and its Application
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 8th September 2007, 03:07 AM
  4. Why do non-Hanbalis think they know our madhhab better than we do?
    By tawheedullah in forum Islam in General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16th June 2007, 04:42 PM
  5. Ibn Taymiyyah's Standing amongst the Hanbalis of His Day
    By justabro in forum Beliefs and Fundamentals
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 30th April 2007, 07:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258