Are Hanbalis and Salafis the same?

Discussion in 'Islamic Theology and Ideology' started by imran30, Apr 27, 2006.

  1. imran30

    imran30 New Member

  2. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    As-Salaamu ‘alaikum, </p>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    wasalam </p>
     
  3. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

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

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

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

    This is just one example of his pseudo ‘expertise’ in the Hanbali madhab, and it also shows to what lengths these people will go in their hatred, that they will stoop to such disgusting levels, bordering with nifaq; as it also clearly shows their deliberate attempt to infiltrate the Hanbali Madhab.
     
  4. imran30

    imran30 New Member

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

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

    Once again, I thank you.
     
  5. asharee_salafi

    asharee_salafi New Member

    Assalaamulekum wr wb.</p>



    Jazak Allahu Khairun for your beneficial replies Brother Abu Zubair,</p>



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



    He tries to argue that Ibn taymiyyah said that when we see Allah on Qiyamah that this is refering to &quot;the pleasure&quot; as a remember.</p>



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



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



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





    Thanks WS</p>
     
  6. asharee_salafi

    asharee_salafi New Member

  7. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    As-Salaamu ‘alaikum…

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

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

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

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

    Anyway, he says in his conclusion:

    Deal with this:

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

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

    Or deal with this:

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

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

    What he needs to answer is this fundamental question:

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

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

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

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


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

    this is indeed an interesting topic

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

    barakAllahu feek           
     
  9. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    ‘alaikum as-salaam wrt wbk,

    Generally speaking, there have been a number of Hanbali scholars who have leaned towards <span style="font-style: italic;">tafweedh</span>; yet, it would be unjust to call them pure <span style="font-style: italic;">mufawwidha</span>, because they very often contradict themselves by affirming the <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir </span>– the obvious and apparent meaning – of the text.

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

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

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

    On specific attributes of Allah, we see him clearly making <span style="font-style: italic;">ithbat </span>of the literal meaning, and has no qualms about affirming a direction for Allah, and to the end, he quotes from ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani, and defends Ibn Taymiyya on this issue.

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

    a) They are contradictory by professing <span style="font-style: italic;">tafwidh </span>at times and making <span style="font-style: italic;">ithbat </span>of the <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir </span>at times

    OR

    b) By <span style="font-style: italic;">tafweedh </span>they mean the <span style="font-style: italic;">tafweedh </span>of <span style="font-style: italic;">kayf</span>, and not the <span style="font-style: italic;">tafweedh </span>of the <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir</span>, which means in reality they are not at all <span style="font-style: italic;">mufawwidha</span>, and that is why they do not find any problems whatsoever with the writings of Ibn Taymiyya.

    Another point to note is that the so-called ‘<span style="font-style: italic;">mufawwidha</span>’ of the Hanbalis made contradictory statements because they believed in some of the <span style="font-style: italic;">kalami </span>principles without ever questioning them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    wssalamu aalaikum     
     
  11. asharee_salafi

    asharee_salafi New Member

    Dear Brother Abu Zubair,</p>



    Assalaamulekum,</p>



    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.</p>



    By the way,</p>



    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.</p>



    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.</p>



    Also its good how you have not used the defunct title of &quot;Salafi&quot;.</p>

    I spoke to one da'i from www.islaam.net and he told me that we should not be running away from terms like &quot;ahl sunnah wal jammah&quot;  as it rightly belongs to US not them.</p>



    We should not be running away from the title of &quot;sunni&quot; and neither should be be running away from the madhab to which our sheikhs are following.</p>



    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 .</p>



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



    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. </p>



    And Allah knows best</p>



    My two cents ;)</p>







     </p>







     </p>
     
  12. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    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 <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Mufawwidh</span>, and indeed, some scholars have opined that.

    However, upon reading the rest of his statements in Lum’at al-I’tiqad, as well as his other books in theology, it is clearly noticed that he affirms the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>of the texts, and therefore, by the term <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">tafwidh</span>, he means <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">tafwidh </span>of the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">kayf </span>and not negation the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>.

    The following examples will prove beyond doubt that Ibn Qudama affirmed the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>, and he was not a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidh.</span></p>

    <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic"></span>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, <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">‘the Face of your Lord…’</span>, and His saying, <span style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">‘Rather His two Hands are outstretched’</span>. 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:</p><p style="DIRECTION: rtl"><font size="3">فهذا وما أشبهه مما صح سنده وعدلت رواته نؤمن به ولا نرده ولا نجحده <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">ولا نتأوله بتأويل يخالف ظاهره</span></font></p>

    ‘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, <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">nor do we give them a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">ta’wil </span>which opposes their dhahir.'</span>

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

    2) He then quotes various textual proofs from the Quran and the Sunnah about Allah being above the heavens and clearly makes <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">ithbat </span>of the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>implications of such texts and believes that Allah is literally above the heavens. If he was a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidh</span>, he would have sufficed at simply narrating the texts as they are, without affirming the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>, which he did. In fact, he wrote a whole book called al-'Uluw, dedicated to affirming the dhahir of the texts pertaining to Allah’s literal highness over the creation, and thus he says in its introduction:</p><p style="DIRECTION: rtl"><font size="3">اما بعد فإن الله تعالى وصف نفسه بالعلو في السماء ووصفه بذلك رسوله محمد خاتم الانبياء واجمع على ذلك جميع العلماء من الصحابه الاتقياء والأئمة من الفقهاء وتواترت الأخبار بذلك على وجه حصل به اليقين وجمع الله تعالى عليه قلوب المسلمين وجعله مغروزا في طباع الخلق اجمعين <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">فتراهم عند نزول الكرب بهم يلحظون السماء باعينهم ويرفعون نحوها للدعاء ايديهم وينتظرون مجئ الفرج من ربهم وينطقون بذلك بألسنتهم</span> لا ينكر ذلك الا مبتدع غال في بدعته</font></p>

    ‘As for what follows, then surely Allah Ta’ala has described Himself with being Elevated in the Heavens, and similarly He has be described by His Messenger Muhammad, the last of the prophets; something upon which all of the scholars from the pious companions held a consensus, as did the Imams from the jurists. The reports concerning that became so numerous, that a level of certainty was achieved. Allah Ta’ala united the hearts of the Muslims on this issue, and made it a part of the natural instincts of Allah the creation, and therefore, <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">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</span>. No one denies this except a heretic, fanatic in his heresy…’

    This clearly shows that Ibn Qudama certainly affirmed the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>of the texts pertaining to Allah’s elevation over His creation, and therefore, he was not a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidh</span>.

    3) He says about Allah’s speech and affirms that Allah speaks with a sound, a further proof that he affirmed the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>of the texts, which confirm that Allah Speaks with a sound. In fact, in his violent rebuttal of Ash’aris in his time, he calls them heretics for saying Allah speaks without sound and letters.

    4) He then has a whole section about the Quran being the Speech of Allah, consisting of letters, words, ayat, surahs, in the Arabic language, a belief that a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidh </span>would never hold.

    5) In his work Dham al-Ta’wil (Censure of Ta’wil), Ibn Qudama states:</p><p style="DIRECTION: rtl"><font size="3">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 <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">ولا تأويل لها بما يخالف ظاهرها</span></font></p>

    ‘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, <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">or a ta’wil that opposes its dhahir.</span>’

    It clearly implies that Ibn Qudama affirms the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>, due to which he opposes any <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">ta’wil </span>that contradicts the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>. For if he was a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidh</span>, he would have negated any type of <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">ta’wil</span>, irrespective of whether or not it opposes the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>.

    6) Ibn Qudama then explains exactly what the Salaf meant when they negated the ‘meaning’:</p><p style="DIRECTION: rtl"><font size="3">وعلموا أن المتكلم بها صادق لا شك في صدقه فصدقوه ولم يعلموا <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">حقيقة معناها</span> فسكتوا عما لم يعلموه</font></p>

    ‘[The Salaf] knew that the one who conveyed to us [the information about Allah’s Attributes] is truthful, with no doubt in his truthfulness. Hence, they believed him, without knowing <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">the reality of the meaning</span>, and remained silent over that which they did not know.’

    Hence, Ibn Qudama declares that the Salaf made <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">tafwidh </span>of the reality of the meaning, and not the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>itself, and therefore, he was not a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidh</span>.

    7) In the same book he quotes the statement al-Hafidh Abu Bakr al-Tayyib in his support, without showing any discontent or disagreement:</p><p style="DIRECTION: rtl"><font size="3">أما الكلام في الصفات فإن ما روي منها في السنن الصحاح مذهب السلف رضي الله عنهم إثباتها <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">وإجراؤها على ظاهرها</span></font></p>

    ‘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 <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">accept the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>of it</span>.’

    This further proves that Ibn Qudama affirmed the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>, and therefore, was not a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidh</span>.

    8) He also comments on Imam Malik’s statement on <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Istiwa</span>, that ‘<span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Istiwa</span> is not unknown’, saying:</p><p style="DIRECTION: rtl"><font size="3">وقولهم الاستواء غير مجهول أي غير مجهول الوجود لأن الله تعالى أخبر به وخبره صدق يقينا لا يجوز الشك فيه ولا الإرتياب فيه فكان غير مجهول لحصول العلم به وقد روي في بعض الألفاظ الاستواء معلوم</font></p>

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

    The <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidha </span>explain this statement of Malik saying: the fact that <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">al-Istiwa</span> is <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">mentioned </span>in the verse is known, but what it actually <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">means </span>is not. While Ibn Qudama affirms more than the wording, for he affirms that The Rising actually took place, and therefore he was not a mufawwidh.

    9) Ibn Qudama says in Dham al-Ta’wil:</p><p style="DIRECTION: rtl"><font size="3">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 <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">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</span></font></p>

    ‘If it is said: ‘You made <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">ta’wil </span>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 <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">ta’wil </span>of anything, for to hold such texts in these meanings is not at all <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">ta’wil</span>, <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">because </span><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">ta’wil </span><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">is to change the meaning of a word from its </span><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">dhahir</span><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">, and what we say here is the </span><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">dhahir </span><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">of the wording, that is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it is </span><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">haqiqa </span><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">or </span><span style="FONT-STYLE: italic; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">majaz</span><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">.’</span>

    Hence, Ibn Qudama explicitly states that he believes in the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>of these texts, and therefore he is not a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidh</span>.

    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 (<span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">taklif</span>) attached to it, except to have Iman therein. It is possible to have Iman therein, without knowing the meaning, for Iman in that which is unknown is correct. For Allah Ta’ala ordered us to believe in His angels, His books, His messengers, and what He revealed to them, even if we do not know of the aforementioned except names.’

    Therefore, Ibn Qudama likens our belief in the verses about Attributes of Allah, like our belief in Angels, Books etc. Hence, just as we affirm the existence of Angels, literally, by accepting the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>of the texts, we also accept the verses and narrations about Allah’s Attributes, literally, acknowledging the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>of the text. This also proves beyond doubt that Ibn Qudama was not a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidh</span>.

    11) In the same book, Ibn Qudama presents his argument against <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Ta’wil </span>saying:

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

    If Ibn Qudama negated the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>meaning of the text, he would not have condemned the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">muta’awwila </span>for negating the Attribute Allah which He attributed to Himself, which is the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>of the text. For the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidha </span>negate the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>, and therefore, do not affirm any Attribute for Allah, whereas Ibn Qudama believes in the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>, and therefore, affirms the attribute.

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

    If Ibn Qudama didn’t believe in the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>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 <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>, 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, <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">its recitation is in fact its meaning</span> (tafsir), without any particular meaning or tafsir.’

    Therefore, Ibn Qudama clearly believes that the texts about sifat <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">have a tafsir</span>, and that is the <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">dhahir of the wording</span>.

    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 <span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline">kayfiyya</span>, when he regards the question to be an innovation’. He then makes a reference to Malik’s statement about <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Istiwa</span>.

    This clearly shows that by the terms, ‘meaning’ and <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">‘tafsir’</span>, he is referring to the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">‘kayfiyya’</span>, and not the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">tafsir/ma’na</span> which is the recitation itself, i.e. the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>.

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

    If he was a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidh</span>, he would have affirmed the wording <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">‘nudiya’</span> (he was called), without using that to affirm a sound for Allah. However, because he affirms the wording and the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>, he deduces from the word <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">nida’</span>, that Allah Speaks with a sound.

    If he was a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidh</span>, 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 <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">muthbit</span>, and not a <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">mufawwidh</span>, and hence, his fierce attack on Ibn ‘Aqil.

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

    In light of the above quotes and references, it becomes more than clear that when Ibn Qudama affirms the wording, he affirms the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>of it as well, because ‘its recitation is in fact its tafsir’.

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

    If Ibn Qudama subscribed to this view, then it would make sense for him to negate the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>. But if he doesn’t subscribe to this view, which clearly is the case because he is not a mutakallim, why then would he find problematic affirming the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>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 <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>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 <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">ta’wil </span>of, while believing that dhahir is not the intent.’

    This shows that the Salaf never negated the <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir </span>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 <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">dhahir</span>.

    wasalam</p>
     
  13. abubakr

    abubakr Member

    Asalamu alaykum</p>



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



    Imam Ibn Qudamah quotes from his  Lum’at al-I’tiqad:</p>



    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. &quot;<font color="#ff6600">We have faith and believe in them without how or meaning. We do not reject any of [these reports].</font> 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.&quot;

    <font size="3">
    </font><font size="2">Can brother Abu Zubayr please respond to this?</font></p>

    <font size="2">Jazakallah khair.</font></p>
     
  14. Die for Allah

    Die for Allah TIOCFAIDH AR LA

    Asalamulaykum

    brother Abu Zubair</p>



    I need to know more about Allah being literally above us when in aqeeda at tahawia it  states.</p>



    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.</p>



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





    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.</p>



    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.</p>



    JazakAllah khair</p>
     
  15. 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?



    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     
     
  16. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,

    Dear brother Ash’ari Salafi,

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

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

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

    Dear brother Abu Bakr,

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

    What I said with respect to Ibn Qudama’s negation of ‘meaning’ is also applicable to Imam Ahmad, that by ‘meaning’ he does not refer to the <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir </span>of the wording, rather he refers to the <span style="font-style: italic;">kayf</span>.

    Again, as is the case with Ibn Qudama, the narrations from Imam Ahmad where he affirms the <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir </span>of the wording are numerous.

    In fact, anyone who has read about the <span style="font-style: italic;">mihna </span>(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 <span style="font-style: italic;">mufawwidh </span>would not go beyond saying: Kalam Allah, while denying the <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir</span>, and not delving into whether or not it is created.

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

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

    This is an important statement because Imam Ahmad states that if it wasn’t for the fact that the Jahmiyya denied the <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir</span>, 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 <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir</span>, 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 <span style="font-style: italic;">mufawwidfh</span>?

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

    Al-Khallal narrates in his Sunnah, that Imam Ahmad was asked:
    Allah Ta’ala is above (<span style="font-style: italic;">fawq</span>) 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 <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir </span>of the texts in his own words, and that is only possible, if Imam Ahmad affirms the literal/<span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir </span>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 <span style="font-style: italic;">ma’na</span>/meaning?

    A possible explanation could be that Imam Ahmad must have heard of Jahmis saying: Allah Rose over the throne; <span style="text-decoration: underline;">meaning</span>: took control.

    Naturally, Imam Ahmad’s response would be: ‘Allah Rose over the throne, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">without any meaning</span> or <span style="font-style: italic;">tafsir</span>’, intending by that, any meaning or <span style="font-style: italic;">tafsir </span>that negates its <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir</span>.

    Whatever the case, what is crystal clear from Imam Ahmad’s narrations is that he definitely affirmed the <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir</span>, and that no one can deny.

    Also, I remind you of the quote from al-Dhahabi’s <span style="font-style: italic;">al-‘Uluw</span>, that to negate the <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir </span>of the text (<span style="font-style: italic;">tafwidh</span>, the Ash’ari way), was a relatively new phenomenon, invented by the latter <span style="font-style: italic;">mutakallimun</span>.

    Hope that helps

    Dear brother Waziri,

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

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

    ‘He is All-Encompassing, and above everything’

    Dear brother Abu Wakee,

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

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

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

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

    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 (<span style="font-style: italic;">jawhar</span>), nor is He an accident (<span style="font-style: italic;">‘aradh</span>), or a body (<span style="font-style: italic;">jism</span>), 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 <span style="font-style: italic;">al-'Uqud al-Yaqutiyya</span>, 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 <span style="text-decoration: underline;">some scholars claim</span> that the saved sect refers to the three aforementioned groups (Atharis, Ash’aris and Maturidis), whereas the <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir </span>of the Hadith (that my Ummah will be divided…) clearly contradicts that claim, and that the saved sect only applies to the Atharis.

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

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

    As far as the issue of <span style="font-style: italic;">tafwidh </span>is concerned, then like Imam Ahmad and Ibn Qudama, al-Saffarini was not a <span style="font-style: italic;">mufawwidh</span>.

    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 (<span style="font-style: italic;">tafsir</span>).’ <span style="text-decoration: underline;">So it is obligatory upon a person to believe in the dhahir</span>, and render the meaning unto Allah’

    Perhaps, we cannot find something more explicit than this, that Imam al-Saffarini clearly believed in the <span style="font-style: italic;">dhahir</span>, 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, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">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</span>. The only difference between the two factions is that the Mu’tazila did not affirming any other Speech for Allah except this (the Quran, which they thought was created), whereas the Ash’arites affirmed al-Kalam al-Nafsi (self-speech/talking to oneself) subsisting in Allah’s essence. Whereas the Mu’tazilites say, the Speech of Allah is created (and not subsisting in Allah). The Ash’aris do not consider it (the Quran) the Speech of Allah. Yes, they call it ‘the Speech of Allah’, but only metaphorically, and that is the belief of the majority of their predecessors.’

    Can anyone conclude from this that he was a <span style="font-style: italic;">mufawwidh</span>?

    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 (<span style="font-style: italic;">jiha</span>), and then refutes the detractors of Ibn Taymiyya on the very issue of direction.

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

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

    wasalam
     
  17. aslamu alaikum wa rahmatallah

    barakAllahu feek akhee abuz-zubair

    this was quite beneficial  
     
  18. Abu'l 'Eyse

    Abu'l 'Eyse Rep-manz

    Abuz-Zubair Culd you comment upon the following piece:

    As-sallamu 'alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu</p>


    Akhuna abuz-zubair jazakALLAHU Khairan for your messages, very beneficial maashaALLAH </p>


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


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


    </p>
     
  19. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    as-Salaamu 'alaikum...</p>



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



    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.</p>



    Bur for now, I leave you with the words of the Prophet - SallAllahu 'alaihi wa-sallam:</p>

    <p style="DIRECTION: rtl"><font size="3">المتشبع بما لم يعط كلابس ثوب زور</font></p><p style="DIRECTION: rtl" /><p style="DIRECTION: ltr">'The one who pretends to posses that which he does not, is like the one who wears a garment of falsehood' (Agreed upon)</p><p style="DIRECTION: ltr" /><p style="DIRECTION: ltr">wasalam</p>
     
  20. realsalafee

    realsalafee Member

    as-salamu alaikum brother abuz zubair,</p>


    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.</p>


    </p>

    for example, you quoted Imam safarini as saying [emphasis mine]: </p>





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







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







    Similarly with point 5 in your discussion above when you quoted Ibn Qudama: </p>





    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
    </p>

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





    unfortunately akhee you did not continue with the text and the translation and i can see why you did that. </p>





    I have seen the paragraphs in question translated as follows elsewhere: </p>



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

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

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

    </p>





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


    And some said it was related from Imam Shafii: &quot;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]” </p>





    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&quot; </p>









    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? </p>





    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? </p>





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


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

    </p>

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

    </p>

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

    “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.”
    </p>

    </p>

    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.”
    </p>







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





    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. &quot;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.&quot; </p>





    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. </p>









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





    read what shaikh muhammad ibn ibraheem rahemahullah said about al-lum'ah:
    <span style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 100%">

    <font size="2">(128- قول صاحب اللمعة ( ) وجب الايمان به لفظًا)
    واما كلام صاحب اللمعة فهذه الكلمة مما لوحظ في هذه العقيدة، وقد لوحظ فيها عدة كلمات أخذت على المصنف، إذ لا يخفى ان مذهب أَهل السنة والجماعة هو الايمان بما ثبت في الكتاب والسنة من أَسماء الله وصفاته لفظًا ومعنى، واعتقاد أَن هذه الأَسماءَ والصفات على الحقيقة لا على المجاز، وأَن لها معاني حقيقة تليق بجلال الله وعظمته. وادلة ذلك أَكثر من أَن تحصر. ومعاني هذه الأَسماء ظاهرة معروفة من القرآن كغيرها لا لبس فيها ولا اشكال ولا غموض، فقد أخذ أَصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عنه القرآن ونقلوا عنه الأَحاديث لم يستشكلوا شيئًا من معاني هذه الآيات والأَحاديث لأَنها واضحة صريحة، وكذلك من بعدهم من القرون الفاضلة، كما يروى عن مالك لما سئل عن قوله سبحانه: (الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى) ( ) قال: الاستواءُ معلوم، والكيف مجهول والايمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة. وكذلك يروى معنى ذلك عن ربيعة شيخ مالك، ويروى عن أُم سلمة مرفوعًا وموقوفًا.
    أما كنه الصفة وكيفيتها فلا يعلمه إلا الله سبحانه، إذ الكلام في الصفة فرع عن الكلام في الموصوف، فكما لا يعلم كيف هو -إلا هو- فكذلك صفاته. وهو معنى قول مالك: والكيف مجهول.
    أَما ما ذكره في ((اللعمة)) فانه ينطبق على مذهب المفوضة وهو من شر المذاهب واخبثها. والمصنف رحمه الله إمام في السنة ومن أَبعد الناس عن مذهب المفوضة وغيرهم من المبتدعة. والله أَعلم. وصلى الله على محمد وآله وصحبه وسلم.
    (ص-ف 328 في 28-7-85هـ).</font></span>



    The Shaikh Rahimahullah ended the answer by saying:

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

     </p>

     </p>

    in addition i have see the following interesting scan from page 57 of
    <font face="Garamond" color="#0000ff" size="3"><font face="times new roman,times,serif">&quot;Fundamentals of the Salafee Methodology: An Islaamic Manual for Reform&quot; ascribed to the late Nasir al-Albani with numerous footnotes.</font>  </font>on one of the forums:</p>

     </p>

    [​IMG]</p>

     </p>

     </p>

     </p>

    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.</p>







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







    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? </p>


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









    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. </p>









    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.  </p>







    jazakAllah khair </p>

    </p>

    </p>
     

Share This Page