Yūsuf ibn Abdul Hādī, Hanbalis and Istiwah

Discussion in 'Islamic Theology and Ideology' started by Abu'l 'Eyse, Jan 16, 2007.

  1. Abu'l 'Eyse

    Abu'l 'Eyse Rep-manz

    what is the authenticity of the following and it's accuracy?

    got it from: http://nuqtah.muslimpad.com/2006/11/11/no-its-not/
     
  2. Madarijas-Salikeen

    Madarijas-Salikeen <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    salamu alaykum

    akhi as far as the statements doesnt this fall into the kayf? We are suppose to affirm without kayfiyyah but it seems if we say its contact with the throne , and that he is sitting this is going into kayfiyyah and this is wrong.

    Am i right on this issue or wrong?

    jazakallah khayr
     
  3. moubeen

    moubeen Active Member

    It would be appropriate (in my opinion) to quote here, what is reported from Imaam Malik here, when he was asked about the the "how" of such things.

    What is affirmed from the salaf is that you accept them (the attributes referring to istawa, nuzool etc.) as they come without asking "how". The narrations we do have from the salaf where the "how" question is asked are all answered by the A'immah in various ways, but all with similar conclusions. Basically accept them and affirm them on their apparent meanings, leaving aside asking "how".

    And their recitation is their explanation. Which means the apparent meaning. So in my opinion delving into these issues leads to a methodology which opposes the salaf. And then it is much like what is related in the other thread about al-Qurtubi on istawa etc....which is while knowing the salaf were upon one thing yet choosing another way. We know sometimes scholars went into a certain matter to reply to the doubts of the philosiphers and heretics, but Let what the salaf said be sufficient and let us be content with that, no matter if Ibn Taymiyyah or anyone else said otherwise...
     
  4. أبو نافع

    أبو نافع Formerly - Abu_Abdallah

    al-Salamu 'Alaikum wa-Rahmatullah,

    This is quoted from a work by the Hanbalite and anti-Ash'arite Yusuf b. 'Abd al-Hadi, known as Ibn al-Mabrid (d.909), who authored several important works on creed and was known for his knowledge of Hadith and compilation. In this passage, which has been quoted by G. Makdisi from a work of his that's still in manuscript in the Princeton library as I recall, Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi mentions the difference of opinion some Hanbalites had concerning the understanding of particular Attributes. This knowledge is not something new. It has been mentioned before by several scholars, incl. Ibn Taymiyyah.

    In a published work by the Qadi Abu Ya'la b. al-Farrâ', the well-known Imam of the Hanâbilah in his age (d.458), entitled Kitab al-Riwayatayn wa'l-Wajhayn therein is already mention of the difference some Hanbalites had in matters of creed (see : al-Masâ'il al-'Aqadiyyah min Kitab al-Riwayatayn wa'l-Wajhayn p.51-62).

    In another book, Nihâyat al-Mubtadi'in fi Usul al-Din by the Hanbalite of Harran: Ibn Hamdan (d.695), is mentioned something similar (see in particular p.28 and further).

    Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi, who wrote two attacks against the Ash'arites (Kashf al-Ghita 'an Mahdh al-Khata' against Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari himself which is still in manuscript as far as I'm aware, and the Jam' al-Juyûsh wa'l-Dasakir 'ala Ibn 'Asakir against the Hafidh's Tabyin which has been edited as part of a master thesis in Madinah), based his knowledge about creed on the works of Shaykh al-Islam and those of the scholars before him. He intended to collect as much as possible on creed by Hanbalites, mention their differences and outline some of it. He wrote as a scholar in creed several books on 'Aqidah, incl. a recently published al-Tamhid fi al-Kalam 'ala al-Tawhid. What he mentioned in that particular book, i.e. the Tamhid, is nothing but one uniform creed of the Salaf and the Ahl al-Sunnah consisting of only Ayât and Athar - nothing more or less.

    As for the work wherefrom Makdisi quotes, as can be read in his English book on Ibn 'Aqil fromwhere people quote, he mentions primarily the statements of the Mutakallimun of the Hanbalites, cf. Abu'l-Hasan al-Tamimi, al-Qadi Abu Ya'la, Ibn 'Aqil, Ibn al-Zaghuni and their likes. He does not mention the anti-Mutakallimun - as far as we can tell from that passage - except a few. The non-Mutakallimun from the Hanbalites are beside Imam Ahmad, his direct students and the early generations after them: al-Khallal, Ibn Abi Dawud, Ghulam al-Khalil, Ibn Batta al-'Ukbari, Abu Bakr al-Ajurri, Ibn Shihab al-'Ukbari etc. These scholars were closer to the Sunnah, than most mentioned in that passage. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that in the course of criticizing many of the persons mentioned in that passage.

    It is not a secret for any reader of creed that there is a reality of differences on understanding. Rather, the surprise some may expierence when having to depend upon an orientalist's translation of a book's passage that has not been published nor been known by most scholars only shows how poor some people are in knowledge and defunct in understanding. I mean: you have to be really pathetic to realize that Hanbalites (or any other party) may have differed among eachother in matters of creed, based upon an English passage quoted by an orientalist who died years ago! Add to it that the source is probably unknown to most Shuyûkh! SubhanAllah!

    I let brother Abuz Zubair comment on the contents of this - not hidden and well-known passage (since I have an important exame tomorrow morning) - but will comment on the following:

    The ignorance of some people can be demonstrated by such a small passage alone, so let me comment upon it in short:

    * Calling Yusuf b. 'Abd al-Hadi an Imam by this anti-Athari/Salafi/Sunni personality, whose probably a fan of Ash'arism or another breed of Jahmism:

    Guess what! This Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi wrote a fierce attack on your Imams, the Ash'arites; indeed, he devoted even a book against Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari himself! Oops..

    So be carefull - O ignorasmus - before calling a Hanbalite, who incidently serves your purpose and agenda, an Imam! Do you wish me to quote some of his remarks against your likes, so you might drop the 'Imam', and spare you an embarassment? Or let me just quote the last sentence of Abu 'Ali al-Ahwazi, praised in heaven by this 'Imam' and declared a liar by Ibn 'Asakir, in his Mathâlib Ibn Abi Bishr?! Man, I was even - imagine that! - ashame to cite what he cited in his last sentences (would shock even the fiercest anti-Ash'arite here)! [For this reason I will never mention it in my forum on al-Ash'ari in the thread devoted to the Imam in praise and dispraise]

    *As far as the contents concerns: why setting that aside? Is it because you can't understand its contents? What do you know of the points mentioned therein, and the opinions of Hanbalites about these points? It certainly does not indicate a difference in opinion and approach you have in mind, or what exists among Ash'arites. The Hanbalites do not have, any, difference in approach when it comes to creed, except with a handful of Hanbalites (cf. Ibn 'Aqil, Ibn al-Jawziy and a few others). As far as the differences: there are two types of them. Difference of form and difference of sense, just like you have with Tafsir among the Salaf (refer to: Ibn Taymiyyah, Muqaddimah fi Usul al-Tafsir). The Hanbalites in general - again with the exclusion of a handfull - all affirm the Attributes, be it al-Yad, al-Wajh, al-Istiwa, Nuzul etc. They all profess these Attributes upon a 'literal sense'. Wherein they differ, as Qadi Abu Ya'la informs us and Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi in fact too, is how to understand this - uniform - approach; and there the differences lie.

    I e-mailed once brother the following in meaning, when asking me who of the Hanbalites were Ash'arites or like them, saying:

    "You might say: the Hanbalites can be divided into three groups. One middle community, the major and leading one, and two extreme communities on the left and the right. The left wing consist of those who went extreme in affirmation, for example: Ibn Hamid, Yahya b. 'Ammar, Qadi Abu Ya'la, Abdallah al-Ansari and others. They made two fundamental mistakes: they relied either on weak narrations and understood textual passages in a faulty sense. Ibn Hamid and Qadi Abu Ya'la are the ones who used weak and fabricated narrations, unknowingly or without purpose, as has been highlighted by several Muhaqqiqin; Yahya b. 'Ammar and Abdallah al-Ansari, because of their very Jahmite environment, understood some authentic material in a wrong way. In this left wing you have also those Kalam-influenced scholars, in particular the Qadi Abu Ya'la himself. The right wing consists of those who went extreme in negation, for example: Abu'l-Hasan al-Tamimi, RizqAllah al-Tamimi, Ibn 'Aqil and Ibn al-Jawziy. They made two fundamental mistakes too: the most serious is their reliance upon the approach of the Mutakallimun, thereby negating several Attributes or - in the case of the extremist Ibn al-Jawziy - adopting a whole other approach, copying in fact the Mu'tazilah! Some were not so extreme therein, such as Ibn al-Zaghuni and Ibn 'Aqil in his later career; they still used Kalâm in some way, but were less negating. These two wings are very small in terms of numbers, even though they might have their influence later. The middle part, the overwhelming Hanbalites, were not affected by Ta'wil, Kalâm and misunderstanding. I mean the earliest generations of Hanbalites: al-Khallal, al-Barbahari, Ghulam al-Khalil, Ibn Abi Dawud, al-Ajurri, a-Daraqutni, Ibn Batta' al-'Ukbari, Abu 'Ali al-'Ukbari, Sharif Abu Ja'far, Ibn al-Banna', al-Barzabini, Ibn al-Hanbali, Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi, Muwaffaq al-Din and the rest of the Maqâdisa, the Banu Taymiyyah etc. all of them were not affected by these people or very very little. So if you see Shaykh al-Islam mention the Imam, al-Qadi Abu Ya'la, in one breath with the Jahmites, Mu'tazilites and the Kullabites - know that he criticize him for his Kalâmi approach and his denial or rejection of al-Sifat al-Ikhtiyariyyah; and if you see him speaking against the Imam, Shaykh al-Islam Abdallah al-Ansari al-Harawi, know that he speaks about his extreme attitude in affirmation or his apparent Ittihâdi statements. There are always scholars, Hanbalite or not, who diverge from an Imam they claim to follow. What is our task is to accept what they say correctly and reject what is incorrect; irrespective who he is, or whom he claims to follow. None is free of mistakes or immune of criticism, except Allah and His Messenger.."

    * As for the Athari creed, you are ignorant about it. Your comment on the passage of Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi displays this.

    For your knowledge: The Athari creed is not confined to Hanbalites or to any other party you might have in mind. The Athari, or also called 'Hanbali', creed is confined to whomsoever follows the Salaf al-Salih, who have nothing but the creed of Muhammad, alayhis salam! It is not confined to a Madhhab of Jurisprudence, nor to a Madhhab of grammar! It is confined to him who ascribes himself to it or to the Ahl al-Sunnah. We've made clear, here in this forum, what a Hanbalite is when it comes to creed. And not all Hanbalites (in Fiqh) are Hanbalites in creed; and those that claim to be or are in fact, then their Hanbalism in creed differs from person to person. The most Hanbalite (i.e. Atharite) are some of the scholars I mentioned as 'the middle Hanbalites'; you might recognize them as such close Atharis by the Hadith/Athar-based books on creed. But the persons mentioned - mostly - in the passage of Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi do not fit in that category, even though we might still claim them to be Atharites and Hanbalites in creed. Any reader can understand that when he sees the names of Ibn Hamid, the Qadi, Ibn 'Aqil, al-Jazari and the Tamimis! But an ignorasmus as you - you can not.

    * This brings as to the last point I want to draw attention too, as if the above is not enough in displaying your incompetence to comment at all on such a passage! For nothing of that - or any other source Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi made use off and which you could not utilize at all - prove the point you desperately are trying to make. You do not know what Ikhtilaf is, nor the levels of Ikhtilaf, the types of Ikhtilaf and what is really evidence of it and what is not. It is as if someone opens a book on Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha, for example the small one of Imam al-Tabari, and concludes: the Muslims do not have a monolithic set of jurisprudence at all!

    Had I more time, I would adress the contents in details. And on this forum - as elsewhere - these matters on Hadd, Istiwa' and their meanings, al-Nuzul etc. have already been adressed, even in the context of the Hanbalites alone. I will leave another to adress this, or else I will. I hope however that some ignorant people dont get confused by these idiotic comments some people make, in order to abrogate the Salaf's way for a Khalafi peripathetic path of pseudo-Aristotelians.. (so that's said).

    wa-Salamu 'Alaikum.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2007
    Abu Abdul-Barr likes this.
  5. Abu'l 'Eyse

    Abu'l 'Eyse Rep-manz

    As-sallamu 'alaikum

    jazakALLAHU Khairan brother Sharif, May ALLAH Ta'ala make your exam easy for you and may you contribute more here innsha'ALLAH.I for one enjoy your posts.


    You posted here: http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=1991

    when we were discussing how these 'ash'arites try and put shubha upon the ghunya of al-jilani and you mentioned:



    i think this would also be beneficial.
     
  6. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    JazakumAllahu Khayran brother Sharif Abu Ja'far for another excellent post...

    But what new exactly is being presented here which was not presented before?

    I had presented this information to the readers on al-Maghrib for nearly two years ago during my discussion with brother Shibli.

    This is what brother Shibli had said:

    I said to him in reply the following:

    About less than a year ago I wrote in my refutation of apples and oranges:

    Why do these brothers think that they are telling us something we didn't know, or that we are trying to hide?

    And if, by this post, they mean that we should show tolerance to tafwid and ta'wil, then should we also show tolerance towards the belief that Allah is actually sitting on the throne, and in contact with it?

    Just read the horrible comment by Ibn 'Aqil (may Allah forgive him) about Shaykh al-Hanabila Ibn Hamid:

    This is one of his attacks against the Salaf for which his blood was fit to be shed, and from which he retracted.

    This pious man, Ibn Hamid, was more aware of the Sunna and the madhab of Imam Ahmad, than Ibn 'Aqil who was nurtured on jahmi philosophy doctrines as indoctrinated into his brains by the two mu'tazila shaykhs: Ibn al-Tubban and Ibn al-Walid.

    'had he known what this statement entails', and what exactly does it entail to attribute the word haraka (movement) to Allah?

    What makes Ibn 'Aqil think that Ibn Hamid's definition of movement is how he understands movement to be?

    Aristotelians categorised movement in three different ways, and Ibn Sina added further a forth category of movement, of which only ONE category actually involves vacating a place for another place, which the Jahmiyya like Ibn 'Aqil's Mu'tazili teachers are trying to flee from.

    Lastly, why is it that those who are posting and propagating this would not say a word in my presence, but actually take advantage of my absence and on purpose endeavour to incite fitna? Is this, at all, the sign of one seeking the truth?
     
  7. Hummm JzakumAllahu khair. There was both benefit and words devoid of benefit in these posts.

    What I don't understand is; why would a jahmi, ash'ari, heretic blah blah...would his blog link to Islamtoday and *gasp* Hanbalis.com?! Furthemore where's the explicit proof that he's an Ash'ari?

    He might've just been a person who is learning and quoted something that he found interesting!

    Whatever happened to 70 excuses?
    Whatever happened to husn al-dhann?

    For the umpteenth time, why don't you guys watch your tongues?

    Mr. sharif, despite your knowledge which I respect I think you will benefit from reading this: http://islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=36&sub_cat_id=881
     
  8. Abu'l 'Eyse

    Abu'l 'Eyse Rep-manz

    the problem is, not that he is an 'ash'ari etc, rather what is being probagated as being the positions of the hanabilah!

    Even recently as I showed there are some people now "admitting" ibn qudamah was an "anthropomorthist" yet before the clarifications by brothers like abuz zubair, sharif, qadri etc on this forum,sunnipress,ahya, in, etc ibn qudamah was thought of as a mufawwid who supported the hanbalis who were deemed palatable to 'ash'aris.

    Wa ALLAHU A'lam
     
  9. Humm I dont think he's promoting anything. I mean why don't you guys just chill out.
     
  10. qadri

    qadri Atharist

  11. Abu'l 'Eyse

    Abu'l 'Eyse Rep-manz


    maybe read the context he is posting seeking ilm translations
     
  12. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    Abu Wakee,

    Please be reasonable and if you have issues, be straight forward and forthright. I don't know if you are NeonKnight from IN forums, but this brother is responsible for initiating all the controversial threads on IN, stirring up the fitna every now and then, but each time I get involved, the brother becomes a spectator.

    His comment on his blog has already spelt out that he has already taken sides, and he is not interested in understanding the issues objectively:

    If a person really believes that next person has erred in his understanding, then please be forthright and correct the person concerned. But initiating fitna-threads, and then stepping out of it altogether when things get heated is hardly a behaviour of an upright Muslim.

    This is the sort of fitna that has lead a person to become an apostate (Sas Jamal), and although he takes most of the responsibility for his apostasy, others who merely stir up fitna, without objectively looking for the truth or reach some sort of understanding, are also responsible for people going astray, and leaving Islam as in case of Sas.

    Faith is no game. Deen is no joke.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 20, 2007
  13. Akhee I don't think he's a knowledgeable person. Maybe he takes a sideline because he is trying to benefit?
     
  14. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    Well, if he is not knowledgeable, and is only trying to benefit, then why make bold claims and assertions, that are at the very least misleading and harmful? Indeed, why start up fitna threads to begin with, if not to actually push out certain misconceptions? People need to take responsibility for their actions, especially when other people's faith is at risk.

    That is not to say that friendly discussions are not welcome and that we would not allow any debates. Far from it, as I am the only one here calling all these brothers for open and fair discussion.

    But what naturally disgusts us all is their unwillingness to even have a honest discussion about these issues, since they have already made up their minds and decided to follow whoever they trust.

    Whatever the case, knowledge, however little a person may have, it must be handed out with responsibility.
     
  15. Abd al Majeed

    Abd al Majeed New Member

    If you're not Neon Knight from IN, then you surely ressemble him quite a bit. He also posts from Islamtoday, and he also seems to have posted that Jihad an-nafs article... the one you posted here.

    Wallahu a'lam.
     
  16. Abu'l 'Eyse

    Abu'l 'Eyse Rep-manz

    Bumped this thread for brother muslim's attention as it discusses points linked to haraka and istiqraar
     
  17. Muslim_

    Muslim_ New Member

    JazakAllahu Khayr, it was a great read, but i'm still not convinced of haraka nor istaqarr. The first is definetly going into the kayfiya and is contrary to the salaf; i'm still sticking to what hafidh said about istaqarra.
    Imam tabari clearly denounced dislocation in the explanation of istawa'. The same goes for qa'ada and jalasa; my point is this, if these are lexically correct according to the arabic language, why is it wrong for the mutakallimun to take some of the ayat according to the usage of arabs? I do advise you and others to read what hafidh said on the commentary of istiwa, which i posted on another thread.
     

Share This Page