Saturday, 22 January 2011

Salafis -vs- Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar

Imam Abu Hanifa(RA)

Says in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar about the qualities of God:

“He has a hand, a face, and a self. So what He, High is He, mentions in the Qur’an of the mention of the face, hand, and self, they are all attributes of His with no modality (or description).

It is not said that His hand is His power or His blessing, since such would be a nullification of the attribute. And such is the statement of the People of Qadar and ‘Itizaal.[8]

Rather, His hand is His attribute with no modality (or description). And His anger and His satisfaction are two of His attributes with no modality (or description)…”
[8] In other words, to say such a thing would be equal to saying what the people who deny the divine decree (qadar) say and like the Mu’tazilites who say that every time Allah ascribes a hand to His self, it means ‘power.’
One must first understand that by virtue of the fact that the book – Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar - is considered to be the first book written in the time of the Taabi’een on the topic of Tawheed in an organized and methodical fashion during an age of great controversy when Sunnis were attempting to codify the orthodox creed of Muslims that there will be statements found in it that may be problematic.
Of course Salafis would find great joy in seeing such statements like the one above, since it apparently gives credence to their arguments about what they refer to as ‘The Attributes of Allah,’ like the hand, face, eyes, foot, side, shin, self, etc.
They could easily make the claim that their ‘aqeedah is correct and in agreement with the creed of the Salaf, since Imam Abu Hanifa who is one of the Salaf says in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar that Allah has a hand. And His hand is an attribute, similar to what they say.
So on the surface it would seem that the argument is over, and that Salafis have proven themselves to be victorious in their claims.
However, a number of other things have to be considered before accepting their arguments.
Firstly, if we are to accept that Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is an authentic work legitimately ascribable to Abu Hanifa and that it represents the ‘aqeedah of the Salaf, Salafis have to accept all that it contains.
So they’d have to also accept the following statement made by Abu Hanifa about Allah’s speech:

“And He speaks, not as our speech. We speak with tools and letters while Allah, High is He, speaks without a tool and without letters. The letters are created. And the speech of Allah, High is He, is uncreated.”`

In this passage, Abu Hanifa states that when Allah, High is He, speaks, He speaks without letters.

But Salafis believe that when Allah speaks, He speaks with letters and sounds.

So, really this is another case of Salafis selectively abusing and misusing the words of the Salaf and those attributed to the Salaf in an attempt to make it seem that their creed agrees with that of the Salaf, when in fact it doesn’t.

Add to that, Salafis are those who argue that the current version of Kitab al-Ibaanah* ‘an Usool ad-Diyaanah, attributed to Imam Abu al-Hasan Al-Ash’ari, is a proper ascription to him. (refer below)
And in that book, it states that Imam Abu Hanifa believed that the Qur’an was created1,.

But if Salafis accept that Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is appropriately ascribed to Abu Hanifa, they have to also accept his words that contradict this claim when he says:

“The Qur’an is Allah’s word, High is He, in pages transcribed, in hearts protected, on tongues recited, and on the Prophet (PBUH) and His family revealed. Our utterance of the Qur’an is created. Our writing of it is created. Our recitation of it is created. And the Qur’an is uncreated.”

How more explicit can the Imam be?

He expressly states in Al-Fiqh al-Akbar that the “Qur’an is uncreated.”

But the Salafis claim that the narrations in Al-Ibaanah that claim that Abu Hanifa believed that it was created is a proper ascription to Abu al-Hasan. And at the same time they consider Al-Fiqh al-Akbar to be properly ascribed to Abu Hanifa.

In addition to that, Imam Abu al-Hasan doesn’t make any mention of Abu Hanifa as being one of those who believed that the Qur’an was created in his more prominent and well-established work entitled ‘Maqaalaat al-Islaamiyyeen.’

And according to Salafis, Kitaab al-Ibaanah was his last work.

So how do they explain the fact that Imam Al-Ash’ari waited until his final work to mention Abu Hanifa, who died more than a century prior to him, as one of those who believed that the Qur’an was created in his supposed last work, when he didn’t mention him in what they believe to be one of his earlier works?
Did not Al-Ash’ari know that Imam Abu Hanifa was the author of Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar?

They just can’t have it both ways.

Either Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar is Abu Hanifa’s work, which would make Kitaab al-Ibaanah – in its present form - not Abu al-Hasan’s work.

Or the current Kitaab al-Ibaanah is Abu al-Hasan’s work, which would mean that Al-Fiqh al-Akbar is not Abu Hanifa’s work.


And if Al-Fiqh al-Akbar is Abu Hanifa’s work and Salafis want to use it as proof that their ‘aqeedah is no different than his, they have to accept everything in it without exception.

Now as for the issue of the statement in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar about the hand, face, and self and them being attributes, we must consider two things in particular:

1 – Imam At-Tahaawi makes no mention of hands, a face, or a self in his ‘aqeedah. And his book has been accepted as the one that represents the ‘aqeedah of Imam Abu Hanifa and his two companions, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ash-Shaibaani.
2 – Secondly, we must understand any comment made in Al-Fiqh al-Akbar – as in other works - according to context.

According to Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, Allah has two general classifications of attributes known as
‘Attributes of the Essence’ and ‘Attributes of Action.’
Attributes of the Essence are the essential qualities of His being.
As for attributes of action, they are things that happen outside of His being. And since He is the one responsible for those occurrences, they are attributed to Him and called ‘Attributes of Action.’

Imam Abu Hanifa explains this in his book when he says:
“He doesn’t resemble anything of His creation, and nothing of His creation resembles Him. He has always and will always exist with His names and His attributes of the (divine) essence and those (attributes) of action.As for those of the essence, they are: life, power, knowledge, speech, hearing, seeing, and will.And as for those of action, they are: creating, providing, producing, originating, manufacturing, and other attributes of action.”
So the attributes of Allah’s divine essence are seven:
As for the attributes of action, he states things like Creating,Providing,Producing,Originating,Manufacturing,
And other attributes of action

Then, Abu Hanifa says,
“He has always and will always exist with His names and attributes. He has not acquired any new name or attribute.”
So according to Abu Hanifa, Allah has seven confirmed attributes of the essence [2.], while he places no limit to His attributes of action, since the possibilities of what can exist are limitless.
As for restricting the attributes of the essence to merely seven, this is not to say that these are the only attributes that Allah has. It is merely to say that this is the number that both revelation and reason have been able to conclude. As for the standard view of Maaturidis, the attributes of the essence are eight.
As for Ash’aris, they divide attributes a bit further to the point that some of them have stated 13 [3.] and some have stated 20 [4.].
In the end, most of that is just a difference in semantics. And the true difference is with relationship to what Ash’aris call ‘Abstract Attributes’, which are the 7 that Abu Hanifa mentions in Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, while Maaturidis add an eighth called ‘Takween.’
At any rate, notice how Abu Hanifa doesn’t make mention of the hand, face, and self until he enumerates the attributes of the essence. And, so that the readers can see, here is the complete text prior to the mention of the hand, face, and self:

“He doesn’t resemble anything of His creation, and nothing of His creation resembles Him. He has always and will always exist with His names and His attributes of the (divine) essence and those (attributes) of action.
As for those of the essence, they are: life, power, knowledge, speech, hearing, seeing, and will.
And as for those of action, they are: creating, providing, producing, originating, manufacturing, and other attributes of action.
He has always and will always exist with His names and attributes. He has not acquired any new name or attribute.”

So if He hasn’t acquired any new name or attribute, there are truly no other definitive attributes of essence other than those mentioned above [5], and the hand, face, and self aren’t included among them.

Then he continues:
“He has always been Knowing by His knowledge. And knowledge has been an attribute since pre-eternity.
(He has always been) Powerful by His power. And power has been an attribute since pre-eternity.
(He has always been) A Speaker by His speech. And speech has been an attribute since pre-eternity.
(He has always been) Creator by His creative-will[6]. And the creative-will has been an attribute since pre-eternity.
(He has always been) A Doer by His will to act [7]. And the will to act has been an attribute since pre-eternity. The Doer is Allah, High is He. The will to act has been an attribute since pre-eternity. And the resulting entity of His will to act is created, while Allah’s will to act, High is He, is uncreated. And His attributes have been since pre-eternity un-invented and uncreated. So whoever says that they are created or invented, remains silent about them, or entertains doubts about them is one who rejects faith in Allah, High is He.”
He also says,
“And Allah, High is He, was indeed a Speaker at a time when He had not yet spoken to Musa, upon him be peace. And Allah was indeed a Creator in pre-eternity even though He had not yet created. ((There is nothing like unto Him. And He is the All-Hearing All-Seeing)). So when He spoke to Musa, He spoke to him with His speech, which has been an attribute of His since pre-eternity. And All of His attributes are without beginning from pre-eternity; contrary to the state of the attributes of created beings.
He has knowledge, not as our knowledge. He has power, not as our power. He sees, not as our seeing. He hears, not as our hearing. And He speaks, not as our speech.
We speak with tools and letters while Allah, High is He, speaks without a tool and without letters. The letters are created. And the speech of Allah, High is He, is uncreated.
He is a thing, not like other things. And the point of saying ‘thing’ is to confirm His existence while not being a divisible body, an indivisible body, and not an accident of a body.
He has no boundary. He has no opposite. He has no rival. And He has no equal.
Then finally he says,
He has a hand, a face, and a self. So what He, High is He, mentions in the Qur’an of the mention of the face, hand, and self, are all attributes of His with no modality (or description).
It is not said that His hand is His power or His blessing, since such would be a nullification of the attribute. And such is the statement of the People of Qadar and ‘Itizaal.[8]
Rather, His hand is His attribute with no modality (or description). And His anger and His satisfaction are two of His attributes with no modality (or description)…”

So what are we to understand from all of this?
How do we reconcile between Abu Hanifa’s saying after mentioning the seven attributes of the essence:
“He has always and will always exist with His names and attributes. He has not acquired any new name or attribute.”
And between his saying,
“He has a hand, a face, and a self. So what He, High is He, mentions in the Qur’an of the mention of the face, hand, and self, are all attributes of His with no modality (or description).” ?
I believe that the best way to reconcile between the two is to say that ‘hand, face, and self’ are references to either one of Allah’s true attributes of the essence as stated in the first clause by Abu Hanifa. Or they are references to one of His attributes of action.[9]
One cannot deny that by such words being annexed to Allah’s name or pronoun in the Qur’an, they are being ‘attributed’ to Him directly even if calling them ‘attributes’ doesn’t coincide with the original linguistic definition of what an attribute is.
So calling them attributes would be a metaphorical application as opposed to a literal application. And if it is a metaphorical application, it would have to be accepted that such named ‘attributes’ are metaphorical ‘attributes.’ So the hand, face, and self would have to be a metaphorical ‘hand, face, and self,’ which are references to one of Allah’s true attributes, since there is nothing like unto Him. And ‘hand’ in its original linguistic understanding applies only to created beings.

Abdur-Rahman ibn Al-Jawzi says while mentioning the mistakes of some Hanbali scholars in the area of scriptural interpretation of the problematic verses of the Qur’an,
“And those writers who I have mentioned have erred in seven areas. The first of them is that they called the ‘reports’ ‘attributes.’ When they are merely annexations/possessive forms. And not every possessive form is an attribute. For Allah, High is He, has said: ((And I have blown into him from My spirit)) [Al-Hijr: 29]. And Allah doesn’t have an attribute known as a ‘spirit.’ So those who have called ‘the possessive form’ (idaafa) ‘an attribute’ are guilty of innovation.”

The linguist, Tha’lab says in Taaj al-‘Aroos,
“A ‘na’t’ is a description given to a specific part of the body like the word ‘lame’ (‘araj). A ‘sifa’ (attribute) is for non-specificity (‘umoom), like the word ‘magnificent’ (‘azeem) and ‘generous’ (kareem). So Allah is described with a ‘sifa’. But He is not described with a ‘na’t.’”
What this would mean is that the word ‘sifa’ (attribute) is being used metaphorically to mean ‘na’t’, which is another word for ‘attribute’ or ‘trait.’ The difference is that a ‘na’t’ describes a specific part of a body, like ‘lame’ or ‘blind’.
For this reason, Imam Bukhaari uses the word ‘nu’oot’ (plural of na’t), instead of ‘sifaat’ (plural of sifa) to refer to those reports that make mention of Allah’s anger, laughter, foot, hand, and face even though He isn’t a body and doesn’t have a body.

This would have to be the accepted interpretation. Otherwise, we must accept that Abu Hanifa contradicts his self by first limiting the attributes of the essence to the 7 mentioned above, and then later adding Allah’s face, hand, and self.
Another important question is ‘Why doesn’t Abu Hanifa add to what he considered attributes ‘the shin, the side, the eyes, the foot, and the spirit?’
This is important because Allah annexes His name or personal pronoun to each of these things in the Qur’an or the Messenger does so in the hadith. So if I am to accept that Allah has a face, self, and hand, simply because He annexes such things to His name or pronoun, I should also accept that He has eyes, a spirit, a foot, a side, a shin, a she-camel, a house, and any other thing that He has attached His name or pronoun to.
And if the Salafis agree with Abu Hanifa’s creed, they should only accept as attributes those things that Abu Hanifa declared to be attributes. This would mean that Salafis have to stop saying that Allah has a foot, a shin, a side, and eyes.
But we know that they won’t do that, because Salafis are very selective about what they want to accept from the Salaf and what they don’t want to accept, all the while claiming that their ‘aqeeda is the ‘aqeeda of the Salaf.
If they use Abu Hanifa’s words about the face, hand, and self as being proof that they follow the minhaaj and understanding of the Salaf, they should only say what the Salaf said and stop adding to their words.
So to accept that these are the words of Abu Hanifa, we’d either have to accept the first interpretation or we’d have to accept the second, which would mean that he is in contradiction with his self.
And if that is so, we’d have to accept that Abu Hanifa may not have been an authority on this subject.

As for referring to these problematic verses and hadiths as ‘Attribute Verses’ (Aayaat as-Sifaat) or ‘Reports of Attributes’ (Akhbaar as-Sifaat), this was the specific terminology that scholars used to refer to them even though they didn’t actually mean that such ascriptions mentioned in scripture were attributes of Allah.
Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi’s words above clarify the error of this sort of designation. So hopefully that should resolve any confusion about the issue.


Abu Hanifa (RA)
by GF Haddad ©

Among the works of the Imâm in kalâm:
The full chains of transmission for all these works are given in al-Muwaffaq's Manâqib and al-Kawtharî's Ta'nîb al-Khatîb as well as (in part) his introduction to al-Bayâdî's Ishârât al-Marâm (p. 6).
Al-Fiqh al-Absat. ("The Greatest Wisdom"), the same work as the Fiqh al-Akbar but in catechetic form narrated from the Imâm exclusively by Abu Mutî' al-Hakam ibn 'Abd Allâh ibn Muslim al-Balkhî al-Khurâsânî through Abu 'Abd Allâh al-Husayn ibn 'Alî al-Alma'î al-Kâshgharî (d. >484), both of them discarded as narrators.
In this version the Imâm is related to state:

[1] "Whoever says, 'I do not know whether my Lord is in the heaven or on earth' commits disbelief (qad kafar), as does whoever says, 'He is on the Throne and I do not know whether the Throne is in the heaven or on earth.'" Imâm Ab al-Layth al-Samarqandî (d. 373) in his Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar (misattributed to al-Mâturîdî) and his commentary on the Fiqh al-Absat., and Imâm al-Bayâdî in Ishârât al-Marâm all said: "He is a disbeliever because he attributes a place to Allâh Most High." [Cf. Ghâwjî, Ab Hanîfa (p. 260).]

[2] "(The Hand of Allâh is above their hands) (48:10), not like the hand of creatures, and it is not a limb (laysat bi-jâriha)."

[3] "If someone says, 'Where is Allâh' The answer for him is that Allâh existed when there was no 'where,' no creation, nothing! And He is the Creator of everything!" This is confirmed as the true position of the Imâm by al-Tahâwî's article in his "Exposition of the Doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ'a" that "This is the religion of the Muslims. Anyone that does not guard himself against negation [of the Divine Attributes] or likening [Allâh to something else], has gone astray and missed transcendence. For our Lord - Glorified and Exalted! - is only described in terms of oneness and absolute singularity. No creation is in any way whatsoever like Him. He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or having boundaries, or having parts, limbs, or organs! Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are."

Certain versions of the Fiqh al-Absat. have undergone identifiable interpolations such as that narrated by the anthropomorphist al-Harawî al-Ansârî in his book al-Fâruq fîl-Sifât as pointed out by al-Kawtharî.[8]

The above documentation shows that the pious Salaf did not wholly condemn involvement in kalâm as a blameworthy activity but only, as Imâm Ab Zahra pointed out, its specific use by the innovators - particularly their main sect, the Mu'tazila - who diverged from the doctrines of Ahl al-Sunna.[9]
Those whom the Salaf meant in their condemnations of kalâm were the likes of Dâwud al-Jawâribî,[10]
Ibn Karrâm,[11] and other leaders of sects such as those described in heresiographies such al-Ash'arî's Maqâlât al-Islâmiyyîn, al-Baghdâdî's al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, Ibn Hazm's al-Fisal fîl-Milal, and al-Shahrastânî's al-Milal wal-Nihal.
read more... Here

The vindication of the Imam
from the claim of
"Salafis" whereby Imam Abu Hanifa was da'if
(weak in Hadith)
Shaykh Hasan al-Saqqaf wrote in his book about Albani's attacks on the great scholars entitled
Qamus shata'im al-Albani

[Dictionary of Albani's Insults of the Scholars]:

"He [Albani] says of Imam Abu Hanifa:

"The imams have declared him weak for his poor memorization"

(in his commentary of Ibn Abi `Asim's Kitab as-Sunna 1:76)
although no such position is reported, see for example Ibn Hajar `Asqalani's biography of Imam Abu Hanifa in "Tahdhib al-tahdhib".

A blind follower of Albani replied:
The statement that no such position is reported is a lie, it was the position of Muslim (al-Kunaa wal Asmaa), Nasaa'ee (ad-Du'afaa) ibn Adee (al-Kaamil 2/403), ibn Sa'd (Tabaqaat 6/256), al-Uqailee (ad-Du'afaa p.432), ibn Abee Haatim (al-Jarh wat Tadil), Daaruqutnee (as-Sunan p132), al-Haakim (Ma'rifa Ulum al-Hadeeth), Abdul Haqq al-Ishbelee (al-Ahkaam al-Kubraa q.17/2), adh-Dhahabee (ad-Du'afaa q. 215/1-2), Bukharee (at-Taareekh al-Kabeer), ibn Hibbaan (al-Majrooheen)

Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani replies:
Our reliance is on Allah.
Shaykh Albani has shown enmity towards scholars, of a kind that passes all bounds and is unbefitting of a person with knowledge in Islam. As we mentioned in the first volume, Saqqaf has documented in his book an instance where Albani compares Hanafi fiqh to the Gospel in respect to distance from Qur'an and Sunna, and this would be unacceptable coming from a Christian, how then could it be accepted from a Muslim?

Albani and his following have pushed even the gentlest of scholars, the late `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda, to take pen to paper to oppose such aberrations in his book Radd `ala abatil wa iftira'at Nasir al-Albani wa sahibihi sabiqan Zuhayr al-Shawish wa mu'azirihima (Refutation of the falsehood and fabrications of Nasir al-Din Albani and his former friend Zuhayr al-Shawish and their supporters). This book received two editions recently.

The claim by Albani's supporter whereby
"The statement that no such position is reported is a lie" is itself a lie. None of the references he adduces contains a single authentic proof for Albani's claim that "the imams have declared him weak for his poor memorization."
For such a claim to be remotely true it would have to be modified to read:
"He was graded weak by some scholars but this grading was rejected by the Imams."
The proof for this is that the positions reported against Imam Abu Hanifa in the references given are all weak and rejected, and often inauthentic in the first place, in the end amounting to nothing: therefore, even though there is criticism reported, it comes to nothing and does not constitute any "declaration of weakness by the Imams" as asserted by Albani!

The example given as proof by Saqqaf, namely Ibn Hajar `Asqalani's notice on Abu Hanifa in Tahdhib al-tahdhib, confirms that the Imams of hadith never declared Abu Hanifa weak, for Ibn Hajar would have had to report such a weakening if it held true.
Rather, he states the reverse, as seen from the translation of Ibn Hajar's notice excerpted below. This shows that Saqqaf's statement is correct, since Ibn Hajar undoubtedly represents the opinions of the Imams of hadith criticism and methodology concerning the weakness or poor memorization of any given narrator or scholar.

Moreover, Ibn Hajar in Taqrib al-tahdhib (1993 ed. 2:248 #7179) calls Abu Hanifah al-Imam, and al-faqih al-mashhur (the well-known jurisprudent), and Dhahabi includes him among the hadith masters in his Tadhkirat al-huffaz [Memorial of the Hadith Masters].
These titles are not given to anyone who is declared weak in hadith. And Dhahabi before Ibn Hajar, and al-Mizzi before Dhahabi, all concurred that no position purporting Imam Abu Hanifa's weakness should be retained, as Dhahabi said in Tadhhib al-tahdhib (4:101): "Our shaykh Abu al-Hajjaj [al-Mizzi] did well when he did not cite anything [in Tahdhib al-kamal] whereby he [Imam Abu Hanifa] should be deemed weak as a narrator."

The remainder of the "Salafi"'s references are therefore irrelevant and over-ruled, especially in view of Ibn `Abd al-Barr's statement that
"Those who narrated from Abu Hanifa, who declared him trustworthy (waththaquhu), and who praised him, outnumber those who criticized him" as related by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in his book al-Khayrat al-hisan fi manaqib Abi Hanifa al-Nu`man (p. 74). Nevertheless we shall examine the sources that he brings up to show the extent to which these sources all suffer from various problems, as it is the wont of "Salafis" seen time and again to adduce false or weak evidence to promote their opinion.
... more info/refutation: Here
Wahhabi ^ al-Madkhali
who enjoys a great reputation among the Wahhabis called,
Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimahu allah) as Murği '.
Murği means to be 'that person does not belong to Ahl as-Sunna, as the Murği'a were a sect.
Al-Madkhali says:
وأخطأ أبو حيفة حتى في الإرجاء ومات على الإرجاء وورث أناسا الإرجاء
Abu Hanifa has even committed error in Irdscha '. And he is as Murği 'died and others have the Irga' inherited from him.
So it is. The Imam Abu Hanifa, one of the scholars of the Salaf and the founder is a major legal schools of Islam for this "would like" scholar an innovator, a Mubtadi 'has the wrong aqeedah.
You think people would be stupid! How do you allow you O Madkhali tell such nonsense. How can a palace "would like" scholar, a donor of the Saudi Fatwa Tyrane, open his mouth and a scholar who is one of the best of this ummah who accuse such a lie.
O Madkhali read, something your Master Abu Hanifa has said:
لا نقول إن حسناتنا مقبولة, وسيئاتنا مغفورة كقول المرجئة ولكن نقول المسئلة مبينة مفصلة: من عمل حسنة بشرائطها خالية عن العيوب المفسدة والمعاني المبطلة, ولم يبطلها حتى خرج من الدنيا, فإن الله تعالى لا يضيعها بل يقبلها منه ويثيبه عليها. وما كان من السيئات دون الشرك والكفر ولم يتب عنها حتى مات مؤمنا فإنه في مشيئة الله تعالى إن شاء عذبه, وإن شاء عفا عنه ولم يعذبه بالنار أبدا.
And we do not say our good deeds are accepted and forgiven are sins, as Murği'a claim. We say, rather, who commits a good deed that meets all their conditions, and the crushing of actions is free. And if he does not die this act, as a Mu'min until he leaves this world has that, then reject Allah, exalted is he, not his act down, but she takes him by ER and ER rewarded him for it. The person who has committed sins, except shirk and kufr, and he has done no Tawba of these sins, and then has left this world as a Mu'min, this is under the will of Allah, may He be exalted. If He wants, He will punish him with fire and if He does not want, then he will forgive and He will not punish him with fire
See how Imam Abu Hanifa in al-Fiqh al-Akbar even argued against the Murği'a. What Imam Abu Hanifa, the Imam of Iraq, mentioned in this place, the doctrine of Ahl as-Sunnah, the Imam at-Tahawi and others are confirmed for him.
The Madkhali even know the Ghayb (the hidden), he even knows the aqeedah, the Imam Abu Hanifa was the dying. He says yes: He is Irdscha died '(مات على الإرجاء).
The Madhali has 'declared but Shawkani Imam, Imam Nawawi and Imam Ibn Hajar Mubtadi were of him as' Imam Abi Hanifa as not only Mubtadi stamped.
He says:
الشوكاني, ابن حجر والنووي نحن نعرف أن لهؤلاء أخطاء وبدع
We know that have ash-Shawkani, Ibn Hajar Al-Nawawi and committed errors and Bida '.
After we saw in another article, such as Imam Nawawi and Ibn Ibm Uthaymeen Hajar as Mubtadi '(bid'ah owner) called, we now learn a second opinion about the so-called "authentic" scholars who are no different from people who have the story twist and criticize the doctrine of Ahl as-Sunnah, which have served the great scholars such as Imam Al-Nawawi and Imam Ibn Hajar hers life, just without being ashamed.
For those who would think I would propagate lies here, in this case the audio file of al-Madkhali, where he trumpeted that disgusting remarks.
Audio/video :Here

Note: above article is (Google Trans) of German ... Here


Sufyan al-Thawri praised Imam Abu Hanifa
when he said:
"We were in front of Abu Hanifa like small birds in front of the falcon"


Al-Shafi`i said: "Knowledge revolves around three men: Malik, al-Layth, and Ibn `Uyayna."
Al-Dhahabi commented: "Rather, it revolves also around al-Awza`i, al-Thawri, Ma`mar, Abu Hanifa, Shu`ba, and the two Hammads [ibn Zayd and ibn Salama]."
Sufyan al-Thawri praised Abu Hanifa when he said: "We were in front of Abu Hanifa like small birds in front of the falcon," and Sufyan stood up for him when Abu Hanifa visited him after his brother's death, and he said: "This man holds a high rank in knowledge, and if I did not stand up for his science I would stand up for his age, and if not for his age then for his Godwariness (wara`), and if not for his Godwariness then for his jurisprudence (fiqh)."
Ibn al-Mubarak praised Abu Hanifa and called him a sign of Allah. Both Ibn al-Mubarak and Sufyan al-Thawri said: "Abu Hanifa was in his time the most knowledgeable of all people on earth."
Ibn Hajar also related that Ibn al-Mubarak said: "If Allah had not rescued me with Abu Hanifa and Sufyan [al-Thawri] I would have been like the rest of the common people."
Dhahabi relates it as: "I would have been an innovator."


The Ash'arî Shaykh Ab al-Muzaffar al-Isfarâyînî [d.471] said in his book al-Tabsîr fîl-Dîn:

"Al-Fiqh al-Akbar was narrated to us by the trustworthy through a reliable way and a sound chain of transmission from Nasîr ibn Yahyâ [up to] Abu Hanîfa."

[In al-Tabsïr (p. 113) as cited by al-Kawtharï in his introduction to al-Bayàdï's Ishàràt al-Maràm (p. 5).

The complete chain is:

'Alï ibn Ahmad al-Fàrisï <>Fiqh al-Akbar with the same chain.THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE PIOUS SALAF IN KALAM

Sadr al-Islam Imam al-Pazdawi [d.482] says in his book
'Usul ad-Din' pg. 15 under the first article:

"The knowledge of Kalam is one in which scholars have differed on its learning, teaching and writing books regarding it. [Kalam] is the science which describes the articles of faith and the fundamentals of the religion which is obligatory on every muslim. Imam Abu Hanifah [rahimahullah] learnt this science and would debate with the mu'tazilites and other bidyis; and he used to teach this science to his students in his early days. He also wrote a few books in this discipline - some which have reached us and many were obliterated [maHaaha wa ghasalaha] by the ahl al-bid'ah.

Among his books which have reached us are: 'kitab al-`alim wa'l mut`allim' and 'kitab
fiqh al-akbar'."

Imam al-Maghnisawi :

"verily the book al-Fiqh al-akbar written by Imam al-A`zam, is a sound and widely accepted book"

Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar
Imam al-Maghnisawi
Part 1-Part 2- Part 3- Part 4

The question of the title appeared in a Wahhabi Forum www.ahlu (bida). Com.
The questioner thinks that what is in Fiqh al-Akbar something different than what the Aschaariyya in their books is.

The responses of the users showed a deep ignorance of these people.
Let us take time and have a look at it.
A brother there wrote:

"Selam Aleykum
Brother of the video you posted quotes at the very beginning, Page 302
from the work of Abu Hanifa.
The book is to offer the Ashari has only 80 pages.
Since most have been reduced a lot or just summarized. "

Here we see that the Wahhabis have nothing with the traditional books of the Ahlus Sunnah on the hat but they simply parrot what they are told in the so-called weekend seminars.
The book al-Fiqh al-Akbar of Imam Abu Hanifa includes maximum ten pages. The book, which often cite the Wahhabis and that is the famous "p. 302" is from another book, and although from the commentary on al-Fiqh al- Akbar of Imam Ali al-Qariyy.It was not quoted in full but you failed to answer and the explanation of Imam al-Qari.

what do you think someone with the content of a work, bypassing the already content from the quran and sunnah and ta7rif ta3til do? who has no inhibitions while the quran its views to reinterpret the same, will not shrink from a learned book. fiqh al-akbar (which was not even written by Imam Abu Hanifa) is to my knowledge among the asha3irah and maturidiyah controversial and the interpretation of the works look as authentic to what Abu Hanifa, of course, the clear-mu3attila likely.

Again, a lie about my humble self. In the commentary of the book al-Fiqh al-Akbar, 90% of the observations mere translations of classical works. That is, each dot of al-Fiqh al-Akbar has been explained in the words of the great scholars of this ummah.Who says I would reinterpret something that will prove this for now. Secondly, he must also admit that he does not refute me, but the scholar who has made this statement.
As for the other allegation regarding the authenticity of the book and say that the Aschaariyya and deny the way I Maturidyya: Funny, but all commentators of Fiqh al-Akbar say the same thing, only the Wahhabi scholars say otherwise. One need only make a little smart to recognize that al-Fiqh al-Akbar only Ahl Sunnah scholars and comments through the representatives of the Maturidiyya and Aschaariyya school.Some of these names are in the foreword of the book.
illa wa-al-llahi Muschtaka.

Some remarks ibn Muhammed Revan:
"When I saw that the brother Abu Bilal wrote this nonsensical thread on the pseudo-Salafi forum a short answer, I saw also the opportunity to notice something about this among many lies and false knowledge disseminated Threads:
I'm assuming that many hardcore Hanafi maturidische Wahhabihasser suffering the effects of this (supposedly authentic) clear statements a little confused.
One a Aschari Maliki to rescue the Hanafi maturidischen honor that obligates is already significant.

All I can say is Allah yahdik. The only people who fall are in confusion regarding the statements of Imam Abu Hanifa al-'Adham rahimahullahu ta'ala, the Salafi. Salafis this is probably unaware that we have been almost a year now well on our website in the chapter "'Aqeedah" has an article - by me, a Maturidi, translated - with the title: Salafis, al -Fiqh al-Akbar and the truth.

For us it is not confusing in al-Fiqh al-Akbar, but if the Salafi would read correctly, there are many things that contradict them.

The brother of Abu Bilal cited comments are all Maturidiyya - Abu Layth al-excluded Samarqandi al-Hanafi. Thus, the Maturidiyya have not won the Maliki Ash'ari brother for help. And even if the book al-Fiqh al-Akbar is 99%, in line with the 'Aqeedah of Asch'ariyya and Maturidiyyah - differ for these two schools, only 8 points and only in terminology, etc.
But how many of our words are they ever reach the ears of the forgers and liars?Sincere heart, which the distortions of the Salafi had seen and the lies that they spread steadily over the other factions would be awake a long time ago, but due to the fanaticism can not let you - the Mubtad'i, Imam Ghazali says it is only save by the desire of Allah, while no debates, evidence and explanations to help etc.

So either the Quran or in the Maturidis Ascharis a book, or they argue that the Quran contains errors.
Both seem impossible to me.

Allah yahdik. Any normal reader who has a little character and adab and tasted by the spirituality of Islam would have first Husnu Dhann make second and know exactly what is meant by this, but I forgot, so we write about Salafis! The 1 do anyway, and secondly they are not capable, because except for the stubborn text, the Salafi not understand.
The most amusing is that this thread was opened by a student, the question is really whether it was a Muschrik for now or not because he was playing spin the bottle.Yahdik Allah! Thus we see again where the line leads astray the Wahhabis - young people playing spin the bottle insult the large and Imam al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and dozens of other 'ulama, whose names would fill several books, tapes.
And how much spiritual outpourings of pure idiocy and blindness can still be found on this forum - may Allah forgive them - Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah on - but who has time to respond to any nonsense to every idiotic Mubtad'i dovetailed? We certainly do not
Wa Allahu waliyyu-t-Tawfiq. As-Salamu 'alaykum.
Written by Abu Bilal al-Maliki | 22nd March 2010


* Is al-Ibanah Attributed to
Imam al-Ash’ari Authentic?

We often hear from the Wahhabis and their cohorts the claim that Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari(d.324h) went through three phases in his life:

1) 40 years as a Mu’tazalite,
2) A period where he followed a major theologian of Ahl al-Sunna, Abdullah b. Sa’id b. Kullab (d.240h) [fn 1] – who they falsely accuse not to be a Sunni – and
3) A final period whereupon he abandoned Ibn Kullab and returned to the doctrine of the salaf and Ahl al-Sunna and is meant to have written the book
Al-Ibanah ‘An Usul al-Diyanah (The Clear Statement on the Fundamental Elements of the Faith).

Unlike his widely documented repentance from Mu’tazalism, however, we find the alleged second ‘repentance’ of Imam al-Ash’ari unsupported by reports from the earlier historians or from his own companions and students.
Rather, apart from the likes of Ibn Taymiyya (d.728h) and those who followed him in this regard, we find their mentioning only two phases in the Imam’s life - his leaving the Mu’tazila and then entering upon the methodology of the salaf and Ahl al-Sunna.
For example, Imam Abu Bakr b. Furak (d. 406h) said in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (p. 127):
“Shaykh Abu al-Hasan ‘Alī b. Isma’il al-Ash’ari went from following the doctrine of the Mu’tazila to aiding the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a with rational proofs, and he wrote books on that.”

Imam Abdul Karim al-Shahrastani (d.548h) similarly said in Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal(p. 105-106):
Until the time came upon [the likes of] Abdullah bin Sa’id al-Kullabi [d. 240h], Abu al-Abbas al-Qalanisi [contemporary of al-As'hari], and al-Harith bin Asad al-Muhasibi [d. 243H]. They were from the generality of the Salaf, except that they practised Ilm al-kalam (scholastic theology), and they aided the beliefs of the Salaf with philosophical proofs, and fundamental [cognitive] evidences. Some of them authored [works] and others taught. [Until] there occurred a debate between Abu al-Hasan al-As’hari and his [Mu'tazili] teachers on an issue amongst the issues pertaining to “as-salah wal-aslah” [an issue pertaining to whether Allah is obligated or not to do what is best for His servants], so they disputed. And al-Ash’ari united with this faction [the Kullabiyyah], so he supported their saying through the methodologies of speculative theological [discourse], and then that became a madhhab for Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, and then the label of “Sifatiyyah (Affimers of the Attributes)” transferred to the Ash’ariyyah.
The idea that Al-Ibanah ‘An Usul al-Diyanah was written contrary to the methodology of Ibn Kullab in a separate third phase also opposes what we hear from the likes of Imam Ibn Hajar who said in Lisan al-Mizan(3;291): “In his book al-Ibanah, al-Ash’ari was upon his [Ibn Kullab’s] path.”.
It is not surprising then that the tampered book we now have before us is not always entirely palatable to the ‘salafis’ who tirelessly promote it today [fn 2] and in its unadulterated original form was wholeheartedly rejected by the Hanbali literalists of old as we find mentioned in Ibn Abi Ya’la’s Tabaqat al-Hanabila:
find out... Here with scans

Imâm al-Bukhârî compiled a refutation of the Qadariyya and other sects titled Khalq Af'âl al-'Ibâd, and was expelled from Naysâbr by the Hanbalîs because of what they perceived as an unacceptable stand in kalâm