---
Question: During
a debate with a Christian, the Christian asked
'Is
it possible for God to indwell in the creation?'
The
Christian asks this in order to validate
the deification of Jesus (peace
be upon him).
A
Muslim responded by saying that God can
indwell in His creation and that is the Hanbali, Athari, position on
taking some of the verses and hadith literally.
This
is has confused me. Is this the actual Hanbali position?
Answer: The
answer given by the Muslim is totally incorrect.
It
is incorrect due to its incoherence, and the additional erroneous
conclusions thereof, but also the false ascription
to the correct Hanbali (Athari) creed.
This
position is totally incorrect as
Allah (Most High) bears no resemblance to creation
in any way whatsoever.
If
He bore resemblance to the creation, then He would be
similar to them and contingent, and that is an impossibility.
It
is an impossibility because anyone that bears resemblance to
creation and therefore is contingent, cannot be the Divine creator.
Therefore God indwelling in any of His creation is a rational and
textual impossibility.
The erroneous position
you have described is in fact the position of Ibn
Hazm and not the Hanbali (Athari)
position. Ibn Hazm wrote
in alFisal that if
God had wanted to take a son, He would be able to do so!
This
position of Ibn Hazm was
refuted by Imam Sanusi and others.
This
position is also incorrect because the divine power only relates to
possibilities and not impossibilities.
Therefore,
taking a son or indwelling in the creation, are rational
impossibilities and do not fall under the divine power.
As
for taking verses of Qur'an or Hadith, the outward meaning
of which entails
anthropomorphism, corporeality or resemblance, then this
is not the Hanbali position.
The Hanbali position is to recite such verses and hadith and leave the meaning to Allah (Most High).
The Hanbali position is to recite such verses and hadith and leave the meaning to Allah (Most High).
There
is a distinction between the Hanbali school and
the Taymiyyah/Wahabi slant
on the Hanbali school.
The Wahabis,
psuedo Salafism, and Taymiyyan interpretations
do not represent the correct Hanbali positions.
An example of correct Hanbali creed is the work 'Qalaid alIqyan' of Ibn Balban, for instance.
An example of correct Hanbali creed is the work 'Qalaid alIqyan' of Ibn Balban, for instance.
The psuedo
Atharis today are simply Wahabis and
do not represent Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal anymore than
the Twelvers represent Imam Jafar alSadiq.
The
correct Sunni schools in creed are the Ash'aris, Maturidis and the
Atharis (Hanbalis).
However,
what you have described is not Athari but of a Taymiyyan
origin, as Ibn
Taymiyyah was heavily influenced by Ibn
Hazm. In fact Ibn
Taymiyyah had memorised the
entire 'Muhalla' of Ibn
Hazm and based many of his verdicts on it!
---------------------------------------------------------------
`Ali
ibn Ahmad ibn Sa`id ibn Hazm, Abu Muhammad al-Farisi al-Andalusi
al-Qurtubi al-Yazidi (d. 465 AH)
An
example of Ibn Hazm's extreme
positions is
his declaration that any type of analogy (qiyas),
or imitation (taqlid),
or legislative opinion (ra'y)
was outside the pale of Islam, a position in which he contravened the
totality of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna.
An
example of his positions is his explanation of the Prophet's -- Allah
bless and greet him -- hadith:
"Let
no-one urinate in still, non-running water then use it to bathe."1
Ibn
Hazm
stated
the following absurd inferences:
-
The interdiction to bathe applied only to the one who urinated; thus,
anyone other than him may use that water to bathe;
-
It applied only if one urinated into the water. He and anyone else
might therefore use the water to bathe if the urine reached the water
indirectly, for example after falling on high or nearby ground first,
or being poured in it from a container;
-
It applied only if one urinated in it, not defecated in it.[2]
Imam Al-Nawawi
said of the above opinions: "All this which Ibn Hazm held is in
contravention of the consensus of the scholars, and is the ugliest
example of hardened literalism reported from him."[3]
--
[2]. Al-Khisal
al-Hafiz li Jumal Shara'i` al-Islam in
two volumes.
[3]. Al-Mujalla in
two volumes.
--
In
addition, Ibn Hazm in his books violated Islamic etiquette in his
revilement of past scholars with whom he disagreed, to the extent
that Abu al-`Abbas ibn al-`Arif compared his tongue to al-Hajjaj's
sword.
As a result some scholars had him exiled and his books burnt
and condemned, while others considered them mines of "pearls
mixed with trinkets" in al-Dhahabi's words.
He
is known for his rabid enmity to Ash`aris
whom he all but declares disbelievers in al-Fisal
fi al-Milal wa al-Nihal with statements such as: "This is the
position of Jahm ibn Safwan, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari, and their
followers."
Ibn
al-Subki
comments: "Ibn Hazm has no idea of al-Ash`ari's school and does
not distinguish between it and the Jahmiyya," noting that the
Maliki scholar Abu al-Walid al-Baji and others had Ibn Hazm expelled,
and the Fisal declared forbidden reading, because of its attacks on
the Imams of the Muslims.[4] Ibn Taymiyya imitated Ibn Hazm in this.[5]
--
[4].
Al-Muhalla in eight volumes.
[5].
Hujja al-Wada` in one volume.
--
Dawud
ibn ‘Ali ibn Khalaf Dhahiri of Isfahan (d.
270/883) and ‘Ali
ibn Ahmad Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm (d.
456/1064) were not
Hanbalis but Dhahiris.
Dawuud
Al-Thaahiri
(201-270
AH/
816-884 AD) is generally regarded as the first
literalist, as
he denied analogical reasoning, but he was not
a mushabbih,
for
the Shafi`i scholars generally respect him.
They
know him best as he is considered to have been a student of
Al-Shafiˆi or his direct students in the beginning.
The
most famous representative of his school is Ibn
Hazm of Spain,
who
was extreme in his literalist views to the extent that he
saw a difference between urinating in water
and
urinating in a vessel and then pouring it into the water. *Yet
his extreme
literalism
did
not
carry him to the extent of believing that
Allah
is physical.
He
said,
“…verily what is in a place will not be other than a body or an
incidental characteristic in a body. Nothing else can be true, and
neither the mind nor one’s imagination accepts anything else at
all. So if Allah is not a body or an incidental characteristic of
one, then it holds that He is not in a place at all. (Al-Fisal
Fil-Milal 2/98)”
---
IMAM OF IBN TAYMIYYAH
HIS DISCIPLE IBN AL-QAYYIM
---
---
(Edited by ADHM)
