%20vs%20Salafis%20-part1.jpg)
Thread Posted: 31-Jan-2020
Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis"
Al-Salamu
'alaykum wa rahmatullah,
After
I had several discussions in different threads with the
brother AmantuBillahi regarding
the issue of the belief ('Aqida) of the Hanabila / Ahl al-Athar of
the past in comparison to the modern-day "Salafis" I
decided to open this thread here so that other threads are not filled
with off-topic posts regarding this issue.
Before
going on I would like to make a general note:
The
best way to find out what a specific group believes is to look what
the accepted scholars (i.e. accepted by the group itself) of that
group wrote regarding beliefs ('Aqida). To
rely upon what others claim regarding a group can NOT be used as a
proof regarding their beliefs. Likewise picking just one scholar out
of a group who is affiliated with them - but may have abnormal views
[in their viewpoint] or unclear statements - can NOT be used to judge
the beliefs of the whole group.
So let's try to implement
the above point on the Hanabila / Ahl al-Athar of the past:
The
best way to find out what they believed is to look what their
authorities wrote in their treatises / books regarding beliefs.
These treatises / books include:
Lum'at al-I'tiqad [al-Hadi ila Sabil al-Rashad] by Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH)
Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in [fi Usul al-Din] by Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH)
Al-'Ayn wal Athar [fi 'Aqa`id Ahl al-Athar] by 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH)
Qala`id al-'Iqyan [fi Ikhtisar 'Aqidat Ibn Hamdan] by Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH)
Najat al-Khalaf [fi I'tiqad al-Salaf] by 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH)
Al-Durra al-Mudhiyya [fi 'Aqd Ahl al-Firqa al-Mardhiyya] (famous 'Aqida poem better known as al-Saffariniyya) by al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) (its explanation Lawami' al-Anwar al-Bahiyya [wa Sawati' al-Asrar al-Athariyya] is also written by the same author) ...etc.
*When looking inside the above books one sees that they basically contain all the same beliefs without any major differences, so it is safe to say that these books represent the Hanbali / Athari beliefs.
---
The modern-day "Salafis" however rely heavily on Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) for their beliefs and ignore (and in many cases are even ignorant of) whatever the authorities of the Hanabila believed and or did not believe.
(In Fiqh the modern-day "Salafis"
have no clear Usul and
have created quite a huge
mess and
have clear Dhahiri tendencies, so
it would not be correct in any way or form to regard them as Hanbalis
in Fiqh. That's
why I don't see any need for discussing whether they're Hanbalis in
Fiqh or not and suffice with with discussing their beliefs only.)
As
for Ibn
'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH):
*He
can NOT be
regarded as a scholar in
the first place and was rejected by
literally ALL the Hanbali
scholars of
his region, while he himself was deviant to
such a degree to make Takfir upon ALL of
them!
His major problem was that he regarded some Fiqhi issues as major issues of belief and disbelief and started to regard people as polytheists and disbelievers based upon that. He did not stop here: He said that whosoever does not regard these people as polytheists and/or disbelievers is himself a disbeliever. This lead him to regard basically all Muslims and their scholars as polytheists and disbelievers. The issues based upon which he started his Takfir were usually issues which were either forbidden, disliked and sometimes allowed or even recommended (especially something like seeking intercession with our beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).
*Imagine: All this Takfir for issues which have NOT even been mentioned ONCE in classical 'Aqida texts, whether by Atharis, Ash'aris or Maturidis!
And
when he mentioned an issue where the classical scholars had indeed
mentioned that it is disbelief, then he did this without applying the
Tafsil that was mentioned by them and rushed towards Takfir (which is
clearly indicating ignorance and extremism on his part).
Another
issue was that he was hell-bent on proving that the Muslims of his
time were worse than the Makkan pagans of the past and that the
Makkan pagans where complete monotheists regarding the lordship of
Allah ta'ala (that his claim meant to openly reject hundreds of Ayat
and Ahadith did not disturb him in the least). *(I think
AmantuBillahi agrees with me that he does not represent real
Hanabila.)
=================
(Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Abd al Wahab and Takfir watch: video)
(Do you take from M.ibn abdal wahab? No, "his not a reference ...not even seen as a scholar of madhab hanbali": Here @1:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLKrgreZXKQ
=================
As
for the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) however: '
He
is a major Hanbali scholar with broad and detailed knowledge in the
Islamic sciences and very much respected among the Hanabila after
him.
**He had a number of abnormal views regarding Fiqh (law) and 'Aqida (belief), while his abnormal views regarding beliefs were more in number and greater in danger.
The
Hanabila would refer to him in both sciences while usually ignoring
his mistakes and abnormal views and not taking them into
consideration.
He
himself admitted that he used to be upon "the Madhhab of the
forefathers" in the Aslayn (meaning Usul al-Fiqh and Usul
al-Din) and then changed his position.
*The interesting thing here to know is that his father was a classical Hanbali and that his grandfather the Imam Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyya (d. 652 AH) was among the greatest scholars of the Hanabila, so leaving their way means to leave the relied upon positions of the Hanabila.
Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) who like other Hanbalis respected him very much acknowledged that the Shaykh had abnormal views and even called the Hanbali judges who stopped him from issuing such Fatawa (i.e. containing abnormal positions) as upright ('adl) in his Dhayl Tabaqat al-Hanabila!
*While Ibn Taymiyya has statements in his books which clearly go in the direction of Tajsim, Hanbali scholars like the 'Allama Yunis bin Mansur al-Buhuti (d. 1051 AH) defended him from the accusations of Tajsim. Likewise I have heard from [real] Hanbali Shuyukh in our time that even though Ibn Taymiyya had abnormal views in beliefs and differed from the relied upon positions of the Hanabila in some issues, he still was innocent of the accusation of Tajsim.
What
they also mention is that the works of Ibn Taymiyya are quite
difficult and that beginners should not start with his books, rather
his books should only be studied by people who are advanced in the
knowledge of the Islamic sciences.
It
seems that when it comes to the issue of Tajsim Ibn Taymiyya's case
is similar to that of Shaykh Ibn al-Arabi (d. 638 AH) in the issue of
Wahdat al-Wujud.
Both scholars have problematic views and both of
them have been defended by scholars who did not hold these
problematic views. I guess one needs to be a scholar and to be
affiliated to the same Madhhab (in the case of Ibn Taymiyya) or
belong to a Sufi Tariqa (in the case Ibn al-'Arabi) to really
understand them correctly.
What
the "Salafis" now do is the following:
They read Ibn Taymiyya's works and based upon what they understand or misunderstand from him they then claim "this is the Hanbali / Athari approach" or even go a step further and claim "this is what the Salaf al-salih believed", while completely ignoring [or even being ignorant of] what the Hanabila before and after him have stated regarding beliefs and what their relied upon positions were.
To
take ones own understanding of the words of one scholar and then to
act as if is the understanding of a whole Madhhab or worse the Salaf
al-salih is not just completely unacademic, but it also shows the
level of ones fanatism towards that scholar and also towards ones own
understanding.
The other thing is that we know that the
"Salafis" lack in their level of understanding to the
degree that some of their Mashayikh openly say that when reading the
works of the likes of Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH) they did not
understand him due to the usage of 'Ilm al-Kalam. Then the question
arises how they understood the works of Ibn Taymiyya - especially
those regarding beliefs - which are literally filled with Kalami
discussions?!
The
one who wants to see how "Salafis" reject Hanbali / Athari
beliefs and put their own [lack of] understanding above everything,
should simply go and read what their editors do when printing any
classical Hanbali text regard 'Aqida:
Just
concentrate on reading their footnotes.
You'll see them every now and then saying things like "this
statement of author is general... if he intends this, then this is
wrong..." or they will just directly dismiss what the author
said by saying "this is wrong and not according to the Madhhab
of the Salaf..." or "this is from the way of the
Mufawwidha" (maybe because the classical Hanabila supported
Tafwidh!?) or "this is from the way of the people of Kalam".
And
what is their proof regarding all of these claims of mistakes in
classical Hanbali texts? The answer: "Shaykh al-Islam said...".
This is how the religion of Allah works according to them. There is
no doubt that the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya would not have supported this
fanatism and blind following.
Start by reading the
explanations (read: distorsions!) that these "Salafis" have
written regarding Lum'at al-I'tiqad by Imam Ibn Qudama (a
book that is so clear that until the "Salafis" came up no
one even thought of writing an explanation regarding it!), then go
and read the footnotes by "Salafi" editors in Nihayat
al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan and then other classical
Hanbali texts and you'll see them doing this over and over again to
the degree that one asks oneself?:
Why
do they even print these works, when they find fault on almost every
page?
If
one looks at the general mindset of the classical scholars however
one sees that they regarded the one following one of the 4 accepted
Madhahib in Fiqh and being upon the Ash'ari, Maturidi or Athari way
in 'Aqida (belief) as a member of the Ahl al-Sunna. Some
of the staunch Ash'aris and staunch Hanabila used to regard each other
as innovators (and you'll find that also between the Ash'aris and the
Maturidis), but the general mindset was clearly: All
three groups are Sunnis and this is explicitly mentioned in Hanbali
books like in al-'Ayn wal Athar and in Lawami'
al-Anwar.
---
The
reason why they (Ash'aris, Maturidis and Hanbalis) all are regarded
as Sunnis is that they are in agreement in these major issues of
'Aqida:
-
They believe that God is described with the attributes of absolute
perfection and is free from any flaws. They believe that God is
described with eternal attributes that are meanings subsisting in the
divine essence and this is contrast to the belief of the Mu'tazila
who reject the notion that God is described with attributes that
are za`ida
'ala al-dhat (additionally
to the essence)
and also in contrast to the belief of the Mushabbiha and Mujassima
who believe that some of these attributes are actually not Ma'ani
(meanings) subsisting in the divine essence, but rather A'yan
(tangible entities) which make up the divine essence.
-
They believe that God is free from any likeness AND similarity and
therefore reject Tamthil AND Tashbih in an absolute way. They believe
that God is not described with any of the meanings that apply to the
creation (doing otherwise is explicitly regarded as disbelief in
al-Tahawiyya!!) and that the Ishtirak (having something in common) in
the attributes of the Creator with that of the creation is only one
of wording (lafdh) and some of that which these attributes
necessitate (Lawazim) and NOT in the real meaning (which includes the
reality of the attribute).
-
Since they reject the meanings that apply to the creation they do NOT
have any problem with rejecting descriptions that apply to the
creation like being a body, having limbs, parts or tools, being
subject to changes, being in motion or stillness, having a weight, a
form or a size, being spatially confined or having any type of flaw.
They believe that whatever is attributed with these descriptions is
not eternal and therefore created by Allah ta'ala, who is completely
unlike is creation.
-
They believe that the Qur`an is the speech of Allah and his
revelation. They believe that the speech of Allah ta'ala is eternal
just like the other divine attributes and can not be described with
being created or having a beginning in any way or form!
-
They believe that the world (everything other than Allah ta'ala) has
a beginning (as a singular AND in its kind!) and that only the
Creator can be described with being eternal, because He's the First
without beginning and the Last without end. Praise be to Him!
There
are two issues where the Ash'aris and the Hanbalis differed:
-
The Hanabila believe that regarding the divine attributes the only
correct way is that of Tafwidh (consigning the real meaning to Allah)
and that Ta`wil (interpretation) is categorically wrong (except if
the Sunna or the Athar contain an interpretation), while the Ash'aris
also accept Ta`wil if the context and the usage of the Arabs is
considered (especially in order to answer wrong interpretations). So
they both actually agree that Tafwidh is the correct way and the
Madhhab of the Salaf al-salih and disagree regarding the
permissibility of Ta`wil,
- After agreeing that the speech of Allah is eternal the Ash'aris differed with Hanabila regarding the Arabic wording (Lafdh) of the Qur`an al-karim: The Ash'aris said that it is created and that the speech of Allah ta'ala is without letters and sounds and that the Arabic words and letters are vehicles to understand the speech of Allah, which is eternal.
The Hanabila however vehemently rejected this and said that God speaks with letters and sound. It should be noted here that with "sound" they ONLY intended that God's speech can be heard (and they used Allah ta'ala speaking to our Master Musa - peace be upon him - as a proof for this) (and this is accepted by Ash'aris also!) and not sound waves or something produced by tools or organs or having orofices.
As for letters: They said that "Alif Lam Mim" is from the Qur`an and that in the Sunna it is proven that one is rewarded for every letter and therefore it is not allowed to say that God speaks without letters. What they at the same time clarified is that these letters and words are only following each other (Ta'aqub) in the case of human beings, but Allah's speech is without Ta'aqub.
And they said that the speech of Allah is completely different from that of the creation and that one should consign the knowledge regarding the reality of Allah's speech to Him like the rest of the divine attributes.
The
issue of the al-Harf wal Sawt (letter and sound) regarding the speech
of Allah is heavily disputed among the Ash'aris and Hanbalis and both
groups have attacked each other because of this issue, but when one
looks into the details of their statements one sees that both
positions are actually very near to each other to the degree that
there is statement of Imam al-Tufi (d. 716 AH) (who defends the
Hanbali position) where he suggests that the difference is actually
only in wording between the two groups.
(Note:
I've not mentioned the issue of 'Ilm al-Kalam, because it is also
differed upon between the Hanbalis themselves and you'll find major
scholars from among them using it in order to refute the innovators
and the heretics. What the Hanabila however agreed upon is that
Islamic belief should be based upon the divine texts and not 'Ilm
al-Kalam.)
As
for the beliefs of the modern-day "Salafis"* in
comparison to the three Sunni groups mentioned above:
-
They believe that God is not only described with attributes that are
meanings (Ma'ani) subsisting in the divine essence, but also with
A'yan (tangible entities) that make up the divine essence. They claim
that Yad, Wajh, 'Ayn and other such attributes are Sifat 'Ayniyya!
-
They believe that rejecting Tamthil (attributing a likeness)
regarding God in an absolute way is correct, but Tashbih (attributing
similarity) should not be rejected in an absolute way (as explicitly
stated by Ibn 'Uthaymin). They believe that there is a Qadar
Mushtarak (certain amount of having something in common) between the
Creator and the creation and that this Ishtirak (having something in
common) is not just regarding the wording (Lafdh) of the attributes
and some of what it necessitates (Lawazim), but rather in the real
meaning.
- Based upon the above they have a HUGE problem to reject those descriptions that apply to the creation and usually say "we neither reject them nor confirm them" or they will use the "if you intend this, then this..."-argumentation, which basically no scholar of the past - other than Ibn Taymiyya - used while discussing these issues.
To
add to all this: They will show a whole new level of ignorance by
claiming that it is 'Ilm al-Kalam to reject these descriptions (even
though confirming these descriptions is Kufr!), while the Hanabila
throughout all ages and no matter how much they were against 'Ilm
al-Kalam did NOT find any problem in rejecting these
descriptions.
There
is one issue however where the "Salafis" openly confirm and
do not reject such a description: They believe that God is subject to
changes (which is the belief of the Karramiyya!).
-
They also believe that the Qur`an is the speech of Allah, but at the
same time they claim that the speech of Allah is ONLY eternal in its
kind, while it is new and has a beginning as a singular. This is in
complete contrast to the statement of the Hanabila, who ALL say that
the Qur`an al-karim is eternal from every side.
-
They believe that the world has a beginning as singular, but it's
eternal in its kind! This is among their biggest mistakes and from
the statements of the philosophers and in direct contradiction to the
clear-cut divine texts!
Imagine
this: From
one side they describe the eternal speech of Allah with having a
beginning and they claim that Allah ta'ala is subject to changes and
from the other side they describe the creation with being eternal [in
its kind] and then they claim to know Tawhid better than the rest of
the Umma!
What
Tawhid is this where the Eternal one is ascribed with temporality and
the creation is described with eternity?!
*Their
scholars are meant, because they are the ones who ascribe to the
above mentioned beliefs in their books and some of their speeches.
Many of their layman do not actually believe in most of the above
mentioned points and are not aware of these wrong beliefs.
---
From Imam Ahmad to Ibn Qudama to al-Saffarini:
Tafwidh is the correct
way!
Know
- may Allah ta'ala have mercy upon you - that the correct way to deal
with the authentic religious texts regarding the divine attributes is
that of Tafwidh without that of Ta`wil (except if such an
interpretation is found in the Sunnah or the Athar) according to the
Hanabila in general, no matter whether the early ones or the later
ones or those in between. So
I chose one major scholar to represent the Hanabila of every era
(early, later and those in between).
Imam
Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH) said:
أحاديث
الصفات تمر
كما جاءت من غير بحث عن معانيها ،
ونخالف ما خطر في الخاطر عند سماعها ،
وننفي التشبيه عن الله تعالى عند ذكرها
مع تصديق النبي -
صلى
الله عليه وسلم -
والإيمان
بها ، وكل ما يعقل ويتصور فهو تكييف وتشبيه
وهو محال
The
narrations (Ahadith) regarding the [divine] attributes (Sifat) are
to be passed on as they have come without searching for their
meanings,
and we go against that which comes to the mind upon hearing them, and
we reject attributing similarity (Tashbih) to Allah ta'ala when
they're mentioned while confirming [the words of] the Prophet -
sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and having belief in them; and
whatever can be comprehended and imagined is from the attributing of
modality (Takyif) and similarity (Tashbih) and that is impossible
[regarding Allah ta'ala].
-
end of quote -
This
statement has been mentioned in Nihayat
al-Mubtadi`in [by
Imam Ibn Hamdan] and Imam al-Saffarini mentioned this statement also
in Lawami'
al-Anwar and
right after it he said:
وهذا
مذهب السلف الأثرية فهو الحق ، وبالله
التوفيق
And
this is the way (Madhhab) of the Salaf [and] al-Athariyya, so it's
the truth and with Allah is success.
-
end of quote -
Imam
Ahmad also said -
as mentioned in Lum'at
al-I'tiqad [by
Imam Ibn Qudama] - regarding the narrations where the descending of
Allah to the lowest heaven is mentioned and that He will be seen on
the day of judgement and what is similar to that:
نؤمن
بها ونصدق بها لا كيف ولا معنى ولا
نرد شيئا منها ونعلم أن ما جاء به الرسول
حق ولا نرد على رسول الله صلى الله عليه
وسلم ولا نصف الله بأكثر مما وصف به نفسه
بلا حد ولا غاية:
{ ليس
كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير
We
believe in them and affirm them without a modality or meaning (la
kayf wa la ma'na),
and we do not reject anything from them, and we know that what the
Messenger has came with is the truth and we do not confute upon the
Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -; and we do not
describe Allah with more than what He described Himself, without a
limit or a boundary (bila hadd wa la ghaya):
{ Nothing
is like Him; and He only is the All Hearing, the All Seeing. }
[42:11]
-
end of quote -
Imam
Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) said in his Lum'at al-I'tiqad:
موصوف
بما وصف به نفسه في كتابه العظيم وعلى
لسان نبيه الكريم وكل ما جاء في القرآن
أو صح عن المصطفى عليه السلام من صفات
الرحمن وجب
الإيمان به وتلقيه بالتسليم والقبول وترك
التعرض له بالرد والتأويل والتشبيه
والتمثيل
وما
أشكل من ذلك وجب إثباته لفظا وترك التعرض
لمعناه ونرد علمه إلى قائله ونجعل
عهدته على ناقله اتباعا لطريق الراسخين
في العلم الذين أثنى الله عليهم في كتابه
المبين بقوله سبحانه وتعالى:
{ والراسخون
في العلم يقولون آمنا به كل من عند ربنا }
وقال
في ذم مبتغي التأويل لمتشابه تنزيله:
{ فأما
الذين في قلوبهم زيغ فيتبعون ما تشابه
منه ابتغاء الفتنة وابتغاء تأويله وما
يعلم تأويله إلا الله
[Allah]
is described with what He described Himself in his magnificent book
and upon the tongue of his honorable Prophet. Whatever has been
mentioned in the Qur`an or has been authentically reported from
al-Mustafa - peace be upon him - regarding the attributes of the Most
Gracious (al-Rahman): It
is obilgatory to have belief in it and to welcome it with submission
and acceptance and to abstain from going against it by rejection
(Radd) or interpretation (Ta`wil) or attributing similarity (Tashbih)
or likeness (Tamthil).
And
whatever is ambiguous from these [verses and narrations]: It is
obligatory to affirm its wording (Lafdh) and to abstain from seeking
its meaning (Ma'na) while consigning its knowledge to the One who
said it and
we entrust it upon the one who transmitted it, following the way of
those having sound knowledge, those whom Allah has praised in his
manifest book by His - subhanahu wa ta'ala - statement: { And
those having sound knowledge say, “We believe in it, all of it is
from our Lord” }
[3:7]
And He said censuring those seeking the interpretation of
the Mutashabih (those verses which are indistinct in their meanings)
of His revelation:
{ Those
in whose hearts is deviation pursue the verses having indistinct
meanings, in order to cause turmoil and seeking its (wrongful)
interpretation; and only Allah knows its proper interpretation }
[3:7]
-
end of quote -
What
is obvious from the above statement is that he regards the Ayat and
Ahadith regarding the divine attributes to be from the Mutashabihat
(which goes against the understanding of "Salafis") and
that one should believe in these verses and narrations and affirm
them while consigning the knowledge of the real meaning or
interpretation to Allah ta'ala (i.e. Tafwidh) and knowing that Allah
ta'ala is completely different from his creation.
The
modern day "Salafis" usually make a huge issue out if this
statement and will try to find some sort if interpretation (read:
distortion) for the above statement so that it goes in line with
their way (and some of them even openly admit that the above is
nothing but the way of Tafwidh!), but to their dismay Imam Ibn Qudama
has repeated very often in quite many books what he intends thereby
leaving no room for their distortion.
Imam
Ibn Qudama said while explaining why one does not need to know the
meaning of these verses and narrations in his Tahrim al-Nadhar
fi Kutub al-Kalam:
فإنه لا
حاجة لنا إلى علم معنى ما أراد الله تعالى
من صفاته جل وعز فإنه
لا يراد منها عمل ولا يتعلق بها تكليف سوى
الإيمان بها. ويمكن
الإيمان بها من غير علم معناها.
فإن
الإيمان بالجهل صحيح.
فإن
الله تعالى أمر بالإيمان بملائكته وكتبه
ورسله وما أنزل إليهم وإن
كنا لا نعرف من ذلك إلا التسمية. وقال
سبحانه وتعالى:
{ قولوا
آمنا بالله وما أنزل إلينا وما أنزل إلى
إبراهيم }
الآية
For
indeed, there
is no need for us to have knowledge of the meaning (!) (Ma'na) that
Allah ta'ala intended from His attributes - jalla wa 'azz -, because
there is no action intended by them and neither is any responsibility
attached to them besides
believing in them.
And
having faith in them without having knowledge of their meanings is
possible, because having faith with ignorance [of their meanings] is
correct, for
indeed Allah ta'ala has commanded [us] to have belief in his angels,
his books, his messengers and that which was been sent down upon
them even
though we do not know from them except their names.
[Allah]
- subhanahu wa ta'ala - says: { Say,
"We believe in Allah and what is sent down to us and what was
sent down to Ibrahim, ... }
[2:136] until the end of the Aya.
-
end of quote -
---
Imam
Ibn Qudama says in the section regarding the Muhkam and the
Mutashabih in the Qur`an al-karim in his famous Rawdhat
al-Nadhir:
وفي
كتاب الله -سبحانه-
محكم
ومتشابه، كما قال تعالى:
{هُوَ
الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ
مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ
الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ
The
book of Allah - praise be to Him - contains the Muhkam (verses with
clear meanings) and the Mutashabih (verses with indistinct meanings)
as He ta'ala says:
{ It
is He Who has sent down to you this Book (the Qur’an) containing
the verses that have a clear meaning - they are the core of the Book
- and other verses the meanings of which are indistinct; ... }
[3:7]
-
end of quote -
Thereafter
he mentions different scholarly statements until he says:
والصحيح:
أن
المتشابه:
ما
ورد في صفات الله -سبحانه-
مما
يجب الإيمان به، ويحرم التعرض لتأويله، كقوله
-تعالى-:
{الرَّحْمَنُ
عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى}
،
{بَلْ
يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَان}
،
{لِمَا
خَلَقْتُ بِيَدَي}
،
{وَيَبْقَى
وَجْهُ رَبِّك}
،
{تَجْرِي
بِأَعْيُنِنَا}
،
ونحوه. فهذا
اتفق السلف -رحمهم
الله-
على
الإقرار به، وإمراره على وجهه وترك تأويله.
فإن
الله -سبحانه-
ذم
المبتغين لتأويله، وقرنهم -في
الذم-
بالذين
يبتغون الفتنة، وسماهم أهل زيغ
The
correct position is that the Mutashabih (verses with indistinct
meanings) is that which is revealed regarding the attributes of Allah
- praise be to Him -, which is obligatory to have faith in and
prohibited to seek its interpretation; like
His ta'ala statement:
{ The
Most Gracious Who (befitting His Majesty) established Himself upon
the Throne (of control) }
[20:5], { In
fact, both His hands are free }
[5:64], { before
one whom I have created with My hands? }
[38:75], { And
eternal is the Entity of your Lord }
[55:27], { Sailing
in front of Our sight }
[54:14] and whatever is similar to it.
Regarding
these [verses and narrations] the Salaf - may Allah have mercy upon
them - have agreed upon affirming them and passing them as they have
come and abstaining from their interpretation, for
indeed Allah - praise be to Him - has rebuked those seeking its
interpretation and has included them - in censure - with those are
seeking turmoil and has named them as people of deviation.
-
end of quote -
Thereafter
he explains the Aya 3:7 and that only Allah ta'ala knows the correct
interpretation and that the correct stop is after { and
only Allah knows its proper interpretation }
until he says:
فلأنه
ذم مبتغي التأويل، ولو كان ذلك للراسخين
معلومًا:
لكان
مبتغيه ممدوحًا لا مذمومًا. ولأن
قولهم {آمَنَّا
بِهِ}
يدل
على نوع تفويض وتسليم لشيء لم يقفوا على
معناه.
سيما
إذا اتبعوه بقولهم:
{كُلٌّ
مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا}
فذكرهم
ربهم -ههنا-
يعطي
الثقة به، والتسليم لأمره، وأنه صدر منه،
وجاء من عنده كما جاء من عنده المحكم
Since
He has rebuked those seeking interpretation: If this [proper]
interpretation would be known to those sound in knowledge, then the
one seeking [the interpretation] would have been praised and not
censured and
because their statement { We
believe in it }
indicates a type of consignment (!) (Tafwidh) and
submission (Taslim) of something regarding which they have not come
across its meaning (Ma'na), especially
when they followed it with their statement { all
of it is from our Lord },
so their mentioning of their Lord here shows their trust in Him and
their submission to His command and that it emanated from Him and
that it came from Him just like the Muhkam (verses with clear
meanings) came from Him.
-
end of quote -
So
here we see that he explicitly mentioned the consignment (Tafwidh) of
the meaning (Ma'na)!
He
kept on explaining until he said:
فإن
قيل:
فكيف
يخاطب الله الخلق بما لا يعقلونه، أم كيف
ينزل على رسوله ما لا يطلع على تأويله؟ قلنا:
يجوز
أن يكلفهم الإيمان بما لا يطلعون على
تأويله؛ ليختبر طاعتهم، كما
قال -تعالي-:
{وَلَنَبْلُوَنَّكُمْ
حَتَّى نَعْلَمَ الْمُجَاهِدِينَ مِنْكُمْ
وَالصَّابِرِين}
،
{وَمَا
جَعَلْنَا الْقِبْلَةَ الَّتِي كُنْتَ
عَلَيْهَا إِلَّا لِنَعْلَم ... }
الآية،
{وَمَا
جَعَلْنَا الرُّؤْيا الَّتِي أَرَيْنَاكَ
إِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِلنَّاس}
. وكما
اختبرهم بالإيمان بالحروف المقطعة مع
أنه لا يعلم معناها.
والله
أعلم
If
it is said: "How then does Allah address the creation with
something that they do not comprehend or how does He sent down
something on his Messenger regarding which the interpretation is not
disclosed?"
We
say: It is possible that He tasks them with having faith in something
regarding which they do not know its interpretation in order to test
their obediance as
[Allah] ta'ala says:
{ And
We shall indeed test you until We make known the warriors and the
steadfast among you }
[47:31], { We
had appointed the qiblah which you formerly observed only to see
(test) ... }
[2:143] until the end of the Aya, { and
We did not create the spectacle which We showed you except to try
mankind }
[17:60].
Just
like He has tested them with having faith in the disconnected letters
(!) (al-Huruf al-Muqatta'a) even though their meaning is not
known. And
Allah knows best.
-
end of quote -
I
guess the above answer is more than clear [in defending Tafwidh] and
a good response to the "Salafis" who repeat the same
question today and attack the people of the Sunna by saying "How
is it possible that Allah reveals something while the meaning is not
known?".
Know that other Hanbali A`imma have also answered this question.
---
Imam
al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) said in his Lawami' al-Anwar:
فمذهب
السلف في آيات الصفات أنها لا تؤول ، ولا
تفسر بل يجب الإيمان بها ، وتفويض
معناها المراد منها إلى الله تعالى ،
فقد روى اللالكائي الحافظ عن محمد بن
الحسن قال اتفق
الفقهاء كلهم من المشرق إلى المغرب على
الإيمان بالصفات من غير تفسير ولا تشبيه
So
the way (Madhhab) of the Salaf regarding the verses of the attributes
(Ayat al-Sifat) is that they're not to be interpreted nor to be
explained, rather it is obligatory to have belief in them and
to consign (!) (Tafwidh) their intended meanings (Ma'na) to Allah
ta'ala for
Al-Lalika`i, the Hafidh, reported from Muhammad bin al-Hassan that he
said:
All
the Fuqaha` (scholars of Islamic jurisprudence) from the east and the
west have agreed upon having faith in the [divine] attributes without
explanation (Tafsir) or attributing similarity (Tashbih).
-
end of quote -
Imam
al-Saffarini also said:
فمذهب
السلف في هذا ونظائره من الأخبار المتشابهة
الواردة في صفات الله عز وجل ما بلغنا ،
وما لم يبلغنا مما صح عنه -
صلى
الله عليه وسلم - اعتقادنا
فيه ، وفي الآي المتشابهة في القرآن أن
نقبلها ولا نردها ، ولا نتأولها بتأويل
المخالفين ، ولا نحملها على تشبيه المشبهين
، ولا نزيد عليها ، ولا ننقص منها (
ولا
نفسرها )
ولا
نكيفها ،
فنطلق ما أطلقه الله ، ونفسر ما فسره رسول
الله -
صلى
الله عليه وسلم -
وأصحابه
، والتابعون ، والأئمة المرضيون من السلف
المعروفين بالدين والأمانة -
رضوان
الله عليهم أجمعين -
فهذا
مذهب سلف الأمة ، وسائر الأئمة ، والعدول
عنه وصمة ، والالتفات إلى سواه نقمة ،
وبالله التوفيق
So
the way (Madhhab) of the Salaf regarding this and what is similar to
it from the narrations that can be found regarding the attributes of
Allah - 'azza wa jall - from that which reached us and that which did
not reach us: Whatever has been authentically reported from [the
Prophet] - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - then
our beliefs regarding them and regarding similar verses in the Qur`an
is to accept them and not to reject them or to interpret them with
the interpretation (Ta`wil) of the opponents or to understand them by
the attributing of similarity (Tashbih) of those who liken Allah to
the creation or to add something to them or take away something from
them or to explain them (Tafsir) or to attribute modality (Takyif) to
them.
So
we state what Allah has stated and [only] explain what the Messenger
of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has explained and his
companions and those who followed them and the accepted scholars from
the Salaf - may Allah be pleased with all of them - who are known for
their religion and their uprightness. So this is the way of the
Salaf of this nation and that of the rest of the leading scholars;
turning away from this [way] is disgrace and paying attention to
other than it is affliction. And with Allah is success.
-
end of quote -
I
also recommend listening to this video here:
Hanbalis
VS Ibn Taymīyyah - Tafwīdh | Sh. Muhammad Abdul Wāhid al-Azhari
al-Hanbali:
For
those understanding Arabic: The Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid
al-Hanbali has more in-depth speeches regarding this issue on youtube
and facebook.
As
for those not understanding Arabic, then I also recommend watching
this video by the
Shaykh
Yusuf Sadiq al-Hanbali [in English] regarding Ibn Taymiyya's position
in the Hanbali Madhhab:
Note
that both Shuyukh respect the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya and regard him as
one of the great scholars within the Madhhab, but they do not
exaggerate regarding him - as the modern day "Salafis
unfortunately do - and do not follow his abnormal views, rather they
take from all of the scholars of the Hanbali Madhhab and follow that
which is relied upon in the Madhhab.
In
fact some people even call Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali
as the "walking Muntaha
al-Iradat on
earth" (which is a famous Hanbali book), because of his strict
adherence to the relied upon (mu'tamad) positions within the Hanbali
Madhhab.
---
Abu Sulayman:
** (I've personally changed my negative view towards the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya since I'm listening to him and are more neutral towards Ibn Taymiyya since then. For me he's like the Shaykh Ibn 'Arabi: Both scholars have been attributed with wrong beliefs, but where at the same time defended by scholars who had no such wrong beliefs.)
---
For
those who are interested learning more about the Hanbali / Athari
approach to beliefs:
You'll find speeches of Shaykh Muhammad al-Sayyid al-Azhari al-Hanbali (teacher at al-Azhar al-sharif!) on youtube regarding Lum'at al-I'tiqad and Qala`id al-'Iqyan and other known books on youtube.
Some last points which I would like to mention:
- Why is it that the classical Hanbali / Athari books mentioned in the first post (which are all for the purpose of teaching!) are not teached by "Salafis"?
(The only exception is Lum'at al-I'tiqad, but even then they do not teach the book like that but rather teach it with their own explanations, which contains rejecting major points made by the author (like his statement regarding Tafwidh or his statement that the Qur`an is eternal and other than that). And at the same time they do NOT regard it as sufficient in creed (which is the name of the book!), because it does not contain a single word regarding those issues upon which they [falsely] accuse other Muslims of polytheism and disbelief.)
-
Why is it that when they print such books, they add footnotes to it
and attack the statements made in these books on almost every
page?
The
answer is clear:
Because
they do not follow the Hanbali / Athari approach to beliefs!
----------------------
---
Yasir Qadhi said, “I think it is historically clear in Asma as Sifat, the early Muslims who ascribed themselves to the Sunnah affirm the attributes without thinking about their modality (howness) Bilakayf. I talking about the genesis of the Ashari-Athari divide the early manifestations of that (In his disertation). For a period of time, the division was not even clear, because it is within the same strand.
You had people gravitating this way or that way. It wasn’t a clear division.
Ibn Taymiyyah mentions this. And again, later scholars have their projections and coloring. Ibn Taymiyyah said Asharis and Ahlus Sunnah (Atharis) were essentially one until the Fitna of Al Qushayri took place in Baghdad. They were one against the Mutazilah. They were strands within Sunni Islam. These strands became more and more pronounced as time developed.
Al Bayhaqi didn’t view himself as a different strand than Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal for example. Even within strand there were multiply understandings.
Al Bayhaqi is one, Fulak is another, Juwayni is another.
Al Juwayni strand because of his student Al Ghazali became the more prominent one.
When Al Juwayni was alive, these were all variant strands, within Asharism, which kind of sort of attached itself to Atharism.
There wasn’t thus clear cut division, that we later have.
I’m
just trying to point at in my humble opinion, given the current world
we live in, we need to minimize this sectarian divide your average
sufi, your average salafi. Stop fighting and hating one another.
These differences you find the genesis of them in the third and
fourth century of Islam.” (mamluk
podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEUkgXVcspM )
Yasir
Qadhi said,
“Both Asharis and Atharis simplistically read their bias into the
past, both sides want to claim these people (the Salafus Saleh) for
themselves. But if you actually do the research and go deep in you
find that history is more complex than reality. History
is not as black and white. And
yes treads developed. My
position is that even the later Athari Aqida is a development. The
Sahaba did not have
the aqida as the later Athari Aqida.
Ibn
Taymiyyah had volumes, if Imam al Babahari
read Ibn Taymiyyah,
Imam al Barbahari would have rejected Ibn
Taymiyyah. This is my opinion. Because al Barbahari’s
mind of the third century would not have admitted Ibn
Taymiyyah as a Hanbali. Ibn
Taymiyyah was a development even for
Hanbalis.
With my utmost respect to my Athari brothers
in the room. Please remember Ibn
Taymiyyah’s greatest opponents in the beginning
were his fellow Hanbalis and then Subki and other came along after.
When Ibn Taymiyyah begin, his fellow Hanbali criticized him, because they couldn’t understand his methodology. So let us not romantically back projecting our own bias. This is my area of specialty.” ( Forward to about 1:01 Towards Bridgingthe Salafi-Ashari Divide).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WSwj_aS-6U
---
Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis"
2- Belief of Early Hanabila: Here
3- Hanbali position regarding the divine 'Uluw, Istiwa` and Nuzul: Here
4- Table of Contents: Here
---
(Edited by ADHM)
