Friday, April 1, 2022

1-Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis" (Part-1)

 




Thread Posted: 31-Jan-2020

Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis"
by Abu Sulayman

Here

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 TajsimLikewise 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 بهاويمكن 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} ، ونحوهفهذا 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 مذمومًاولأن 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.)

---
====================
:(Ibn TaymiyyaHere and Ibn Arabi:Here :)
====================


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!

----------------------


---

aMuslimForLife:

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 HanabilaHere

3- Hanbali position regarding the divine 'Uluw, Istiwa` and NuzulHere

4- Table of ContentsHere

---

(Edited by ADHM)


---