---
1-Belief of Hanbalis / Atharis (past) vs "Salafis":Here
2- Belief of Early Hanabila :Here
4- Table of Contents :Here
Hanbali position regarding the divine
'Uluw, Istiwa` and Nuzul
Imam
Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) said in his book Nihayat
al-Mubtadi`in -
which was written for teaching purpose and is relied upon by the
Hanabila after him - the
following:
https://ia801601.us.archive.org/Book...ale=6&rotate=0
Allah
ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) or a body
(Jism) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He
does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by
it, rather He is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih).
Allah
is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not with a limitation [that
limits Him], rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that
which is besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and Allah
is above (fawq) [all of] that without place (Makan) or limitation
(Hadd), because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He
created place and He is as He was before creating place.
He is not known through the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to humans and there is no entry for analogy [or comparing] (Qiyas) regarding His essence and attributes. He has not taken a wife or a child [for Himself], rather He's free of any needs. He's not similar to anything and nothing is similar to Him. Whosoever attributes similarity to Him with His creation has disbelieved. This is what [Imam] Ahmad (d. 241 AH) stated; and the same goes regarding the one who regards him a body. Or if someone says "He's a body unlike [other] bodies" (Jism la kal Ajsam). This was mentioned by al-Qadhi [Abu Ya'la] (d. 458 AH). Imagination does not reach Him and comprehension does not grasp Him. He's not similar to the creation and no examples can be given in behalf of Him. He's not known by the sayings [of the people].
Whatever comes to the mind or [can] be conceived by the
imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Majesty and
Bounty.
Section
We're
certain that Allah is in the heaven (fil Sama`) and that He [is]
established upon the throne (Istawa 'ala al-Arsh) without
modality (bila kayf), and all that in the manner befitting him. We do
not interpret that nor do we explain it or ascribe modality to it or
imagine it or specify it or reject it or deny it, rather we
relegate its knowledge to Allah ta'ala. We're
certain in denying attributing similarity (Tashbih) or attributing
corporeality (Tajsim) or any flaw and
that is the ruling [to be followed] for all verses (Ayat) concerning
the [divine] attributes and the authentic and explicit
narrations.
[Imam] Ahmad said: "We believe that Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) as He intends without modality (bila kayf) or a description that a describer can reach or a limit (Hadd) that limits him."
So
whoever says that He's - with His essence - in every place or in
[some] place, then he's a disbeliever (Kafir), because
this [belief] necessitates place (Makan) to be eternal and that
[Allah] is occupying filthy places and other than them; High Exalted
is Allah above that. And this does not negate Him being in the
heaven (fil Sama`) and above the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) in the manner
befitting him, as clarified.
And
the same statement applies regarding the narration of descent (Nuzul)
and other than it which has an authentic chain and is explicit in
wording, so that it's impossible to understand it
literally.
Al-Tamimi (d.
410 AH) said in I'tiqad [al-Imam] Ahmad (belief of Imam Ahmad)
regarding the narration of descent: "Displacement (Intiqal) is not possible regarding Him nor occupying places."
Ibn
al-Banna` (d.
471 AH) said regarding it (i.e. the narration of descent) in the
belief of [Imam] Ahmad: "It's not [allowed] to say with movement
(Haraka) or displacement (Intiqal)."
Al-Qadhi
Abu Ya'la (d.
458 AH) said: "The Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has
described Him with descent (Nuzul) to the lowest heaven and with
Highness ('Uluw), [but] not in the way of displacement (Intiqal) or
movement (Haraka), just like it is possible to see Him (i.e. beatific
vision of Allah ta'ala in the hereafter) without [Him] being in a
direction (Jiha) and [just like Allah] revealed Himself to the
mountain (referring to Aya 7:143), [but] not in the way of movement
(Haraka) or displacement (Intiqal)."
And he (al-Qadhi Abu
Ya'ala) said: "A descent (Nuzul) from highness ('Uluw) and
disappearance [from one place to another] (Zawal) is not affirmed,
but rather a descent whose meaning (Ma'na) can not be comprehended
and a [beatific] vision without [Him] being in a direction and this
can not be comprehended from that which we can perceive [in this
world] (Shahid)."
Ibn
'Aqil (d.
513 AH) said: "Not with disappearance [from one place to
another] (Zawal) or displacement (Intiqal) and [also] not like our
descent."
And
he (Ibn 'Aqil) said: "The
consensus of the [Islamic] nation [is] that He (i.e. Allah ta'ala) is
beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih) and [that] He's upon
distinctness from His creation in His essence and attributes.";
and he declared the one attributing similarity to [to Allah] with His
creation to be a disbeliever.
Abu Nasr al-Sijzi (d. 444 AH) said : "In the statement that Allah is above the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) there is no limitation [to Him], rather it's a limitation of the throne and of that which is besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and Allah is above (fawq) [all of] that such that [He's] not in a place (Makan) and [has] no limit (Hadd), because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place."
Ibn
Hamid (d.
403 AH) said: "He's
upon the throne - with His essence - touching it (!) and He descends
from the place that He's in (!) and changes place (!)"; Ibn
'Aqil and others rejected this [statement] and declared him to be
mistaken and censured him; and
they were right in this and not him.
Ibn
'Aqil said: "Upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh), not like someone
sitting on the bed nor like someone riding an animal."
Al-Qadhi said:
"Without being seated (Qa'id) and without touching
(Mumasa)."
Ibn
Batta (d.
387 AH) said in al-Ibana al-Sughra and Abu
al-Faraj al-Shirazi (d.
486 AH): "Allah is upon His throne ('ala 'Arshih), beyond His
creation (ba`in min khalqih)".
Al-Qadhi said:
"Descent (Nuzul) is an attribute of the [divine] essence and
that's why we do not say that His descent is by displacement"
and the last of the two statements of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la is that of
affirming [the expression] of direction.
According to [Imam]
Ahmad establishment [upon the throne] (Istiwa`) is an attribute of
action and [it has] also [been reported] from him [to be] an
attribute of essence and that it [means] Highness ('Uluw) and
Elevation (Irtifa') .
He
(Imam Ahmad) said: "Allah
has always been High and Elevated before creating His throne, so He
is above everything and the Most High above all".
[Allah's]
statement { established
[Himself] upon the throne }
[20:5] means: "Exalted [Himself] ('Ala) without touching
(Mumasa)", and it's better to abstain from both statements.
Ibn
al-Jawzi (d.
597 AH) chose to reject [the expression] of direction and narrated it
from [Imam] Ahmad through the narration of Hanbal and Ibn 'Aqil was
inclined to this [also] and al-Qadhi in the beginning. There is
[however] weakness in the narration from [Imam]
Ahmad, for he said: "Allah
is upon His throne and His knowledge is in every place"; [Imam]
Ahmad used to criticize the one who claims that He's in every
place.
Abu Muhammad Rizqallah bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Tamimi (d.
388 AH) said: "We do not say that the throne is His place
(Makan), because the places are [all] created by Allah and they are
after Him and we do not say that He is - with his essence - seated
upon the throne or standing or lying down or sleeping [on it] or
touching [it] or attached [to it], rather we state the attribute as
it was mentioned by the Qur`an and abstain from getting into that
which reality can not be reached by language."
[Imam] Ahmad said: "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]."
[Imam]
Ahmad [also] said: "Above His throne (fawq al-'Arsh) and His
knowledge is everywhere"; this was mentioned by Abu Nasr
al-Sijzi.
Al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la said: "He's established upon
the throne (mustawin 'ala al-'Arsh) without modality (bila kayf) and
without analogy (Mutabaqa) or touching (Mumasa) or that which is
subject to assessment (Taqdir) or distance / space (Masaha)."
Ibn
'Aqil said in al-Ishara: "The throne and those [angels] who
carry it: Allah - Exalted be He - is [the One] carrying [all of] them
[by his power]". [end of quote]
---
Originally posted by AmantuBillahi
Assalamu
alaykum
There seems to be a contradiction in what you're saying
here. You're claiming that the authoritatie Hanbali scholars were
consistent with the Ash'aris in making Tafwid and negating modality
(Bila Kayf). The mainstream Hanbali position is not guilty of
implying Tashbih and Tajsim in their beliefs.
---
Abu Sulayman : Wa 'alaykum al-Salam,
What
I'm saying is that the mainstream Hanbali position is that of Tafwidh
[without that of Ta`wil (except if there is an interpretation found
in the Sunna or the Athar)] and that they are free from Tashbih and
Tajsim.
But
before I go on I really have a request from you:
Please let's try to keep these issues as academic as possible and let's try to understand what the other side is saying?
What
I'm presenting here in this thread is not from an Ash'ari view, but
rather from a general Sunni view, which respects both the Ash'ari and
the Hanbali view and regards their differences as Ijtihadi and this
has been the general mindset of the scholars, so let's not try to act
as if Ahl al-Sunna are only one tiny group while excluding hundreds
of classical major scholars from each side!
Let's
also not turn this thread like the other thread were we had
discussed. It's
also important to concentrate on the meaning of the what is being
said and not the wording, because
two persons may say things differently while intending the same.
An
example for this is the position of the those Sunni scholars called
as the Murji`a
al-Fuqaha` regarding
Iman in comparison to other Sunni scholars, who in reality believe
both in the same thing in meaning while differing only in
wording.
And
please don't try to reuse the wrong way of argumentation that Abuz
Zubair has used in the past (what you've posted is his way of
argumentation and the website you used are actually the his posts
taken from the IA Forums!). If
we were to accept for the sake of argument that the mainstream
Hanbali position regarding the Highness of Allah ta'ala is completely
different from that of the Ash'aris, then this would still not
necessitate that they have not made Tafwidh in the rest of the divine
attributes.
In fact I'm telling you that Hanbalis do not
make complete Tafwidh
if they believe that something has been clarified to a certain extent
by authentic texts and the first issue to mention here is the issue
of the speech of Allah: When
Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) was confronted regarding affirming the
issue of Harf (letter) and Sawt (sound) regarding the speech of Allah
ta'ala (and this is a famous Hanbali position, even though often
misunderstood by a lot of today's Ash'aris and "Salafis")
and why they did not make complete Tafwidh like in the rest of the
divine attributes (they do Tafwidh, but only after affirming Harf and
Sawt because they say that this is established by authentic texts and
the meaning they intend here is actually not impossible even
according to the Ash'aris!), he stated by saying that the divine
texts have explained this issue to this extent unlike the rest of the
divine attributes. So he did not deny that when it comes to other
attributes they make complete Tafwidh!
Remember what I said and understand it:
The
Hanabila do COMPLETE Tafwidh and are AGAINST Ta`wil (interpretation)
and Tafsir (explanation) of any text regarding the divine attribute
EXCEPT if the Sunna or the Athar contain a certain interpretation or
explanation.This
is something clarified by the Hanabila themselves.
If
you just look one page after my last quote from Nihayat
al-Mubtadi`in by
Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) you'll see this mentioned by him!
That's
why I'm asking you to look at this issue through the words of the
Hanabila themselves (!) and not to try to superimpose the words of
people who themselves are pro-Najdis (like Abuz Zubair)!
And by
the way: It's easy to quote scholars of the "Salafis" (and
not random internet-personalities like Abuz Zubair!), who explicitly
admit that most Hanbalis were people of Tafwidh.
---
So if this is the case, then how is it possible that these same authorities recognized Ibn Taymiyyah as a Hanbali scholar and held him in high regard? If the Hanbalis and Ahlul Kalam understand Tajsim/Hawadith the exact same way, then shouldn't Ibn Taymiyyah be classified as a Zindeeq for going against the Madhhab and teaching anthropomorphism?
---
Abu Sulayman :
Well
maybe because the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) was indeed a very
knowledgeable Hanbali scholar? And maybe because they understood his
words in such a way that they do not necessarily constitute Tajsim -
but rather only mistaken [in wording at least and sometimes in
meaning also] in some issues - just like many scholars praised the
Shaykh Ibn 'Arabi (d. 638 AH) highly and regarded him from the
Awliya` and would regard him as an authority in Tasawwuf, while
understanding his problematic words in some of his works in such a
way that they do not go against the Shari'a or by saying that they
have been later added!
So
how does praising the likes of those two scholars necessitate to
agree with some of the wrong and abnormal views that are - either
rightly or wrongly! - ascribed to them? Is this an academic and real
argument?
Should we base our beliefs based
upon what was - rightly or wrongly - ascribed to some scholars or
should we base it upon the truth?
---
This simple truth destroys much of your premise concerning the Hanbalis being Mufaawid and misunderstanding the speech of their scholars. In fact, to suggest otherwise would be to charge the succeeding Hanbali authorities with Jahl and Nifaq. In the previous thread I cited the article of Imam al-Saffarini quoting Ibn Taymiyyah verbatim as a reference on Uluw. He then praises the books written by al-Dhahabi and Ibn al-Qayyim on this issue and recommends them as references. It would be ridiculous to classify al-Saffarini as someone who believed Allah's Aboveness is "without modality" in the Ash'ari sense (which renders it a metaphor). This same logic could also be applied to any Hanbali scholar who praises Ibn Taymiyyah and doesn't condemn him as a Mujjasim Zindeeq for affirming Allah's literal Uluw (bi-Dhatihi) Above the Heavens.
---
Abu Sulayman :
Okay,
so you want to claim that Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) is not a
supporter of Tafwidh, right? I'll quote him in my next post
insha`allah, but before doing so I would like to mention that
pro-Najdis (and you're not one of them, but Abuz Zubair is or at
least was when writing the above posts which are quoted in your
link!) should not be using him in the first place!
Ibn
'Uthaymin (d. 1241 AH) explicitly accuses him of polytheism and Ibn
'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) wrote a letter to one of his students and
said to him that he and his teachers (which includes Imam
al-Saffarini!) and their teachers (which includes the teachers of
Imam al-Saffarini!) would not differentiate between the religion of
Islam and that of 'Amr bin Luhayy (the one who introduced polytheism
to the people of Hijaz!!!).
---
Originally posted by AmantuBillahi
This simple truth destroys much of your premise concerning the Hanbalis being Mufaawid and misunderstanding the speech of their scholars. In fact, to suggest otherwise would be to charge the succeeding Hanbali authorities with Jahl and Nifaq. In the previous thread I cited the article of Imam al-Saffarini quoting Ibn Taymiyyah verbatim as a reference on Uluw. He then praises the books written by al-Dhahabi and Ibn al-Qayyim on this issue and recommends them as references. It would be ridiculous to classify al-Saffarini as someone who believed Allah's Aboveness is "without modality" in the Ash'ari sense (which renders it a metaphor). This same logic could also be applied to any Hanbali scholar who praises Ibn Taymiyyah and doesn't condemn him as a Mujjasim Zindeeq for affirming Allah's literal Uluw (bi-Dhatihi) Above the Heavens.
---
Abu Sulayman :
First
of all: The ones EXPLICITLY ascribing ignorance to the Hanabila
are the "Salafi" Mashayikh and this for the very issue of
how they dealt with the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH)!
So
don't use the very issue of how they USED his words in SOME ISSUES
while at the same time IGNORING his words in SOME OTHER ISSUES or
USING his words to establish a SPECIFIC point while REJECTING his
position in the very issue CONNECTED to it, because the "Salafi"
Mashayikh have attacked the Hanabila for this very issue and for how
they dealt with his words and accused them (the Hanabila) of
IGNORANCE.
The way the Hanabila have dealt with the words of the
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya has been explained by the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd
al-Wahid al-Azhari al-Hanbali in detail (FIRST
PART and SECOND
PART), so I would like to refer you to listen to him (and he
brings a lot of examples!). If you don't have that much time just
listen to this video HERE,
which is in order for you to understand the general approach.
And
in general: Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) does use the words of the
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya in order to answer the Ta`wil of the opponents,
but does not agree with him always and sometimes completely ignores
his position and states the opposite of his words.
Then: Even
if for the sake of argument we would say that Imam al-Saffarini did
completely disagree with the Ash'aris regarding the Highness of Allah
ta'ala, then this would not necessitate him being against
Tafwidh in the rest of the divine attributes!
And I've
already clarified what the Hanabila believe regarding Istiwa` and
'Uluw:
the
Hanabila stated that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is established
upon the throne (Mustawin 'ala al-'Arsh) without
modality (bila kayf) and that He's beyond His
creation (ba`in min khalqih).
The Istiwa of Allah ta'ala is
in a manner befitting His majesty and not to be understood in
the manner that we know from that which we can perceive (i.e.
not in the manner of bodies!) and its reality should be consigned to
Allah ta'ala, because it's beyond our comprehension and
imagination.
As for the Highness ('Uluw) of Allah ta'ala,
then Allah has always been and will always be the Most High no matter
whether that is before or after bringing the creation into
existance. Allah ta'ala is beyond limits, rather the throne
(which is the biggest creation in size) and what is besides it [from
the creation] is limited and Allah ta'ala is above [all of] that
without place or limitation, because He existed and there was no
place, then He created place and He is as He was before creating
place.
I
have also already quoted the whole chapter from Nihayat
al-Mubtadi`in - an authoritative work on Hanbali creed! - which
establishes exactly what has been mentioned above.
And
Imam al-Saffarini's creed is no different to that of Imam Ibn Hamdan
(d. 695 AH) regarding this as shown in another thread:
Imam
al-Saffarini (d.
1188 AH) mentioned the affirmation of the Highness of Allah ta'ala in
his Lawami' al-Anwar and clarified that this affirmation of
Istiwa` and 'Uluw does not necessitate Tajsim until he said:
قال
الإمام القرطبي ، وابن أبي زيد ، والقاضي
عبد الوهاب من المالكية ، وجماعة من شيوخ
الحديث والفقه ، وابن عبد البر ، والقاضي
أبو بكر بن العربي ، وابن فورك ، وغيرهم
ممن لا يحصى عددهم أنه سبحانه مستو على
العرش بذاته ، وأطلقوا في بعض الأماكن : فوق
عرشه ، قال القاضي أبو بكر - وهو
الصحيح الذي أقول به -
: من
غير تحديد ، ولا تمكن في مكان ولا مماسة
Imam
al-Qurtubi and Ibn Abi Zayd and al-Qadhi 'Abd al-Wahhab from the
Malikis and a group from among the scholars of Hadith and Fiqh and
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and al-Qadhi Abu Bakr bin al-'Arabi and Ibn Furak
and others whose number can not be counted said that [Allah] - glory
be to Him - is elevated upon the throne by his essence. In some
places [of their books] they stated "above His throne".
Al-Qadhi
Abu Bakr said - and that is the correct [position] which I
[also] say: Without limitation (Tahdid) nor being located (Tamakkun)
in [a] place (Makan) nor touching (Mumassa).
- end of quote
-
So here we see again: That the Highness that is affirmed
here is one befitting Allah‘s majesty and not a sensory one and
that the statement "with his essence" - even though
disliked and rejected by many other scholars - does not necessitate
affirmation in a sensory manner!
The interesting thing
here is that the scholars that he ascribes this position to are
mostly Ash'aris and it's a known thing that Asha'ira do NOT believe
in any [divine] attribute in a SENSORY manner, rather explicitly
state that the reality of Allah ta‘ala is beyond imagination and
comprehension.
Imam al-Saffarini obviously knows that (and he
agreed with that!).
Now one issue remains and that is his position on Tafwidh.
---------Thread Page2: Here
--------
Imam
al-Saffarini: Tafwidh al-Ma'na is the correct way!
The
general approach regarding the divine attributes according to Imam
al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) is explained by him in his Lawami'
al-Anwar by
the following statement:
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]
Note
that he's explicit in affirming Tafwidh al-Ma'na (!) as the way of
the Salaf al-salih and he's from the later scholars, so there is no
way to argue that he intended anything else other than Tafwidh
al-Ma'na by this statement!
Now
let us see who the Ahl al-Sunna are according to him:
Imam
al-Saffarini: The Ahl al-Sunna are three groups: Atharis, Ash'aris
and Maturidis
He
said in his Lawami' al-Anwar:
أهل
السنة والجماعة ثلاث فرق: الأثرية
وإمامهم أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه،
والأشعرية وإمامهم أبو الحسن الأشعري
رحمه الله، والماتريدية وإمامهم أبو
منصور الماتريدي، وأما
فرق الضلال فكثيرة جدا
Ahl
al-Sunna wal Jama'a [consist of] three groups:
- Al-Athariyya,
and their Imam is Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah be pleased with him;
-
al-Ash'ariyya, and their Imam is Abul Hasan al-Ash'ari, may Allah
have mercy upon him;
- and al-Maturidiyya, and their Imam is Abu
Mansur al-Maturidi, [may Allah have mercy upon him]; as
for the groups of deviation, then they're many... [end of quote]
If
the difference between mainstream Atharis / Hanbalis and Ash'aris /
Maturidis would be soo great [according to him] he would have not
included them into the definition of Ahl al-Sunna,
Now
let's see some examples how the Imam dealt with texts regarding the
divine attributes (I'm quoting here as quoted by the Shaykh Muhammad
'Abd al-Wahid al-Azhari al-Hanbali!):
Imam
al-Saffarini: Yad is a divine attribute and not a limb
He
first quoted Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH) (a major Ash'ari scholar!)
saying:
المتقدمون
من هذه الأمة لم يفسروا ما ورد من الآي
والأخبار في هذا الباب، مع اعتقادهم
بأجمعهم بأن الله واحد، لا يجوز عليه
التبعيض. وذهب
بعض أهل النظر: إلى
أن اليمين يراد به اليد، واليد
لله صفة بلا جارحة،
فكل موضع ذكرت فيه من الكتاب أو السنة= فالمراد
بذكرها: تعلقها
بالمكان المذكور معها؛ من الطي والأخذ
والقبض والبسط والقبول والإنفاق وغير
ذلك، تعلق الصفة الذاتية بمقتضاها؛ من
غير مباشرة ولا مماسة،
وليس في ذلك تشبيه بحال
So
here it is mentioned that the early scholars did not explain these
type of verses and narrations while at the same time believing that
God is one and that he's not consisting of parts; and that the people
of Nadhar mentioned that Yad (literal translation: hand) regarding
Allah ta'ala is an attribute and not a limb (Jariha) until the end of
the quote.
Then
Imam al-Saffarini comments by saying:
وهذا
مذهب السلف والحنابلة ومن وافقهم.
قال
الخطابي: وليس
معنى اليد عندي الجارحة،
وإنما هي صفة جاء بها التوقيف، فنحن نطلقها
على ما جاءت، ولا نكيفها، وننتهي إلى حيث
انتهى بها الكتاب والأخبار الصحيحة، وهو
مذهب أهل السنة والجماعة
He
says that this is also the way of the Salaf and that of the Hanabila
(i.e. he agrees with what Imam al-Bayhaqi stated!) and thereafter
refers to Imam al-Khattabi (d.386 AH), who explicitly states that the
meaning of Yad is not a Jariha (limb) [regarding Allah ta'ala].
If
that is not clear enough, then let's add another statement regard the
issue of Yad from him:
اعلم
أن مذهب السلف الصالح، وعلماء الحنابلة،
ومن وافقهم من أهل الأثر: أن
المراد باليدين إثبات صفتين ذاتيتين
تسميان يدين تزيدان على النعمة والقدرة،
محتجِين بما مر من الآيات القرآنية
والأخبار النبوية
...
فكذلك
هنا لما كان ذكر التخصيص مضافا إلى صفة وجب
إثبات تلك الصفة على وجه يليق بجلال الله
وعظمته،
لا
بمعنى: العضو
والجارحة، والجسمية، والبعضية، والكمية،
تعالى الله عن ذلك
Here
he affirms Yadayn as divine attributes (additionally to Qudra and
Ni'ma!) in the manner befitting the majesty of Allah ta'ala while
clearly stating: "Not with the meaning of an organ or a limb or
corporeality or a part or a quantity."
So
here we see that he completely declares Allah ta'ala transcendent
from all bodily meanings, while affirming the divine attributes as
stated (and this is in agreement with the Asha'ira!).
(By
the way: I'm sure that AmantuBillahi also believes that Allah ta'ala
described Himself with having created Adam - peace be upon him - with
his Yadayn (literal translation: two hands) and that these are divine
attribute and not something with a form or a quantity or any other
bodily description. And if that is indeed what he believes, then he's
actually in agreement with the classical Hanabila and Asha'ira while
wrongly thinking that he's in agreement with the "Salafi"
scholars.)
Should
I resume, or is this enough?
Because
he uses the same approach regarding Wajh and 'Ayn also.
---
Originally posted by AmantuBillahi
This isn't true. What you have described above is the standard Ash'ari position.
---
Abu Sulayman :
What I mentioned is explicitly mentioned in Hanbali creed books, so for you to simply say "it isn't true" is really not acceptable.
Add
to that: What
I mentioned is NOT the Ash'ari position. Ash'aris also believe in the
correctness of Tafwidh, but at the same time they regard Ta`wil also
as correct (unlike Hanabila!) and this is an Ijtihadi and known
difference with the Hanabila.
If
someone now asks "then what is the difference between Ash'aris
and the Mu'tazila, who also engage in Ta`wil", then the answer
is:
The
Ash'aris accept the narrations of the divine attributes, while the
Mu'tazila reject a lot of these narrations in the first place. As for
the Ayat, then the Mu'tazila reject the very notion that God is
described with attributes by saying for example "God
is Al-Basir (All-Seeing), but without being described with Basar
(Seeing)",
while the Ash'aris do believe that God is described with eternal
attributes subsisting in the divine essence.
Remember
what Imam Ibn Abi Ya'la (d. 526 AH) said in his Tabaqat
al-Hanabila:
وقد
أجمع علماء أهل الحديث والأشعرية
مِنْهُمْ عَلَى قبول هَذِهِ الأحاديث
فمنهم من أقرها عَلَى ما جاءت وهم أصحاب
الحديث ومنهم من تأولها وهم الأشعرية
وتأويلهم إياها قبول مِنْهُمْ لها إذ لو
كانت عندهم باطلة لاطرحوها كما أطرحوا
سائر الأخبار الباطلة. وقد
روي عَنِ النَّبِيِّ - صَلَّى
اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - أنه
قَالَ:
" أمتي
لا تجتمع عَلَى خطأ ولا ضلالة
Indeed
the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith - and the Ash'aris are from among them
(!) - are agreed upon accepting these narrations: From among
them are those who accept them as they've come - and they are the
Ashab al-Hadith - and from among them are those who interpret them -
and they are the Ash'aris -; and their interpretation of these
[narrations] is their acceptance to them, because if these narrations
would be false for them they would have thrown them away just like
they did with the rest of the false narrations.
For
indeed, it has been narrated from the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa
sallam - that he said: "My
nation will not agree upon falsehood or deviation."
Originally posted by AmantuBillahi
The
"mainstream Hanbali position" is to make Ithbat of the
Sifat and Tafwid of its ultimate reality (Kayfiyya) while negating
similiarities (Tashbih) with the creation.
The Hanbalis affirm
the Divine Attributes that were mentioned in the Quran/Sunnah without
distorting their meanings. When Ash'aris utilize Tafwid, they do not
affirm the descriptions in the Quran/Sunnah as Divine Attributes.
Rather they consign the true interpretation back to Allah and reject
the apparent meaning because they imply Tajsim/Tashbih.
Abu Sulayman :
According to Imam al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) - a major Ash'ari scholar and author of the famous Umm al-Barahin - there are three positions regarding the divine attributes among the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna (as mentioned in Sharh al-Muqaddimat):
1)
Tafwidh (consignment)
2)
Ta`wil (interpretation)
3)
Ithbat with Tanzih (affirmation with transcendence)
The
third position is based upon Tafwidh in reality which is why a lot of
scholars will usually only mention two positions. The
third position is also supported by many early Ash'aris and the
Hanabila.
So
if you're supporting Ithbat with Tanzih (which seems to be what
you're on), then Ash'aris do not have a problem with that.
As
for your statement regarding Kayfiyya:
This
is why I told you that you should concentrate on the meaning of what
is being said!
-
1st meaning: If you're intending the [ultimate] reality (i.e. Kunh)
of the divine attributes are not known and should be consigned (and
this is what you're saying above!), then we're in agreement! So why
are you hellbent in finding difference in what we agree upon?
-
2nd meaning If however someone believes that Kayfiyya is the quantity
or form or similar descriptions [of the attribtues] and that this
applies to Allah ta'ala and that we're ignorant of this Kayfiyya (and
the "Salafi" Mashayikh like Ibn 'Uthaymin are intending
this!), then this is obviously Tashbih according to both Hanbalis and
Ash'aris.
(Keep
in mind that while Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) and the Hanabila
before him affirmed the attributes, they explicitly rejected
descriptions like quantity, parts, limits and what is similar to
it.)
So
please before repeating yourself, clarify whether you are also
rejecting the second meaning of Kayfiyya regarding Allah ta'ala or
not? Concentrate on the meaning of what is being said, please.
And
if you agree with the Hanabila (and Asha'ira) with rejecting the
second meaning and accepting the first meaning, then this means we're
in agreement in meaning - even if we use different wordings! - and
the only thing that remains is whether "Salafis" also
reject that or not.
Originally posted by AmantuBillahi
...Ibn Taymiyyah... Ibn Taymiyya.. Ibn Taymiyyah's... Ibn Taymiyyah... Ibn Taymiyyah…
---Abu Sulayman :
Bro, do you see how many times you mentioned the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) in one post alone?
Do
you think he would have accepted you turning him into the absolute
authority of differentiating between truth and falsehood and this
while the one who received revelation is the Messenger of Allah -
sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and not him?
By
the way: You're not even aware how the Hanabila dealt with him, so
it's not allowed for you to use this as an argument until you are
aware of how they dealt with him in the first place.
And:
Not all Ash'aris (whether those of the past or those of today) regard
the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya as a Mujassim and even a major Ash'ari
scholar like Shaykh al-Buti - who was aware of his writings! - did
not regard him a Mujassim.
And
again: The Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya is no different to the likes of the
Shaykh Ibn 'Arabi (d. 638 AH), who had also problematic statements in
his books, yet you'll find major scholars - who do not believe in
these problematic things - praising him and regarding him from among
the greatest of Awliya`!
Originally
posted by AmantuBillahi
Where
do you think Ibn Taymiyyah or Salafis would disagree with this post?
We have already established that al-Saffarini affirmed the Dhahir
implications of Istawa and Uluw (i.e. that Allah is literally Above
us). So it is not reasonable to assume that what he means here is
Tafwid al-Ma'na in the Ash'ari sense. He's not asking us to believe
in a bunch of indistinguishable Divine Attributes. Tafwid al Ma'na
here refers to Kayfiyya.
We would need to contextualize his
statement regarding Ahl al-Sunnah. Ibn Taymiyyah also included the
Ash'aris and Maturidis in the broad defition of Sunni Islam. Perhaps
that is what al-Saffarini is implying here as well. I've read
articles where he explicitly refutes the Ash'aris on Uluw and another
claiming that the majority of their predecessors believed in the
Bid'ah of the Quran's creation.
Abu Sulayman :
If
he says that Ahl al-Sunna are the three groups mentioned (Atharis,
Ash'aris and Maturidis), then this means that he's intending that Ahl
al-Sunna are three. If you're trying to reject whatever the Hanabila
explicitly state, then this turns the whole discussion into a joke
and you're right now accusing Hanabila of being "ignorants
and unable to articulate what they intend"
with this way of argumentation! Do you realize that?
And
why are you so hellbent on throwing the scholars of Islam out of the
definition of Ahl al-Sunna? Why not simply realize that there are
Ijtihadi differences in the detailed issues of creed between the
Sunni scholars and admitting that we as laymen are in NO position to
attack these major scholars from each side.
Let's
make the issue easy: Concentrate
on the meaning of Kayfiyya. Is
the Kayfiyya that you apply regarding Allah ta'ala and which you
consign to Allah ta'ala the first meaning or the second meaning
mentioned above?
This
is taken from the article Imām
ibn Qudāmah The Mufawwiḍ:
...
Admission
of the Figureheads from the Opposing View
After
presenting the above statements of Imām ibn Qudāmah, the fact of
him being a Mufawwiḍ has been explicitly elucidated. If however,
any mind is still in doubt then they may see below how some of the
figureheads of the proponents of Ithbāt al-Ma’nā ala’l Dhāhir
have conceded that Imām ibn Qudāmah was a Mufawwiḍ.
Shaykh
Muhammad ibn Sālih al-‘Uthaymīn states
in his explanation of the statement in Lum’at
al-I’tiqād (first
quote in further explanatory quotes mentioned above):
أما
ما ذكره في “اللمعة” فإنه ينطبق على مذهب
المفوضة، وهو من شر المذاهب وأخبثها،
والمصنف -رحمه
الله- إمام
في السنة، وهو أبعد الناس عن مذهب المفوضة
وغيرهم من المبتدعة، والله أعلم
[تعليق
مختصر على لمعة الإعتقاد للعثيمين ج ١ ص
٣١]
“As
for what he mentioned in ‘al-Lum’ah‘,
then indeed, he was an adherent upon the methodology of the
Mufawwiḍah, it is from the worst of methodologies and the filthiest
of them. The author, may Allāh have mercy on him, is an Imām in the
Sunnah and he is the furthest of the people from the methodology of
the Mufawwiḍah and others beside them from the innovators. And
Allāh knows best.” [Ta’liq
Mukhtasar ‘alā Kitāb Lum’at al-I’tiqād al-Hādī ilā Sabīl
al-Rashād,
1/31]
Although
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sālih al-‘Uthaymīn admits that this is what
Imām ibn Qudāmah adhered to, he also attempts to repel the position
from him since he considers him an Imām of what he considers to be
the Sunnah, the reason for this is explained by another proponent of
the view opposing Tafwīḍ al-Ma’nā:
Shaykh
‘Abd al-Razzāq ‘Afīfī said:
مذهب
السلف هو التفويض في كيفية الصفات لا في
المعنى، وقد غلط ابن قدامة في لمعة
الاعتقاد، وقال: بالتفويض
ولكن الحنابلة يتعصبون للحنابلة، ولذلك
يتعصب بعض المشايخ في الدفاع عن ابن قدامة،
ولكن الصحيح أن ابن قدامة مفوض
[فتاوى
ورسائل سماحة الشيخ عبد الرزاق عفيفي]
“The
methodology of the Salaf was consignment regarding the modality
(kayfiyyah), not in the meaning (ma’nā), and indeed ibn Qudāmah
erred in Lum’at
al-I’tiqād as
he said with Tafwīḍ; but the Ḥanābila are partisan to the
Ḥanābila. Therefore, some Mashā’ikh are extreme when it comes
to defending ibn Qudāmah. However, what is correct is that ibn
Qudāmah was a Mufawwiḍ.” [Fatāwa
wa Rasā’il Samāhat al-Shaykh ‘Abd al-Razzāq ‘Afīfī]
Finally,
here is the verdict of the late Shaykh Nāsir al-Dīn al-Albānī
from the footnotes of a book attributed to him entitled “Fundamentals
of the Salafee Methodology: An Islamic Manual for Reform“.
The scan below was provided by our respected Shaykh, Dr. Abul Hasan
Hussain Ahmed
(hafidhahullāh): http://www.darultahqiq.com/wp-conten...a-Mufawwid.jpg
-----------------------------------------------
Abu
Sulayman :
I
would like you to concentrate on the following in your
response:
Originally posted by Abu Sulayman
As
for your statement regarding Kayfiyya:
This
is why I told you that you should concentrate on the meaning of what
is being said!
- 1st meaning: If you're intending the
[ultimate] reality (i.e. Kunh) of the divine attributes are not known
and should be consigned (and this is what you're saying above!), then
we're in agreement! So why are you hellbent in finding difference in
what we agree upon?
- 2nd meaning If however someone believes
that Kayfiyya is the quantity or form or similar descriptions [of the
attributes] and that this applies to Allah ta'ala and that we're
ignorant of this Kayfiyya (and the "Salafi" Mashayikh like
Ibn 'Uthaymin are intending this!), then this is obviously Tashbih
according to both Hanbalis and Ash'aris.
(Keep in mind that
while Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) and the Hanabila before him
affirmed the attributes, they explicitly rejected descriptions like
quantity, parts, limits and what is similar to it.)
So
please before repeating yourself, clarify whether you are also
rejecting the second meaning of Kayfiyya regarding Allah ta'ala or
not? Concentrate on the meaning of what is being said, please.
And
if you agree with the Hanabila (and Asha'ira) with rejecting the
second meaning and accepting the first meaning, then this means we're
in agreement in meaning - even if we use different wordings! - and
the only thing that remains is whether "Salafis" also
reject that or not.
-----------------------------------------
continue reading next thread post: page3 Here
---
Originally posted by AmantuBillahi
Salafis also believe in making Ithbat with Tanzih. Allah has eternaly existed with the Attributes of Perfection. They cannot be similar to His creation because He is Divine and eternal. The difference between us though is that our Tanzih is not excessive to the point where the implication of the Attributes are nullified.
---
Abu Sulayman :
Great,
but in order to know what "Salafis" believe we need to
refer to their scholars (because their laymen are not necessarily
believing the same): What we see from them is that they REJECT almost
EVERY statement of Tanzih found in Hanbali works.
Have
you ever looked into books by Hanabila printed by them or having a
commentary made by them regarding these books? It's filled with
rejecting every statement of Tanzih that the Hanbali authors made!
What does that show us?
I
mean when Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) said that Yadayn are divine
attributes in the manner befitting the majesty of Allah ta'ala and
that it's not with the meaning of an organ or a limb or
corporeality or a part or a quantity, exalted is Allah above
that ("لا
بمعنى: العضو
والجارحة، والجسمية، والبعضية، والكمية،
تعالى الله عن ذلك"), do
you seriously think that "Salafi" Mashayikh (like Ibn
'Uthaymin!) would accept to reject any of these descriptions? They
don't!
They
rather say "we
do not affirm or reject these descriptions",
even though affirming these descriptions is DISBELIEF according to
mainstream Hanbalis!
Just
imagine: They're
unable to reject the meanings that constitute disbelief according to
the very Hanabila that you claim they agree with!
---
Originally
posted by AmantuBillahi
I'm
not sure if
you've changed your view since the previous disussion, but you were
using the "Tanzih" of some of the Hanbalis to suggest that
they didn't literally believe Allah was Above the Throne. That is
precisely the issue here. It is rationally inconsistent to believe in
Allah's Uluw bi-Dhatihi while making Tanzih to the point where it
contradicts the Attribute.
---
Abu Sulayman :
I'm not denying that the Hanabila believed that Allah ta'ala is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) and beyond his creation (ba`in min khalqih), but this while at the same time denying that Allah ta'ala is limited or in a place. In fact I quoted Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) here and in our previous discussion who is saying exactly this.
What I'm telling you is:
You people are not really understanding the
Hanbali approach here (and even many Ash'aris today don't understand
their approach)!
Let
me explain:
The
creation is finite and ends at some point. After this point there is
no place and our imagination stops at this point. Allah ta'ala is
beyond that such that He's not in a place and beyond limits and our
imagination. This is the mainstream Hanbali view!
The
mistake that "Salafis" now commit is that they imagine that
after the creation ends, there somehow still exists the notion of
place (they may even call it as non-existing place or the like!) and
that there is some sort of empty space and that is where God is.
Based upon this very imagination they say: So God must have a limit,
otherwise he would be mixed up with the creation. (So
according to the above imagination of "Salafis" the
creation ENDS and then the divine essence STARTS, that is why there
must be a limit to the divine essence otherwise they would be mixed
up.)
And
this is Tashbih, no matter how we turn it! And the imagination that
God fills up a void is actually Tajsim in itself, because it is to
believe that God is a 3-dimensional being!
Where
did "befitting his majesty" remain in this
imagination?
The
proof that the mainstream Hanbali view is what I mentioned first -
and NOT what the "Salafis" imagine - is the statement of
Imam Ibn Hamdan in his Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in (which is
RELIED UPON by later Hanbalis!):
...He
does not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by
it, rather
He is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih).
Allah
is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not
with a limitation [that limits Him],
rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that which is
besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and
Allah is above (fawq) [all of] that without place (Makan) or
limitation (Hadd),
because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created
place and He
is as He was before creating place. [end
of quote]
Abu Sulayman :
Please
try to understand the difference!
---
Originally
posted by AmantuBillahi
Ibn Taymiyyah was a Hanbali
scholar of Kalam. That
is what separates him and his Dawah from the other Hanbalis. If you
believe that Allah is Above the Throne, then it necessarily follows
that He has a Hadd. Allah is not so dissimilar to the creation that
it nullifies His Attributes. This is what logically follows from the
explicit beliefs of the Hanbalis.
---
Abu
Sulayman :
Yes,
the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d.
728 AH) was a Hanbali scholar of Kalam, but many other Hanabila also
engaged in Kalam in order to respond to their opponents from the Ahl
al-Bid'a and even from the Ahl al-Sunna!
What actually makes him different is his statement that God is subject to changes and his statement regarding endless chains of events to the past, which is completely rejected by mainstream Hanbalis.
Note that while mainstream Hanbalis had no problem in referring to him in order to respond to Ta`wil, they NEVER referred to him regarding the issue of divine essence being subject to changes (i.e. Hulul al-Hawadith fil Dhat al-Ilahiyya) and their relied upon works explicitly state that God is NOT subject to changes. This is a major difference!
---
Originally
posted by AmantuBillahi
If
you believe that
Allah is Above the Throne, then it necessarily follows that He has a
Hadd. Allah is not so dissimilar to the creation that it nullifies
His Attributes. This is what logically follows from the explicit
beliefs of the Hanbalis.
Abu Sulayman :
See
above. Imam Ibn Hamdan and the mainstream Hanbalis are not agreeing
with you. They believe that it's the throne that is limited
(i.e. the Hadd is that of the throne!) and not Allah ta'ala and they
also believe that Allah ta'ala is COMPLETELY dissimilar to the
creation (see
the whole quote from the translated section from Nihayat
al-Mubtadi`in or
the quote from Tabaqat
al-Hanabila where
they emphasized this very strongly).
As
I stated: That is where the Tashbih of "Salafis" lies and
where the Hanbalis disagree with them clearly.
Originally posted by AmantuBillahi
Brother you are mixing between issues here. The Salafis and "mainstream Hanbalis" share the same beliefs regarding Allah's Uluw. Outside of the creation (above the throne) is not inside a "place" and nothing is "limiting" Allah. The "Hadd" is the necessary distinction between Allah and His creation. Imam Ahmad, Ibn al-Mubarak and many of the scholars after them explicitly affirmed the term.
---Abu Sulayman :
Brother,
it's you who is mixing up issues here by trying to mix up between
mainstream Hanbalis and modern-day Salafis. Do
you know that Arab speaking modern-day Salafis have already come to
the conclusion that most Hanbalis are Mufawwidha and that it is only
the non-Arab speaking ones who still do not know this?
Then: We
are sure that Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) and the mainstream Hanbalis (but
not all Hanbalis!) believe in a non-bodily existance of Allah ta'ala
and that the divine essence is beyond limits and beyond imagination,
but we are not able to say the same thing regarding the modern-day
Salafi Mashayikh.
Do
you know why? Because the mainstream Hanbalis explicitly deny
bodily descriptions (i.e. length, quantity, limits, etc.) in general
regarding Allah ta'ala and make it very clear that the existance of
Allah ta'ala is a non-bodily one, while
"Salafis" criticize these same Hanbalis for doing
so!
Again:
Refer to the [Arabic] books of "Salafis" and that which is
printed by them!---
Originally posted by AmantuBillahi
From
an Ash'ari Kalam perspective the Hanbali/Salafi belief is either
Tajsim or nonsensical. If you believe Allah''s Essence is above the
throne, then this necessarily implies a limit. If someone was to say
that Allah's Essence is above the throne without it causing a limit,
then this would be considered incoherent. In the other thread you
also confirmed this belief as being "false" according to an
Ash'ari Muhaqiq.
This video also explains that merely affirming
Allahs Uluw bi-Dhatihi "limits" Allah:
Abu Sulayman :
Forget
about this video (I
didn't watch it, because it won't change anything and I don't know
how knowledgeable the speaker is).
If you're really want to know
the Ash'ari view from a very knowledgable and staunch Ash'ari
scholar, then watch this short video (with English
subtitles):
Spatial
Correlations or Temporalities of Any Kind Do Not Apply to God | Sh.
Saeed Fodeh
But,
I'm not even discussing with you from an Ash'ari point of view nor
telling you that the Ash'ari and Hanbali position regarding the issue
of 'Uluw is exactly the same (because they are not), but rather
simply trying to explain the Hanbali position and that they are in
reality ALSO affirming a non-bodily existence for Allah ta'ala (which
is in agreement with Ash'aris) and this based upon the very belief in
'Uluw.
As for the standard Ash'ari position, then it is that
Allah ta'ala is not inside nor outside the creation, while the
Hanabila will not say that (!) rather they will say that Allah ta'ala
is upon the throne and beyond his creation (even though these type of
statements will also be found in some Ash'ari works).
The reason
for saying not "inside" is that it would mean that God is
mixed with the creation and this is disbelief. As for rejecting
"outside", then what they (Ash'aris) intended here is to
reject the imagination of the Mushabbiha (of the past and the
present) who believe that after the creation ends there is some sort
of empty space or void and that God is filling it up.
Note that
mainstream Hanbalis also reject this imagination, but won't use the
wording used by Ash'aris, rather simply clarify that God's existence is a non-bodily one.
That
is why I did not mention the issue of 'Uluw together with issues
where the Hanbalis and Ash'aris differed (i.e. the issue of Harf and
Sawt and the issue of Ta`wil) - even though one could mention it with
them - and the reason is because even though they do seem to disagree
on the first sight, they concluded both a non-bodily existance
for Allah ta'ala from this issue.
So
only "Salafis" actually vehemently reject to affirm a
non-bodily existence for Allah ta'ala and their understanding of
'Uluw is based upon the imagination that I've already mentioned.
------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post:
What
I'm telling you is: You people are not really understanding the
Hanbali approach here (and even many Ash'aris today don't understand
their approach)!
Let
me explain: The
creation is finite and ends at some point. After this point there is
no place and our imagination stops at this point. Allah ta'ala is
beyond that such that He's not in a place and beyond limits and our
imagination. This is the mainstream Hanbali view!
The
mistake that "Salafis" now commit is that they imagine that
after the creation ends, there somehow still exists the notion of
place (they may even call it as non-existing place or the like!) and
that there is some sort of empty space and that is where God is.
Based upon this very imagination they say: So God must have a limit,
otherwise he would be mixed up with the creation. (So
according to the above imagination of "Salafis" the
creation ENDS and then the divine essence STARTS, that is why there
must be a limit to the divine essence otherwise they would be mixed
up.)
And
this is Tashbih, no matter how we turn it! And the imagination that
God fills up a void is actually Tajsim in itself, because it is to
believe that God is a 3-dimensional being!
Where
did "befitting his majesty" remain in this
imagination?
Originally
posted by Abu Sulayman View
Post
So only "Salafis" actually vehemently
reject to affirm a non-bodily existence for Allah ta'ala and their
understanding of 'Uluw is based upon the imagination that I've
already mentioned.
Let
me give some examples that the imagination that I ascribed to the
"Salafis" is indeed what they believe:
-
The author of the "as-salaf"-website Um Abdullah - which
AmantuBillahi has used in our previous discussion! - has posted this
diagram (!!!) on the "Salafi" "ahlalhdeeth"-forum
in order to explain [the] "aboveness" [that they
("Salafis") affirm for
God]:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0QnEQlONB...od%2BAbove.jpg
Note
that the empty space or void that somehow exists even after the end
of the creation according to the imagination of these "Salafis"
and according to the diagram above is where God is in their
imagination. So in their imagination Allah ta'ala is filling up a
void - High Exalted is He above that! - and this is Tajsim according
to both mainstream Hanabila and Asha'ira!
These
"Salafis" have actually not understood what being beyond
creation - which is stated by the Hanabila regarding Allah ta'ala! -
means and that is why they have this imagination!
But
let's refer to a leading scholar of the "Salafi"
movement:
- Ibn
'Uthaymin (d.
1421 AH) said the
following regarding the meaning of Istiwa`:
ونحن
نعلم معنى الاستواء ونؤمن به ونقره، وهو
أنه سبحانه وتعالى علا عرشه واستوى عليه
علواً واستقراراً يليق
به سبحانه وتعالى، ولكننا لا نعلم كيفية
هذا الاستواء
We
know the meaning of istawa and we believe it and accept/approve it
and He subhanahu wa ta’ala is upon is His arsh and His
establishment thereupon is of aboveness and
settledness (istiqrar) Glorified
and Exalted be He. We don’t know the howness of this al-istawa’.
-
end of quote -
(Translation
taken form here: Salafis
say Allah is Settled on the Throne)
Note
that understanding Istiwa` to mean settlement (Istiqrar) is the very
imagination that I ascribed to the "Salafis" above AND
it's the very interpretation given by the famous early Mushabbih
Muqatil bin Sulayman (d. 150 AH)!
Please
refer to the Tafsir
of Muqatil bin Sulayman regarding the Aya 20:5 where
he explicitly states that Istiwa` in the Aya "means
settled [on it]"
("يعني
استقر").
There
are of course a lot more statements to show that this is the
imagination that "Salafis" (or at least their scholars!)
have regarding God, but the above should be
enough.
________
Additionally
one can also read the following article to see the weird 'Salafi"
belief of God surrounding the world:
Salafis
say Allah is Surrounding the World
And
also how the "Salafi" Mashayikh reject statements of Tanzih
whenever they find it:
Pseudo
Salafis object to Muslims declaring Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala
transcendent beyond possessing body, parts and limbs
(If
one looks into Arabic books printed by them, then one will see that
they are doing this non-stop!) [Post: #38 ] Thread page 3: Here
---
Originally
posted by AmantuBillahi
@Abu
Sulayman
Can
you show examples of other Hanbalis saying this: "because He
existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He
is as He was before creating place."
I don't disagree with
it, but it could potentially be misunderstood. Did Ibn Hamdan agree
with the Hanbalis like al-Saffarini who affirmed Allah's Istawa
bi-Dhatihi?
‘He has risen’ over His Throne, above
(fawq) the seven heavens, a rising that befits his
Essence"
https://aqeedah.wordpress.com/2006/0...and-direction/
---
Abu Sulayman :
I've
translated the statement of Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) with its
context:
Allah
ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) or a body
(Jism) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does
not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it,
rather He is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih).
Allah
is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not with a limitation [that limits
Him], rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that which
is besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and Allah is above
(fawq) [all of] that without place (Makan) or limitation (Hadd),
because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created
place and He is as He was before creating place.
He
is not known through the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to
humans and there is no entry for analogy [or comparing] (Qiyas)
regarding His essence and attributes. He has not taken a wife or a
child [for Himself], rather He's free of any needs. He's not similar
to anything and nothing is similar to Him. Whosoever attributes
similarity to Him with His creation has disbelieved. This is what
[Imam] Ahmad (d. 241 AH) stated; and the same goes regarding the one
who regards him a body. Or if someone says "He's a body unlike
[other] bodies" (Jism la kal Ajsam). This was mentioned by
al-Qadhi [Abu Ya'la] (d. 458 AH).
Imagination does not reach Him
and comprehension does not grasp Him. He's not similar to the
creation and no examples can be given in behalf of Him.
He's not
known by the sayings [of the people].
Whatever comes to the mind
or [can] be conceived by the imagination, then He is different from
that, the Lord of Majesty and Bounty.
-
end of quote -
Note
that he first declared Allah ta'ala to be transcendent from bodily
descriptions (Jism, Jawhar, 'Aradh, Hawadith, etc.) and that He's
beyond the creation and thereafter mentioned that "He
existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He
is as He was before creating place"
and thereafter he declared Allah ta'ala COMPLETELY dissimilar to the
creation and EMPHASIZED this and even mentioned the Takfir upon the
one going against this.
To
make it short: He's
affirming a non-bodily existance for Allah ta'ala and there is no way
to deny this or misunderstand this.
And:
Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) also believed in a non-bodily
existance for Allah ta'ala (explicitly stated by him in his poem
regarding creed and its commentary) and is not upon the "Salafi"
imagination of 'Uluw!
Yes,
he does refer to the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) in his
commentary a lot (i.e. much more than others), but this in order to
refute Ta`wil while at the same time disagreeing with him a lot.
As
for the understanding of Istiwa` according to Imam Ibn Hamdan, then
I've already quoted his position:
We're
certain that Allah is in the heaven (fil Sama`) and that He [is]
established upon the throne (Istawa 'ala al-Arsh) without modality
(bila kayf), and all that in the manner befitting him. We do not
interpret that nor do we explain it or ascribe modality to it or
imagine it or specify it or reject it or deny it, rather we relegate
its knowledge to Allah ta'ala.
We're
certain in denying attributing similarity (Tashbih) or attributing
corporeality (Tajsim) or any flaw and that is the ruling [to be
followed] for all verses (Ayat) concerning the [divine] attributes
and the authentic and explicit narrations.
[Imam] Ahmad
said: "We
believe that Allah is upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) as He intends
without modality (bila kayf) or a description that a describer can
reach or a limit (Hadd) that limits him."
So
whoever says that He's - with His essence - in every place or in
[some] place, then he's a disbeliever (Kafir), because this [belief]
necessitates place (Makan) to be eternal and that [Allah] is
occupying filthy places and other than them; High Exalted is Allah
above that. And this does not negate Him being in the heaven (fil
Sama`) and above the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) in the manner befitting
him, as clarified.
And the same statement applies regarding the
narration of descent (Nuzul) and other than it which has an authentic
chain and is explicit in wording, so that it's impossible to
understand it literally.
-
end of quote -
The
whole section has been translated HERE
IN THIS POST.
As
for other Hanbali scholars saying this (i.e. "because He existed
and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He
was before creating place."):
Imam
Ibn Hamdan himself refers to Imam Abu Nasr al-Sijzi (d. 444 AH) - who
is not Hanbali in Fiqh, but clearly in 'Aqida - who said exactly the
same. So this is one example from early scholars.
As
for an example from later scholars: Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH) also
affirms this in his 'Aqida work Qala`id
al-'Iqyan.
This
statement is a mainstream Hanbali view.
The
reason why I'm relying on Imam Ibn Hamdan - in this discussion - is
the following:
The
mindset of most Hanabila before the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH)
is in line with that of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) (see for
example his al-Mu'tamad and
its Mukhtasar also
by him). This includes Imam Ibn Hamdan (and Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620
AH) also).
As
for the mindset of most Hanabila after the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya, then
it's in line with that of Imam Ibn Hamdan and they regard his
work Nihayat
al-Mubtadi`in as
RELIED UPON IN CREED and refer to it and use its wording.
--------------------------------------------------
post: #40
Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
The
reason why I'm relying on Imam Ibn Hamdan - in this discussion - is
the following:
The mindset of most Hanabila before the
Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) is in line with that of al-Qadhi Abu
Ya'la (d. 458 AH) (see for example his al-Mu'tamad and
its Mukhtasar also by him). This includes Imam Ibn Hamdan
(and Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) also).
As for the mindset of
most Hanabila after the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya, then it's in line with
that of Imam Ibn Hamdan and they regard his work Nihayat
al-Mubtadi`in as RELIED UPON IN CREED and refer to it and use
its wording.
I would like to prove my above statement that the mainstream Hanbalis regard the 'Aqida work Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH) as relied upon in creed and that they use its wording in their own creed works.
One
could choose any of the main points mentioned in the book, but I
chose specifically the chapter that establishes that the reality of
the existence of Allah ta'ala is completely dissimilar to that of His
creation and that He therefore is free from any bodily descriptions
and not subject to any changes (i.e.
that the existance of the divine essence is a non-bodily one and that
Allah ta'ala is beyond space and time and that these concepts do not
apply to Him.)
Mainstream
Hanbalis: Allah is beyond space and time and His existence is a
non-bodily one
Let
us first start with the creed of al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la (d. 458 AH) and
his Hanbali predecessors as reported from his son - the Imam Ibn Abi
Ya'ala (d. 526 AH) - in his famous Tabaqat
al-Hanabila:
Whatever
comes to the mind from limitation (Hadd) or attributing similarity
(Tashbih) or attributing modality (Takyif), then Allah is glorified
and exalted above it and there is nothing like Him. He is not
described with the attributes of the creation that indicate their
temporality and that which is possible regarding them - from the
changing of one state to another - is not possible regarding
Him.
[Allah ta'ala] is not a body (Jism) or a particle (Jawhar)
or an accident ('Aradh) and has always existed and will always exist.
He's the One who can not be imagined and His attributes are not
similar to the attributes of the creation, { nothing
is like Him; and He only is the All Hearing, the All Seeing. }
[42:11].
...
So whoever believes that Allah - glory be to
Him - is a body from among the bodies (Jism min al-Ajsam) and
describes Him with the reality of a body from composition (Ta`lif)
and change [of place or state] (Intiqal), then he's a disbeliever (!)
(Kafir) because he does not know Allah - azza wa jall. For it is
impossible regarding Allah - glory be to Him - to be described with
these attributes [in reality]; and if someone does not know Allah -
glory be to Him -, then it necessitates him being a disbeliever.
-
end of quote -
(Note:
His statement regarding the Takfir upon the one who believes that God
is a body from among the bodies is found in his
book al-Mu'tamad (page
271).
In the same quote he mentions the Takfir upon the one saying "He's
a body unlike [other] bodies"
(Jism
la kal Ajsam),
while also mentioning that the latter is differed upon.)
Al-Mu'tamad
[fil Usul al-Din] (page
57)
by al-Qadhi Abu Ya'la:
It
is not allowed to describe him with being in every place or in [some]
place...
-
end of quote -
Nihayat
al-Mubtadi`in [fi Usul al-Din] (page
30-31)
by Imam Ibn Hamdan (d. 695 AH):
Allah
ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar) or an accident ('Aradh) or a body
(Jism) and temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does
not indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it,
rather He is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih).
Allah is
upon the throne ('ala al-'Arsh) not with a limitation [that limits
Him], rather the limitation is that of the throne and of that which
is besides it (or below it) [from the creation]; and Allah is above
(fawq) [all of] that without place (Makan) or limitation (Hadd),
because He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created
place and He is as He was before creating place.
He is not known
through the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to humans and
there is no entry for analogy [or comparing] (Qiyas) regarding His
essence and attributes. He has not taken a wife or a child [for
Himself], rather He's free of any needs and there is nothing that is
not in need of Him. He's not similar to anything and nothing is
similar to Him. Whosoever attributes similarity to Him with His
creation has disbelieved. This is what [Imam] Ahmad (d. 241 AH)
stated; and the same goes regarding the one who regards him a body.
Or if someone says "He's a body unlike [other] bodies"
(Jism la kal Ajsam). This was mentioned by al-Qadhi [Abu Ya'la] (d.
458 AH).
Imagination does not reach Him and comprehension does
not grasp Him. He's not similar to the creation and no examples can
be given in behalf of Him.
He's not known by the sayings [of the
people].
Whatever comes to the mind or [can] be conveived by the
imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Majesty and
Bounty.
...
We're certain in denying attributing similarity
(Tashbih) or attributing corporeality (Tajsim) or any flaw and that
is the ruling [to be followed] for all verses (Ayat) concerning the
[divine] attributes and the authentic and explicit narrations.
...
So
whoever says that He's - with His essence - in every place or in
[some] place, then he's a disbeliever (Kafir),
-
end of quote -
Al-'Ayn
wal Athar [fi 'Aqa`id Ahl al-Athar] (page
34-35)
by Imam 'Abd al-Baqi al-Mawahibi (d. 1071 AH):
It's
obligatory to be certain that Allah ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar)
or a body (Jism) or an accident ('Aradh) and temporality (Hawadith)
does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent
(Hadith) nor is He confined by it, so whoever believes or says that
Allah is - with His essence - in a place (Makan), then he's a
disbeliever (Kafir).
Rather one has to be certain that [Allah] -
subhanahu wa ta'ala - is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih), for
He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and
He is as He was before creating place.
He is not known through
the senses (Hawas) and He can not be compared to humans, for He's
free of any needs and there is nothing that is not in need of Him.
He's not similar to anything and nothing is similar to Him.
Whatever
comes to the mind or [can] be conveived by the imagination, then He
is different from that, the Lord of Bounty and Majesty.
-
end of quote -
Qala`id
al-'Iqyan [fi Ikhtisar 'Aqidat Ibn Hamdan] (page
96-97)
by Imam Ibn Balban (d. 1083 AH):
It's
obligatory to be certain that Allah ta'ala is not a particle (Jawhar)
or a body (Jism) or an accident ('Aradh) and temporality (Hawadith)
does not indwell in Him and He does not indwell in what is emergent
(Hadith) nor is He confined by it, so whoever believes or says that
Allah is - with His essence - in every place or in [some] place
(Makan), then he's a disbeliever (Kafir).
Rather one has to be
certain that He - subhanahu wa ta'ala - is beyond His creation (ba`in
min khalqih), for Allah ta'ala existed and there was no place
(Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating
place.
He is not known through the senses (Hawas) and He can not
be compared to humans and there is no entry for analogy [or
comparing] (Qiyas) regarding His essence, attributes and actions.
He
has not taken a wife or a child [for Himself], for He's free of any
needs and there is nothing that is not in need of Him.
He's not
similar to anything and nothing is similar to Him, so whoever
attributes similarity to Him with His creation has disbelieved, like
the one who believes Him - ta'ala - to be a body (Jism) or says that
"He's a body unlike [other] bodies" (Jism la kal
Ajsam).
Imagination does not reach Him and comprehension does
not grasp Him. He's not similar to the creation and no examples can
be given in behalf of Him.
He's not known by the sayings [of the
people].
Whatever comes to the mind or [can] be conveived by the
imagination, then He is different from that, the Lord of Bounty and
Majesty.
-
end of quote -
Najat
al-Khalaf [fi I'tiqad al-Salaf] (page
14)
by Imam 'Uthman al-Najdi (d. 1097 AH):
It's
obligatory to be certain that... [Allah] - glory be to Him - is not a
particle (Jawhar) or a body (Jism) or an accident ('Aradh) and
temporality (Hawadith) does not indwell in Him and He does not
indwell in what is emergent (Hadith) nor is He confined by it, so
whoever believes or says that Allah ta'ala is - with His essence - in
every place or in [some] place (Makan), then he's a disbeliever
(Kafir).
Rather one has to be certain that He - glory be to Him
- is beyond His creation (ba`in min khalqih), for Allah ta'ala
existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He
is as He was before creating place.
-
end of quote -
Al-Durra
al-Mudhiyya [fi
'Aqd Ahl al-Firqa al-Mardhiyya] (famous 'Aqida poem better known
as al-Saffariniyya) by Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH):
Our
Lord is not a particle (Jawhar) or /// an accident ('Aradh) or a body
(Jism), Exalted is He who is [Most] High
Glory be to him, He is
indeed established (Istawa) as it is found [stated in the texts] ///
without modality, He is indeed Exalted above being limited
-
end of quote -
Conclusion: The
Hanbalis after Imam Ibn Hamdan relied upon his work Nihayat
al-Mubtadi`in to the degree that they used the very wordings
used by him (in the above issue and in other than it!) in their own
works regarding creed. What is also obvious from the above quotes is
that they believed that the existance of Allah ta'ala is beyond space
and time and a non-bodily one.
PS: The statement "He existed and there was no place (Makan), then He created place and He is as He was before creating place" (which obviously means that place / space does not apply to Allah ta'ala) which is found is Nihayat al-Mubtadi`in is also stated in al-'Ayn wal Athar, Qala`id al-'Iqyan and Najat al-Khalaf as quoted above (and also in other works).
---
continue to the next page 4 Here
---
(Edited by ADHM)
