The REAL Hanbali Creed - not the pseudo-Salafi Creed

[faqir]

"This book of Imam Al-Safarini is the same book where he writes that the saved sect is Ahl Al-Sunnah and that it includes three schools: the Athariyah (the followers of Imam Ahmad), the Ash`ariyah (the followers of Abi Al-Hasn Al-Ash`ari), and the Maturidiyah (the followers of Abi Al-Mansur Al-Maturidi). The defense of his position is that these three schools all follow the same methodology, namely that of Ahl Al-Hadith."

The book of Imam al-Safarini (d 1188 AH) being referred to is Lawami` Al-Anwar Al-Bahiyah


Books of athari approach that are both well known and more likely to be palatable to Ash`aris and Maturidis include:

• the various transmitted accounts of Imam Ahmad's `aqidah, as reported in Tabaqat Al-Hanabilah

• Al-Ajuri's Kitab Al-Shar`iyah (a Shafi`i)

• Ibn Qudamah's Lam`ut Al-`Itiqad with Dhamm Al-Ta'wil

• Al-Hafiz `Abd Al-Ghani Al-Maqdisi's Al-Iqtisad Fi-l-`Itiqad

• Ibn Balban's works, such as the one found in Mukhtasir Al-Ifadat

• Al-Safarini's work (previously mentioned) "


Elsewhere responding to the question: "What is the meaning of the lafdh 'bila kayf' according to the Atharis? Does it entail that Allah has no kayfiyya (like the Ash'aris), or that his kayfiyya is unknown (like the Salafis)?" Sidi Musa Furber says:



A
Wa `alaykum al-salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

This topic has been covered in English in far more detail than is needed. The `aqida found in short primers such as Imam al-Tahawi's al-`Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah and Imam al-Ghazali's `Aqidat al-`Awwam, is what each and every Muslim needs to know in preparing for the grave. For the vast majority of us, anything in addition to the above is likely to fall under the category of harmful knowledge—right next to witchcraft.

Imam al-Saffarini wrote in his al-Durrah al-Madiyyah, a well known manzumah of Hanbali `aqidah:

مِنْ غَيْرِ كَيْفٍ قَدْ تَعالى أَنْ يُحَدّْ


سُبْحانَهُ قَد اسْتوى كَما وَرَدْ

Sublime is He! He established Himself just as He mentioned, * without modality—Exalted is He from being limited!

كَذا لا يَنْفَكُّ عَنْ صِفاتِهِ


فَلا يُحِيطُ عِلْمُنا بِذاتِهِ

So our knowledge does not encompass His essence, * just as He is not separated from His attributes.



The language is sufficiently clear that there is no reason to provide more commentary.

And Allah knows best.

Wa al-salamu `alaykum,
--Musa

[faqir]

Does one have to be Ashari or Maturidi?

www.sunnipath.com



Assalamu alaikum,

It is obligatory for every morally responsible person to believe that which is correct. The correct Sunni belief is that which these two great schools are on. Beliefs that contradict that which these two schools hold are unacceptable. Following one of these two schools is a means towards correct belief. So, whoever has a correct belief, is on guidance, even if they don't say or know that they are Ashari or Maturidi. And whoever says they are Ashari or Maturidi but have beliefs that do not correspond to the guidance of these schools is, to the extent of their deviation from their guidance, astray from the truth.


Historically, we find many Hanbalis who were not Ashari or Maturidi, but whose beliefs were simple yet sound, and did not fall into anthropomorphism.


Where does the Aqidah Tahawiyya fall in?

The Tahawiyya itself is a simple statement of Sunni belief. It is so simple that it is consistent with both Maturidi and Ashari aqida. Imam Subki mentioned that it differs with the Ashari school only on three very minor, subtle points. It is closer yet to the Maturidi school, for it is very much a Hanafi-influenced theological school, and Imam Tahawi was transmitting the Sunni beliefs of Abu Hanifa and
his companions (Allah be well pleased with them), as he mentions in his introduction.

Because of its simplicity, every school interprets the Tahawiyya according to its understanding. That is why we have Sunni commentaries, and literalist "Salafi" commentaries, in both recent times and old.

But this is also a valid path, especially for the common man: to hold fast to the basic beliefs of Sunni aqida, as represented by a reliable outline (such as the Tahawiyya, or Imam Ghazali's text that is in the Reliance), without delving into the details of the science of aqida. But, at the end of the day, "Are those who know like those who do not?" In times when there are all sorts of attacks on the bases of our belief, and on faith in general, it helps to understand the principles and bases of our belief, so that we have a solid foundation for our iman. This is not sufficient, however, for it is only like good soil. Unless there are good seeds (following the Sacred Law) and nourishment (righteous deeds, especially the worship and remembrance of Allah), then one's iman will remain weak and susceptible to dangers.

And Allah alone gives success.

Wassalam,
Faraz Rabbani

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00000866.aspx

[faqir]

:salam:



Assalamu alaykum , does anyone know what the view of the Orthodox Hanbali Ulema was of Imam al- Barbaharee's works on Aqeedah which are being promoted by the Salafis?






as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,

Noble brother,

Thank you for your interest. As far as Imaam al-Barbahaari's RH works, they are not depended upon by the Hanbali scholars for use in matters of textual debate, be it in fiqh or creed. The things that have been transmitted from him are not unbroken in their transmission, nor was he an individual from the Hanbalis who did not have some controversy surrounding his name.

The dependable Hanbali works in creed are:

Lum`at ul-I`tiqaad by Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Din

al-I`tiqaad by Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Din

ad-Durar al-Bahiyyah by Imaam as-Saffaarini

Kitaab ush-Shari`a by Imaam Abu Bakr al-Aajuri

Said ul-Khaatir by Imaam Ibn al-Jawzi

al-Iqtisaad fil-I`tiqaad by Imaam al-Maqdisi

This is not the whole list, but the main texts that are usually referred to for usage.

The others (like the one you mentioned) are either partially transmitted where there are gaps in the text and it is not contiguous, or they are not reliable sources that have been agreed upon.

Also, in Tabaqaat ul-Hanaabilah, V. 2, he is not presented in the most favourable light, due to some creedal problems that he had and which culminated in problems with the Muslims of Baghdaad, in addition to others. We praise Allah for his knowledge but we have to be able to have texts that have come to us without any break and his works are not one of them.

Salafis tend to try to use obscure texts that appear to support (or can be interpreted to support) their peculiar brand of Islam as taught to them by their theologians. It is for this reason that one must take caution and adhere to things that are mass transmitted.

And with Allah is every success,

was-Salaam,

brother in Islam

www.htspub.com

[faqir]

Asalamu alaykum,

Just so that we are on our guard, the "pseudo-salafis" have [mis]"translated" some books from the Hanbali theologians such as Lam'ut al-Itiqaad of Ibn Qudamah [see al-ibaanah site]

Anyway, here is what Sidi Abu Ja'far had to say about that translation:






Assalamu alaykyum,

Is the following translation considered reliable by HTS?

................................





Noble brother,

Thank you for your post and the information. Research is presently underway on what you have provided. It would be good if the Lum`ah was in English and easily readable, but however it is not.

The translation presented to us seems to have some insertions put into the translation of certain passages of pp. 5,6 and 15 which are not consonant with text itself nor the other statements of the Mufti on matters connected with the Attributes of Allah and affairs of the unseen. For example, please see his statement of commentary on Surah Aali `Imraan, ayah 7:

So their words, ‘We believe in it,’ are proof of a type of tafwid and submission to something that they were not able to know its’ meaning.

Rawdat un-Naazir wa Junnat ul-Manaazir, V. 1, pp. 215-217

If one should read the passage above and then look through the work on creed that he has written in its' Arabic, it will seem that the book presented to us in translation is either by another author, or perhaps the translation has not been done in the manner of looking at his full methodology in creed from all of his books so that cross-referencing could be done effectively.

Insha'allah, HTS is aiming to alleviate these problems and have translations that are reliable and trustworthy. Please pray for us and ask Allah to make our mission successful. And with Allah is every success.

was-Salaam,

brother in Islam

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

Almost all books of the Hanabilah on Creed are excellent works, especially the one you mentioned:

al-Lawami' al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah, whose author - 'Allama al-Saffarini (rahimahullah)- quotes continually from the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, calling them 'Shaykh al-Islam' & 'Muhaqqiq al-Din' in many passages. He quotes also with approval and confirmation from Aqidat al-Hamawiyyah and other Rasa'il of Ibn Taymiyyah.

I've mentioned elsewhere the most important creeds of the Hanabilah - incl. of course the creeds of Imam Ahmad which are mentioned in the Tabaqat of Ibn Abi Ya'la (rahimahullah).

It surprises me that he says that Sayd al-Khatir of Ibn al-Jawziy is a dependable work for Aqidah - while it isn't even a credal work at all! - and you copy it as such WITHOUT HAVING SEEN THE WORK well its well-known that in it he attacked Imam Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari (rahimahullah)...

It would be better to read those works first before cutting your own hands.

[faqir]

cutting your own hands

[clip]

In any case, thank you for your input. Sidi Abu Ja'far can be contacted via the "contact us" link at www.htspub.com

[faqir]

Other related articles:



On the scholar: Ibn al-Jawzi [RH]

http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/ibn_aljawzi.htm


Was Imam Ahmad [RH] an anthropomorphist as alleged by the "salafis"?

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq5.htm



.

[Abul Hasan]

Almost all books of the Hanabilah on Creed are excellent works, especially the one you mentioned:

al-Lawami' al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah, whose author - 'Allama al-Saffarini (rahimahullah)- quotes continually from the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, calling them 'Shaykh al-Islam' & 'Muhaqqiq al-Din' in many passages. He quotes also with approval and confirmation from Aqidat al-Hamawiyyah and other Rasa'il of Ibn Taymiyyah.

I've mentioned elsewhere the most important creeds of the Hanabilah - incl. of course the creeds of Imam Ahmad which are mentioned in the Tabaqat of Ibn Abi Ya'la (rahimahullah).

It surprises me that he says that Sayd al-Khatir of Ibn al-Jawziy is a dependable work for Aqidah - while it isn't even a credal work at all! - and you copy it as such WITHOUT HAVING SEEN THE WORK well its well-known that in it he attacked Imam Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari (rahimahullah)...

It would be better to read those works first before cutting your own hands.

May be you - Oh "Moulay Abdallah al-Ghuzayli"/"Sharif Abu Ja'far"/"Ibn Abi Yala" - can affirm or deny this quote from al-Safarini, and if it is their, explain how the pseudo-Salafi Shuyukh like: Ibn Uthaymin (who also claimed to be Hanbali when it suited him) deny that the Asha'ira and Maturidiyya are from Ahlus Sunna when it comes to the Sifat of Allah.


قال العلامة محمد بن أحمد السفاريني الحنبلي في لوامع الأنوار البهية (ص73
أهل السنة والجماعة ثلاث فرق : الأثرية : وإمامهم أحمد بن حنبل رحمه الله تعالى ، والأشعرية : وإمامهم أبو الحسن الأشعري رحمه الله تعالى ، والماتريدية : وإمامهم
أبو منصور الماتريدي

Since you are still here, why have you failed to answer the questions that I asked you a few days ago: Where is the Sahih Asanid to the Maqalat and the Ibana? Do you believe that Allah's Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) will be literally seated on the Arsh next to Allah - as al-Khallal (and those he named in al-Sunna), al-Marwazi, al-Barbahari, Ibn Batta, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim all affirmed in their aqeeda?! Where is the Sahih Marfu dalil for this point of aqeeda oh you who claim to be on the Way of the Sahaba in Aqeeda?!

Secondly, go ahead and quote the credal points that Ibn al Jawzi mentioned in his Sayd al Khatir - for i have seen some of your compatriots call him a Jahmi based on what he said in this book (like the infamous: Mahmud Haddad - whose followers burnt Fath al Bari of Imam ibn Hajar).

You have expressed some sort of admiration for Ibn Aqil - because he wasn't pro-Ash'ari. So go ahead and quote to us what another one of your favourite Hanbali Imams: Ibn Qudama - had to say about him in his Tahrim al Nazar.

How about quoting what Ibn Taymiyya and ibn Rajab in the Dhayl Tabaqat al Hanabila had to say about ibn Aqil's methodology on issues like the Sifat of Allah.

Or how about you mentioning the fact that ibn Aqil was forced to repent for praising al-Hallaj?!

Or how about you mentioning another one of your "Shaykhs of Islam" - Abdullah al-Ansari and his view on Hallaj's aqeeda, and how he agrees with him?! How about al-Ansari's shaykh Yahya ibn Ammar and the issue with ibn Hibban?!

Or how about the fact that Ibn al Jawzi in the Daf Shubuh al-Tashbih/Baz al Ash-hab/Akhbar al-Sifat - also quotes Ibn Aqil to re-inforce his interpretation of narrations linked to the Sifat of Allah etc...


What is the difference here between Ibn al Jawzi and the mainstream Ash'aira when it comes to the contents of Daf Shubuh al Tashbih?! The Daf has reached us via Asanid containing Asha'ira like Imam ibn Hajar al Asqalani.

Is ibn al Jawzi not a Jahmi to you, or is he just mistaken? The likes of ibn al Althi were very harsh on him!

Or how about you mentioning Ibn Qudama's views on Tafweed al-Ma'na in his Luma and elsewhere - and what contemporary pseudo-Salafiyya like Muhammad ibn Ibrahim (teacher of ibn Baz) and Abdur Razzaq al-Afifi had to say about this view of ibn Qudama?!


Finally, i have never come across any Ash'ari Imam deny that Imam al Ash'ari authored the Ibana, rather it is by him, but albeit it has been sent down the centuries after him in various tampered paragraphs. In fact, al-Bayhaqi knew of it - but tell us all here why - if the issue of Aynayn was truly mentioned by al-Ash'ari - then why did Imam al Bayhaqi not affirm this in his al-Asma wal Sifat or his I'tiqad?! Tell us why Imam al Bayhaqi - the Hafiz of Hadith didn't affirm aynayn?! While you are at it - may be you can also tell us why claimants to Hanabila like: Bin Baz and al-Afifi had negative comments to make about the named books of al-Bayhaqi?!


Why remain sillent on al-Ahwazi's story that the Hanabila like al Barbahari allegedly refused the Ibana of Imam al Ash'ari?! As found in Tabaqat al Hanabili and Siyar of al-Dhahabi under the entry to Barbahari! If this story be true, why is it that the early Hanabila refused to accept the Ibana, but the likes of ibn Taymiyya acknowledge its contents?

The stories you have written so far are not thorough enough and only mention what you think are palatable for your ilk to absorb, since you are writing with a pre-conceived bias to continue the ways of contemporary pseudo-Salafism. You leave too many un-answered questions that only those with a bit more know than the average pseudo-Salafi are capable of discovering via independent thought and reading!

Watch out for proof of Tahreef from your Imams soon - Insha'allah!

[faqir]

*Is There An "Athari" Aqida?*
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:

Sidi Musa Furber, in one of his articles, mentioned that the Sunni
aqida
consists of either the Maturidi, Ash'ari, or Athari
["transmission-based"] school.
Yet the majority of Sunni scholars seem to limit aqida to the Ash'ari
and Maturidi schools.
What is the Sunni position vis a vis the Athari/Hanbali creed?

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



*In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate*

May Allah's peace and blessings be upon His Messenger Muhammad, his
folk, companions, and followers



Walaikum assalam wa rahmatullah,



Shaykh Musa is a scholar of understanding, and what he said is sound:
Hanbali scholars (and many of the scholars of hadith) avoided delving
into extensive theological speculation, and also avoided entering into
purely rational discussions of matters related to beliefs. Rather,
their discussion and presentation of beliefs revolved around the primary
texts of the Qur'an and Sunna.

This is not at variance with what the scholars mention when they say
that Sunni aqida is the aqida of the Asharis and Maturidis: what is
meant is /what/ the Asharis and Maturidis believe, not /how/ this is
presented, argued, or defended. When the aqida of others is sound by
these broad methodological standards, the Asharis and Maturidis would
counsider it sound beliefs; otherwise, they would criticize those
points of belief or the underlying precepts that are unsound.

As for the criticism that some major Hanbalis held beliefs that smacked
of anthropomorphism ['representation of God as having human form or
traits'], this is true but unfair: it is also true that some Shafiis
had such beliefs, and some were Mutazili rationalists; the same is also
true of the Hanafi school. However, what matters is the general case
(al-`ibra li'l ghalib), and the overwhelming majority of Hanbalis had
sound beliefs, as is the case in the other schools.

It is from the unfortunate attacks against the edifice of Sunni Islam
that people pick on minor cases or rare historical incidents (like the
occasional periods of inter-madhhab dispute) and try to generalize
these into a history of discord whose existence is solely in their creative
imaginations. Reality, for those who seek it, is that there was a
remarkable unity that was based on a foundation of acceptance of
difference of opinion within the limits; and a wisdom and pragmatism
that avoided /fitna/ with those whose ways diverged from the sound path
of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and his
inheritors, the scholars of Sunni Islam.

And Allah alone gives success.

Faraz Rabbani

www.sunnipath.com