The tafweed of the Salaf?

[abu bakr]

brother omar said the following:


The school of the vast majority of the Salaf and some of the scholars of kalam holds that we must believe in their reality according to what befits Allah Almighty and Exalted, but that the literal import we commonly apply to ourselves is not meant, nor do we say anything to interpret them figuratively, believing firmly that Allah is utterly transcendent above the properties of contingence (huduth).

now this definition is very close if not identical to how we the salafis interpret the attributes of allah swt. this is how imam ibn taymiyah and other scholars interpretd the atrtributes of allah swt by beleving in them having faiht in them but leaving the modality(howness) to allah swt and we not do not say that his attributes are like his creation. mashalah brother omar u have hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!

[Yahya]

this is how imam ibn taymiyah and other scholars interpretd the atrtributes of allah swt by beleving in them having faiht in them but leaving the modality(howness) to allah swt and we not do not say that his attributes are like his creation. mashalah brother omar u have hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!
:salam:
Sure, that's what the so-called Salafis say. But it's not what they do. A person who was really following this practice would not state ANY meaning for those ayahs.

But in fact, the so-called Salafis DO assign a specific meaning to those ayahs. You can tell in their translations. Consult an English translation of the Qur'an's meaning. You will find that they translate "wajh" as face, and "saaq" as shin, and "yad" as hand, etc. If they truly believed there was no "how" to these ayahs, then they would have used the Arabic word in the English translation, and they would have refused to assign a meaning to it. Rather, they would have added a note: "This ayah has a meaning that befits Allah, and we object to any likening of Allah to His creation."

But what do the so called Salafis do? They choose. Out of all of the possible meanings for wajh, they choose the one meaning that ascribes parts to Allah, and this ultimately leads to ascribing a body, and limits, to Allah subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa, and clearly such an interpretation does not befit Allah.

[Yahya]

Furthermore, taking "wajh" to mean "face" is quite obviously against the salaf. For example, Imam al-Bukhari (rahimahullah) was a member of as-salaf (he lived during the first 3 blessed centuries of this nation). And Imam al-Bukhari, in his book as-Saheeh, in the portion dealing with tafseer, in his tafseer of surat al-Qasas, specifically states that "wajh" means "mulk," or dominion.

If the so-called Salafis believe ta'weel to be misguidance, then why do they hold Imam al-Bukhari's book as trustworthy? And if they themselves are trustworthy, why don't they translate into English this statement of al-Bukhari? Instead, my Darussalaam version of Saheeh al-bukhari, merely translates the ayah (using FACE!) and quite simply doesn't translate al-Bukhari's explanation that it means dominion. It is exceedingly dishonest to claim, via translation, that al-Bukhari regarded its meaning to be "face."

[abu bakr]

Imam abu hanifah said the following:

He (Allah) has a Hand, a Face and a Self, as Allah the Most High mentioned in the Qur'an. So whatever Allah the Most High mentioned in the Qur'an concerning the Face, and Hand and the Self, then they are His Attributes without Kaif (asking the nature of the attributes), and it is not said that His Hand means His power or bounty, for this is the denial of His Attribute, and this is the statement of the people of al-Qadr (those who deny the predestination - al-Qadariyah) and al-I'tizaal (the rationalists - al-Mu'tazilah).

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.302]

so imam abu hanifah has used the term face and other attributes.

[Mossy]

Imam Abu Hanifa didn't speak English bro..

[Yahya]

He (Allah) has a Hand, a Face and a Self, as Allah the Most High mentioned in the Qur'an.

so imam abu hanifah has used the term face and other attributes.
Thank you brother Mossy!!

Not only did Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) NOT speak English, but the Qur'an also is NOT in English! Therefore, Allah did NOT attribute Himself with a hand, or a face in the Qur'an. Rather He stated that He has a "yad" and a "wajh."

These terms are ambiguous. According to the Classical Arabic Language there is more than one thing that it can mean. For example, "wajh" is also used in the Qur'an with the meaning of "direction." In total, it has more than 5 different meanings (I don't remember the exact number). And the majority of as-salaf, who recognized that the words have multiple meanings, and who were unsure as to which one of the meanings was intended by Allah (swt), would say "I believe whatever Allah intended by it." And what they meant was, 'this could mean several different things, among those possible meanings are some that befit Allah, and some that might not. I reject every possible meaning that does not befit Allah. And as for the remaining possibilities that would befit Allah, I believe the one that Allah intended, and I will not state which meaning that is.'

This is how they chose to follow the ayah which means "Allah is the one who sent down to the Prophet the Book which contains muhkam ayahs (which only have one possible meaning), which are the foundation of the Book, and other ayahs which are mutashaabih (ambiguous). But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is (mutashaabih), seeking discord, and searching for its ta'weel, but no one knows its ta'weel except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding." [al Imran: 7]

So you should take from this ayah several things:
1- the "Men of Understanding" will grasp the meaning of the Qur'an. Therefore we can trust the great scholars of Islam, none of whom said what the so called salafis say (until ibn taymiya).

2- those in whose hearts is perversity will base their creed on these ambiguous verses instead of basing it on the clear muhkam verses. The so called salafis of today base their aqeedah on these ambiguous verses and ultimately have attributed to Allah parts and a location, both of which are limits. And Allah subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa is clear of limits. Meanwhile, the Ash'aris and Maturidis base their aqeedah on the clear, muhkam verses, like "laysa kamithlihi shay'" and "wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan 'ahad." These muhkam verses teach us not to draw any comparisons between Allah and His creation, and that includes not ascribing to Allah a place or a direction, because the created things are in places and in directions.

3- lastly, Allah states clearly that these verses DO have a ta'weel. None know it but Allah, and the men of understanding who will grasp its meaning. Therefore, you cannot claim that it is haram or deviant to make ta'weel. Rather you should claim that it's inappropriate for US (people who are not men of understanding) to make ta'weel. People like us should simply accept the ta'weel of the men of understanding. And if you don't want to do that, then be like those of as-salaf who flat out refused to state a meaning of any kind for those verses.

[Abul Hasan]

Imam abu hanifah said the following:

He (Allah) has a Hand, a Face and a Self, as Allah the Most High mentioned in the Qur'an. So whatever Allah the Most High mentioned in the Qur'an concerning the Face, and Hand and the Self, then they are His Attributes without Kaif (asking the nature of the attributes), and it is not said that His Hand means His power or bounty, for this is the denial of His Attribute, and this is the statement of the people of al-Qadr (those who deny the predestination - al-Qadariyah) and al-I'tizaal (the rationalists - al-Mu'tazilah).

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.302]

so imam abu hanifah has used the term face and other attributes.


Ya Abu Bakr - if only the Fiqh al-Akbar attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa was in more than 300 pages! More like that reference is probably the Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar of Mullah Ali al-Qari (d. 1014 AH)!

As for what you cut and pasted here - it is from the unreliable "Salafi" - Muhammad bin Abdur-Rahmaan al-Khumayis!

We have already mentioned here:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6245

How the Ahnaf understand such attributed quotes to the great Imam. Let us quote the relevant bit:


Fakhr al-Islām Abū al-H.asan ‘Alī ibn Muh.ammad al-Pazdawi (d. 482) said in his Us.ūl: “For us [Māturīdīs], (those who are firmly grounded in knowledge) (3:7) have no share in the knowledge of the ambiguous content of Qur’ān (al-mutashābih) other than pure acquies*cence (al-taslīm), believing in the real nature of the meaning (haqqiyyat al-murād) in Allāh’s presence and that the pause at His saying: (None knows its explanation save Allāh) (3:7) is required (waqf wājib). The Peo*ple of Belief belong to one of two levels in knowledge: some over-zealously demand that it be read without pause – those are tested with a form of ignorance – and some demand the pause – those are honored with a form of knowledge…. An ex*ample of the ambiguous verses are the individual letters that open certain suras. An*other ex*ample is the affir*mation of Allāh’s vision with the sight of the eyes in reality in the hereafter, according to the explicit text of the Qur’ān: (On that day will faces be resplendent, looking towards their Lord) (75:22-23). For He exists with the At*tribute of perfection, and the fact that He can be seen both by Himself and others, is among the characteristics of perfection; moreover, the believer is apt to receive such bestowal of Allāh’s gift. However, the affirma*tion of direction is precluded (ithbāt al-jiha mumtani‘). It fol*lows that the description of the vision is among the ambiguities, ans so it is obliga*tory to acquiesce to it while believing in its reality. Similarly, the affirmation of the Hand and the Face are real (ithbāt al-yad wa al-wajh haqq) in our school, known in its principle but ambiguous in its description (ma‘lūmun bi aslihi mutashābihun bi wasfihi).[1] It will not be permitted to invalidate the principle on the grounds that one is unable to comprehend the descrip*tion. The Mu‘tazila went astray only in this re*spect, for they rejected the principles because of their ignorance of the Attributes – they became nullifiers-of-the-Attributes (mu‘at*tila).” In ‘Ala’ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī’s (d. 730) com*mentary on al-Pazdawi’s Us.ūl enti*tled Kashf al-Asrār (1:55-60). ‘Ala’ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī com*ments: (1:60) “By saying: ‘For us,’ the Shaykh shunned the position of those who say: ‘Allāh is not to be de*scribed as possessing a face and hands, rather, what is meant by the face is con*tent*ment (al-ridā) or the Es*sence (al-dhāt) and the like; and what is meant by the hand is power or favor and the like.’ The Shaykh therefore said: Rather, Allāh is described with the At*tribute of Face and that of Hand, together with the upholding of His Tran*scendence (tanzīh) above having a form (sūra) and a limb (jāriha)…. Similarly with the affirmation of modality (ithbāt al-kayfiyya): its description is ambiguous, there*fore it is obligatory to acqui*esce to it, firmly believing in its reality without busying oneself with interpretation.”




I have attached a good and to the point radd on some of the claims of your "authority" - Mr Khumayis - so look to the PDF file - and then also look to what we posted under here:


http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5916 -

for Ibn Qudama on Tafweed and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal also!

Then also read:


http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6246


And for Imam Malik's way: Then look here:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6248 -

and read the arabic carefully and see what the Golden One: Imam al-Dhahabi said about Tafweed!

Also look here how at least 5 Imams affirmed that Imam Malik most likely made Ta'wil of Nuzul:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59516#post59516

You ignored the quotes we put up on Nuzul - and then moved onto something you don't really understand when it came to the Way of Imam Malik on the Sifat of Allah, Istiwa, negation of Istiqrar (see the Ibn Abdal Barr thread for a quote from Imam Malik on this) and Nuzul.


Finally, look out for more stuff from us on Tafweed as found in Fath al-Bari of Imam Ibn Hajar al Asqalani and others - Insha'Allah.

----------


Abul Hasan

[Yahya]

[COLOR=Blue][SIZE=3][FONT=Garamond]Ya Abu Bakr - if only the Fiqh al-Akbar attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa was in more than 300 pages! More like that reference is probably the Sharh Fiqh al-Akbar of Mullah Ali al-Qari (d. 1014 AH)!Yeah really! Al-Fiqh al-akbar is more like a pamphlet than a book of 300 pages!

[Abul Hasan]

Yeah really! Al-Fiqh al-akbar is more like a pamphlet than a book of 300 pages!


That's what i meant Ya akhi - :lol:

[abu bakr]

i have to say you people are ignorant of the truth it is not possible to have a fair debate with u guyz since u have deleted my posts and u cant face that you are wrong.

[Mossy]

i have to say you people are ignorant of the truth it is not possible to have a fair debate with u guyz since u have deleted my posts and u cant face that you are wrong.

Your post was moved into a seperate thread to facilitate debate :)

We're not that close minded ;)