faqir
15-06-2005, 11:10 PM
Asalamu alaykum,
Sidi Abul Hasan [May Allah swt reward him] mentioned here http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56571&postcount=101 the following useful information on the stance of two of the major Hanbali Ulema - Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn Aqil:
Shaykh Abul Qasim al-Ansari (d. 512 AH) in his Sharh al-Irshad (folio 112) quoted al-Baqillani as saying:
“I do not think that taqleed has any valid function in the fundamentals of Tawhid; what is to be followed is the rationally probative evidence, not the companion’s of one’s Madhhab.”
Using this statement will cause us to choose the Haqq, even if a man like al-Baqillani was to affirm “two eyes” for Allah using rationale alone, as there is no direct evidence to affirm “two eyes” for Allah, but mere conjecture.
Let us quote two of the Hanabila that are not admired by many of those on your path when it comes to the Sifat of Allah. You may say they are no authorities for you on this issue, but there opinion can not be rejected if it is the Haqq. The first is al-Hafiz ibn al-Jawzi, whose Daff Shubuh al-Tashbih is only rejected by a handful of Hanabila, where as those Sunni Imams like Shaykh Zakariyya al-Ansari and his teacher: Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and his two teachers: Hafiz Nurud-Din al-Haythami and Hafiz Zaynud-Din al-Iraqi all transmitted Ibn al Jawzi’s book and not one of them is on record in rejecting or disparaging its contents.
The second is Abul Wafa Ibn Aqil the polymath who is said to have compiled Kitab al-Funun in some 700 volumes. Your colleagues try to make out that ibn al Jawzi and ibn Aqil were at times anti-Ash’ari, and in doing so apply this divertory tactic in order to divert the reality of the aqeeda of the deviance of the likes of these three Hanabila: Abu Ya’la, Ibn Hamid and al-Zaghunui!
If Imam al-Ash’ari and his school were truly believers in the concept of “two eyes” for Allah, I have no doubt that Ibn al Jawzi would have attacked them for this, as well as his predecessor: Ibn Aqil.
Hafiz Ibn al Jawzi in his Kitab Akhbar al-Sifat (Swartz edition) quotes Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) as saying:
“Do not ascribe attributes to God except by reference to the Qur’an or to reliable reports, that is, reports based on the Qur’an or prophetic sayings whose genuineness is beyond question. What is in conflict with these (two sources) should not be ascribed (to God) or should be interpreted (yuta’awwal) in accordance with the principles (usul) agreed upon by competent authorities (ahl al-ilm), along with a rejection of anthropomorphism (tashbih)…”
In his Ma‘alim al-Sunan he stated, concerning the narrations of the divine Attributes:
The people of our time have split into two parties. The first [the Mu‘tazila and their sub-groups] altogether disavow this kind of hadith and declare them forged outright. This implies their giving the lie to the scholars who have narrated them, that is, the imams of our religion and the transmitters of the Prophetic ways, and the intermediaries between us and Allah’s Messenger. The second party [the anthropomorphists] give their assent to the narrations and apply their outward meanings literally in a way bordering anthropomorphism. As for us we steer clear from both views, and accept neither as our school. It is therefore incumbent upon us to seek for these hadiths, when they are cited and established as authentic from the perspectives of transmission and attribution, an interpretation (ta’wîl) derived according to the known meanings of the foundations of the Religion and the schools of the scholars, without rejecting the narrations outright, as long as their chains are acceptable and narrators trustworthy.
Ibn al Jawzi in Akhbar al-Sifat said (point 40):
“In the same category are the following verses: ‘…In order that you might be reared under My (watchful) eyes.’ And ‘build an ark under Our eyes.’ The expression ‘Under Our eyes’ is taken by (some) exegetes to mean ‘under our command’ (amr)’, and by others to mean ‘under Our oversight (mar’an minna).’ Abu Bakr b. al-Anbari pointed out that among the Arabs the plural (pronoun) is sometimes used even when the referent is singular; hence, one may say: ‘We travelled to Basra (when one really means ‘I travelled to Basra’).’ This use of the plural derives from the practice of kings who are in the habit of saying ‘our command’ or ‘our prohibition.’ The Qadi (Abu Ya’la) maintained that ‘eye’ is an attribute added to the divine essence (za’ida ala dh-dhat). Already before him Abu Bakr b. Khuzayma said, in connection with the above verses: ‘Our Lord has two eyes by which He sees.” Ibn Hamid said: ‘We must believe that God has two eyes.’ This view, however, is an innovation for which there is no justification in scripture. (Champions of this view) attribute two eyes to God only through a kind of inferential reason (Dalil al-Khitab) based on the Prophet’s (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) statement: ‘He is not one eyed.’ These words, however, were meant only to deny that imperfection of any sort can be ascribed to God….”
In points 217-219, ibn al Jawzi said:
In the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim there is a tradition from Anas b. Malik in which it is reported that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said while discussing (the signs of) the Antichrist (dajjal): “He will have one eye (a’war), but your Lord is not one-eyed.”
The Ulama maintain that the chief aim of this saying is to assert that God cannot be described in any way that might imply imperfection, for being one-eyed is obviously an indication of imperfection. The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) did not mean to ascribe to God bodily organs, for there is nothing praiseworthy in the attribution of such to God.
Ibn Aqil said: “The ill informed sometimes assume that since (the Prophet) denied that God is one eyed He meant to establish by a kind of inferential reason (dalil al-khitab) that God has two eyes. This is a serious misunderstanding (of the saying), for by denying that God is one-eyed (the Prophet) merely intended to negate (the possibility of) imperfection in Him….
So anyway, on the topic of eye, dual eyes and plural eyes as none of us here [to my knowledge are Hanbalis] I recently sought the clarification of Sidi Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali [of the Hanbali Text Society] on the position of the Hanbali theologians on this issue.
Whilst I do not really consider myself a Hanbali as such I thought it would be interesting to share our discussion.
Here is Sid Abu Ja’far’s initial reply to my query on the position of his school:
as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
Noble brother,
Thank you for your question and may Allah reward you. With regard to the question that you asked, there is no mu`tamad position held by the Hanbali theologians with regard to Allah having an attribute called two eyes. Some have resorted to quoting the Imaams Ibn ul-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah, however they are neither mu`tamad nor even a raajih in creed unless they are agreeing with or concurring on a point that the Hanaabilah accept and then feel fit to use them for in terms of quoting.
Those who would assert two eyes as an attribute of Allah take the hadith that occurs in Sahih Muslim in which the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said,
'The Dajjal is A`war and your Lord is not A`war.'
This has wrongly been translated into English as one-eyed, which would mean that he only has one eye. This has led to some people believing that visually he is a cyclops and has one giant eye in the middle of his forehead. This is incorrect. It has been confirmed in a hadith in Jaami` us-Saghir from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him that the Dajjal has green eyes, in the plural, which would mean that he has two eyes, like the rest of the human race, which he belongs to and is born into as a child.
The issue of the word A`war has to do with the fact that a`war means to have a damaged eye or to be deprived of vision in an eye. This would mean flawed. The Orthodox theologians understood the hadith in question in Sahih Muslim to mean that Allah, Glorified and Exalted, has no faults, which a`war would be and that the word eyes used in the plural form in the Qur'an is indeed an attribute of Allah, but not a limb or organ and we consign knowledge of what Allah means by this _expression back to Him, for He knows best what he means. This principle is tafwid. Thus those that would use the hadith in Sahih Muslim are copying the two Imaams mentioned and have made a mistake to try to derive an attribute for Allah from a hadith about a false god. Let the one with wisdom be careful and stay with the first three generations.
Therefore, let us use care when discussing these matters. You held the right understanding in remaining skeptical when people make such assertions without a definite text. The attributes of Allah are not derived or insinuated from the Qur'an and Hadith, they are mentioned therein in which we know them to be the case. I hope that this answered your question.
I proceeded to quote Sidi Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali a statement provided by Ibn Abi Ya’la on Ahya forums from Imam al-Saffarini whereby Ibn Abi Ya’la stated in the thread he named:
“Ask Pseudo-Hanbali Text society about…”
What 'Allama Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Saffarini al-Hanbali said about Allah's Eyes..
He says in his commentary of his own Creed,
"{Fa-sa'ir al-Sifat wa'l-Af'al - Qadimat Allah Dhi'l-Jalal}.. [fa-sa'ir al-sifat] of the Essence (al-dhatiyyah), from the Life, the Power, the Will, the Hearing, the Seeing, the Knowledge, the Speech, and other then them, and the rest of all the Sifat of Report (sifat al-khabariyyah), from the Face, and the Two Hands, and the Foot, and the Two Eyes (al-wajh wa'l-yadayn wa'l-qadam wa'l-'aynayn) and their like.."
See p. 216, line 5f, of Lawa'ih al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah wa-Sawati' al-Asrar al-Athariyyah - the Sarh of his Durra al-Mudiyyah fi 'Aqd al-Firqa al-Mardiyyah - 2 vol. Cairo edition of 1323-4)
as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
Noble brother,
Thank you for your e-mail and may Allah reward you. Imaam as-Saffaarini's creed is the mu`tamad text in the Hanbali creedal foundations. However the quotes are out of context. The Hanbali theologians put the Attributes of Allah in three categories,
a) Sifaat ul-Fi`l, those Attributes where Allah has stated that He is doing something such as Istiwaa, Planning, Happiness and the like. These are not from the Essence.
b) Sifaat ul-Khabariyyah, those Attributes that we only know about them due to the fact that we have been informed in the revelation about them. These are attributes such as eyes, hands, face and the like. These are not from the Essence.
c) Sifaat udh-Dhaatiyyah, those Attributes that are from the Essence of Allah, such as Knowledge, Power, Not Resembling His Creation and the like.
The Imaam and the page number that you quoted states the exact same thing, but this has not been presented properly. I possess both the commentary and the normal text, both of which do not state what the claimant has put forward.
The shaykh then went on to clarify further in an addendum to his initial email…….
Also, in addition to what you had mentioned to me before, I wanted to state an additional point. The Salafiyyah organisation refers to two attributes that they call the two eyes, but they hold them literally. The position of Muslim Orthodoxy is the principle of tafwid. Thus if one believes in the attribute of eyes, which most have considered plural while some have considered dual, as attributes with tafwid, there is no harm in this at all.
However, the primary way that the Salafiyyah organisation affirms the attribute of the eye is through taking that hadith in Sahih Muslim which had been quoted. But in order to derive an attribute of two literal (haqiqah) eyes from that, one would have to compare Allah with the Dajjal in form and essence, something which is not to be accepted. I hope that this clarification made sense. If you look in any concordance under the Attributes of Allah, you should find the verses that you can make use of and read for yourself.
And carrying on from his second email on the issue of Tafwid and the rejection by some of what some have referred to as tafwid al-ma’na as well as clarification of some the quotes provided by Salafiyyah from some Hanbalis such as Abdul Qadir al-Jilani RH mentioning taking the apparent meaning of certain texts pertaining to the attributes Sidi Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali mentioned:
With regard to the issue of tafwid, none of the Hanaabilah have ever made such a difference, whether that be in the creed of Imaam as-Saffaarini, rahimahullah or those besides him who are mu`tamad. The actual terms that you have quoted being used have yet to be substantiated in the Arabic dictionary or in the Shari`a of the believers.
Again there is no separation of tafwid into categories, for is someone was to say that they follow the tafwid in kayfiyyah, or howness but not in ma`na, meaning, this would mean that they know what the Attributes of Allah mean. Again, they are to be congratulated, as they have either seen Allah or been given information that the first three generations, including, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, did not know.
With regard to taking things on their apparent meaning, the word used in its' context is Zaahir or zawaahir. The context that the Hanbali theologians have used is that they pass the verses on their apparent wording. This means that they believe in the texts and affirm the wording, without interpretation or likening them. Thus the quote from Shaikh `Abdul Qaadir al-Jilaani, rahimahullah would have not problem with someone striving to follow the way of the Orthodox Muslims, for we do leave the texts on the outward form, but we do not assert a meaning for that outward form.
To give meaning to and assert a meaning for the outward form, the zaahir then becomes haqiqah, which would mean the actual form in which something is known in this life to us. Thus, when Salafi theologians say that they take the ayaat, pass them by on their haqiqah, they have gone from the zaahir to actually affirming a meaning for the ayaat that is known in this life. Thus if someone should say that this is a hand on its' haqiqah, this would mean that it was a literal hand as we understand it in this life.
This is what the word means in the Arabic language as well as the Shari`a. Thus one must be careful in its' usage. And this is where Salafiyyah and Orthodox Islam part ways, Salafiyyah teaching that the Attributes can be known and that they are haqiqah, literally meaning what they mean in this life and the Orthodox who state that we are to affirm the wording of the text and leave the meaning to Allah.
Thus any of the quotes that they have given you from the Orthodox fathers are going to necessarily be translated from the text out of context or the word zaahir is going to be translated, 'on its' apparent meaning.' They will then resort to interpretation to insist that this is the Salafi position which is the position of the ancient scholars, something that should be seen through by every believer. My advice to you is not to waste time debating on these forums but to learn your creed as well as what makes salvation so special.
If you indeed know that this website is harmful, but you continue to frequent it, then you are putting yourself in a compromising situation. Perhaps a good idea would be to invite people that you believe could leave this cult to speak to you off-line through e-mail or perhaps through live chat. This would be a great start. For if they are online, they may be more defensive and when they are in a public arena that is their own, they could become even more belligerant.
I hope that this answered your question. And with Allah is every success,
was-Salaam,
brother in Islam
And finally, I asked for further clarification of his statement in clarification of the quote provided by Ibn Abi Ya’la from Imam al-Saffarini RH:
"The Imaam and the page number that you quoted states the exact same thing, but this has not been presented properly. I possess both the commentary and the normal text, both of which do not state what the claimant has put forward."
as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
Noble brother,
Thank you for your question and may Allah reward you.
With regard to my statement,
"The Imaam and the page number that you quoted states the exact same thing, but this has not been presented properly. I possess both the commentary and the normal text, both of which do not state what the claimant has put forward."
this is what I intended by it:
Indeed, the quote that he gave is true based upon the printing house, year and copy given, but there are a number of problems with the quotes that the claimant gave,
a) The Shaikh ul-Islam Muhammad as-Saffarini, rahimahullah, actually states,
'Thus takwin does not mean the actually bringing into being, while the remainder of the Essential Attributes are Life, Power, Will, Hearing, Sight, Knowledge, Speech and others.
The remainder of the Khabariyyah Attributes are the Face, the Two Hands, the Foot and other.'
b) This quote does not include the word al-`Ayn (eye) nor al-`Aynayn (two eyes), nor does this actual wording appear in the work quoted. This wording actually appears in the Imaam's other work, Lawaa'ih ul-Anwaar as-Sanniyyah, V. 1, pp. 269-270
c) The closest quote to what the claimant put forward is where the Imaam mentioned in the same work,
'Another group, and they are the Ash`aris and Maturidis and whoever is with them from Muslim Orthodoxy from the followers of the four imaams and these are known as the Siffatiyyah, affirm the Essential Attributes which are Life, Power, Will, Hearing, Sight, Knowledge and Speech.
'But these groups differ in what has been related regarding the wording of Hand, Eye, Face and other things such as this, and a group interpreted them, this group being the vast majority of the theologians from the later generations.'
Quoted from the said source above, V. 1, pp. 301-302
By reading this quote in context, one can see that the only mention of the word `ayn (eye) is in the singular form and not the plural or dual. The mu`tamad position of the Hanbali school is to affirm the attribute of al-`Ayn, in singular form, neither the dual, nor the plural.
d) And to directly address the statement made by the claimant, that being,
> "{Fa-sa'ir al-Sifat wa'l-Af'al - Qadimat Allah
> Dhi'l-Jalal}.. [fa-sa'ir al-sifat] of the Essence
> (al-dhatiyyah), from the Life, the Power, the Will,
> the Hearing, the Seeing, the Knowledge, the Speech,
> and other then them, and the rest of all the Sifat
> of
> Report (sifat al-khabariyyah), from the Face, and
> the
> Two Hands, and the Foot, and the Two Eyes (al-wajh
> wa'l-yadayn wa'l-qadam wa'l-'aynayn) and their
> like.."
>
> See p. 216, line 5f, of Lawa'ih al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah
> wa-Sawati' al-Asrar al-Athariyyah - the Sarh of his
> Durra al-Mudiyyah fi 'Aqd al-Firqa al-Mardiyyah - 2
> vol. Cairo edition of 1323-4)"
Imaam as-Saffarini, rahimahullah, has not affirmed the dual al-`Aynayn as an Attribute.
This can be known by first going to the actual printed matn of the work that he commented upon. This is known as ad-Durrat ul-Mudiyyah, pp. 54-55, poetic verses 47-48, where the Imaam states,
'From mercy and what is like that, such as the face, His Hand and all of what has been given from Him, His Eye and the Attribute of Descent.'
The commentary of this text by the aforesaid Imaam is that,
'And His `Ayn, Mighty and Majestic, is clearly stated and its' way is clearly affirmed in what has been related and faith in it is correct without likening, nor giving semblance, nor rejecting, nor negating. Indeed we affirm, we submit to it, believe in all of that and affirm the existence of the Attribute, without giving likeness of how or limit. And from these things to be affirmed is al-`Ayn.'
Lawaami` ul-Anwaar ul-Bahiyyah, V. 1, pp. 238-239
The same thing was stated by other commentators on ad-Durrat ul-Mudiyyah, such as Imaams Ali Mansur al-Karmi (d. 1315 AH) and Hasan ibn `Umar ash-Shatti (d. 1274 AH), who affirmed al-`Ayn in the singular as an Attribute of Our Lord.
Another mu`tamad father, who was also the best friend and classmate of Imaam as-Saffaarini, rahimahullah, Imaam Mar`ii ibn Yusuf al-Karmi, rahimahullah, says the following,
'And al-`Ayn is also from the mutashabihah.'
al-Aqaawil uth-Thiqaat fi Ta'wil il-Asmaa'I was-Siffaat, pp. 146-147
The noble Imaam said in the same work in another place,
'The Hanbalis, according to what has been related textually, affirm for the Exalted One an attribute that is known as al-`Ayn.'
[The same work quoted for Imaam al-Karmi, pp. 147-148]
I hope that this answered your question. If you do indeed require further clarification, do not hesitate to send us an e-mail. And with Allah is every success,
was-Salaam,
Abu Ja`far al-Hanbali
Anyway, I hope that has been of some help to any Hanbalis out there. It would appear, in conclusion, from the quotes provided by Sidi Abul Hasan and Sidi Abu Ja'far that, as mentioned by Imam al-Karmi 'The Hanbalis, according to what has been related textually, affirm for the Exalted One an attribute that is known as al-`Ayn.'
Please note also that Sidi Abu Ja'far al-Hanbali is contactable through his website www.htspub.com for further clarification should it be needed.
:)
Wasalam.
Sidi Abul Hasan [May Allah swt reward him] mentioned here http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56571&postcount=101 the following useful information on the stance of two of the major Hanbali Ulema - Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn Aqil:
Shaykh Abul Qasim al-Ansari (d. 512 AH) in his Sharh al-Irshad (folio 112) quoted al-Baqillani as saying:
“I do not think that taqleed has any valid function in the fundamentals of Tawhid; what is to be followed is the rationally probative evidence, not the companion’s of one’s Madhhab.”
Using this statement will cause us to choose the Haqq, even if a man like al-Baqillani was to affirm “two eyes” for Allah using rationale alone, as there is no direct evidence to affirm “two eyes” for Allah, but mere conjecture.
Let us quote two of the Hanabila that are not admired by many of those on your path when it comes to the Sifat of Allah. You may say they are no authorities for you on this issue, but there opinion can not be rejected if it is the Haqq. The first is al-Hafiz ibn al-Jawzi, whose Daff Shubuh al-Tashbih is only rejected by a handful of Hanabila, where as those Sunni Imams like Shaykh Zakariyya al-Ansari and his teacher: Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and his two teachers: Hafiz Nurud-Din al-Haythami and Hafiz Zaynud-Din al-Iraqi all transmitted Ibn al Jawzi’s book and not one of them is on record in rejecting or disparaging its contents.
The second is Abul Wafa Ibn Aqil the polymath who is said to have compiled Kitab al-Funun in some 700 volumes. Your colleagues try to make out that ibn al Jawzi and ibn Aqil were at times anti-Ash’ari, and in doing so apply this divertory tactic in order to divert the reality of the aqeeda of the deviance of the likes of these three Hanabila: Abu Ya’la, Ibn Hamid and al-Zaghunui!
If Imam al-Ash’ari and his school were truly believers in the concept of “two eyes” for Allah, I have no doubt that Ibn al Jawzi would have attacked them for this, as well as his predecessor: Ibn Aqil.
Hafiz Ibn al Jawzi in his Kitab Akhbar al-Sifat (Swartz edition) quotes Imam Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 388 AH) as saying:
“Do not ascribe attributes to God except by reference to the Qur’an or to reliable reports, that is, reports based on the Qur’an or prophetic sayings whose genuineness is beyond question. What is in conflict with these (two sources) should not be ascribed (to God) or should be interpreted (yuta’awwal) in accordance with the principles (usul) agreed upon by competent authorities (ahl al-ilm), along with a rejection of anthropomorphism (tashbih)…”
In his Ma‘alim al-Sunan he stated, concerning the narrations of the divine Attributes:
The people of our time have split into two parties. The first [the Mu‘tazila and their sub-groups] altogether disavow this kind of hadith and declare them forged outright. This implies their giving the lie to the scholars who have narrated them, that is, the imams of our religion and the transmitters of the Prophetic ways, and the intermediaries between us and Allah’s Messenger. The second party [the anthropomorphists] give their assent to the narrations and apply their outward meanings literally in a way bordering anthropomorphism. As for us we steer clear from both views, and accept neither as our school. It is therefore incumbent upon us to seek for these hadiths, when they are cited and established as authentic from the perspectives of transmission and attribution, an interpretation (ta’wîl) derived according to the known meanings of the foundations of the Religion and the schools of the scholars, without rejecting the narrations outright, as long as their chains are acceptable and narrators trustworthy.
Ibn al Jawzi in Akhbar al-Sifat said (point 40):
“In the same category are the following verses: ‘…In order that you might be reared under My (watchful) eyes.’ And ‘build an ark under Our eyes.’ The expression ‘Under Our eyes’ is taken by (some) exegetes to mean ‘under our command’ (amr)’, and by others to mean ‘under Our oversight (mar’an minna).’ Abu Bakr b. al-Anbari pointed out that among the Arabs the plural (pronoun) is sometimes used even when the referent is singular; hence, one may say: ‘We travelled to Basra (when one really means ‘I travelled to Basra’).’ This use of the plural derives from the practice of kings who are in the habit of saying ‘our command’ or ‘our prohibition.’ The Qadi (Abu Ya’la) maintained that ‘eye’ is an attribute added to the divine essence (za’ida ala dh-dhat). Already before him Abu Bakr b. Khuzayma said, in connection with the above verses: ‘Our Lord has two eyes by which He sees.” Ibn Hamid said: ‘We must believe that God has two eyes.’ This view, however, is an innovation for which there is no justification in scripture. (Champions of this view) attribute two eyes to God only through a kind of inferential reason (Dalil al-Khitab) based on the Prophet’s (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) statement: ‘He is not one eyed.’ These words, however, were meant only to deny that imperfection of any sort can be ascribed to God….”
In points 217-219, ibn al Jawzi said:
In the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim there is a tradition from Anas b. Malik in which it is reported that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said while discussing (the signs of) the Antichrist (dajjal): “He will have one eye (a’war), but your Lord is not one-eyed.”
The Ulama maintain that the chief aim of this saying is to assert that God cannot be described in any way that might imply imperfection, for being one-eyed is obviously an indication of imperfection. The Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) did not mean to ascribe to God bodily organs, for there is nothing praiseworthy in the attribution of such to God.
Ibn Aqil said: “The ill informed sometimes assume that since (the Prophet) denied that God is one eyed He meant to establish by a kind of inferential reason (dalil al-khitab) that God has two eyes. This is a serious misunderstanding (of the saying), for by denying that God is one-eyed (the Prophet) merely intended to negate (the possibility of) imperfection in Him….
So anyway, on the topic of eye, dual eyes and plural eyes as none of us here [to my knowledge are Hanbalis] I recently sought the clarification of Sidi Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali [of the Hanbali Text Society] on the position of the Hanbali theologians on this issue.
Whilst I do not really consider myself a Hanbali as such I thought it would be interesting to share our discussion.
Here is Sid Abu Ja’far’s initial reply to my query on the position of his school:
as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
Noble brother,
Thank you for your question and may Allah reward you. With regard to the question that you asked, there is no mu`tamad position held by the Hanbali theologians with regard to Allah having an attribute called two eyes. Some have resorted to quoting the Imaams Ibn ul-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah, however they are neither mu`tamad nor even a raajih in creed unless they are agreeing with or concurring on a point that the Hanaabilah accept and then feel fit to use them for in terms of quoting.
Those who would assert two eyes as an attribute of Allah take the hadith that occurs in Sahih Muslim in which the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said,
'The Dajjal is A`war and your Lord is not A`war.'
This has wrongly been translated into English as one-eyed, which would mean that he only has one eye. This has led to some people believing that visually he is a cyclops and has one giant eye in the middle of his forehead. This is incorrect. It has been confirmed in a hadith in Jaami` us-Saghir from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him that the Dajjal has green eyes, in the plural, which would mean that he has two eyes, like the rest of the human race, which he belongs to and is born into as a child.
The issue of the word A`war has to do with the fact that a`war means to have a damaged eye or to be deprived of vision in an eye. This would mean flawed. The Orthodox theologians understood the hadith in question in Sahih Muslim to mean that Allah, Glorified and Exalted, has no faults, which a`war would be and that the word eyes used in the plural form in the Qur'an is indeed an attribute of Allah, but not a limb or organ and we consign knowledge of what Allah means by this _expression back to Him, for He knows best what he means. This principle is tafwid. Thus those that would use the hadith in Sahih Muslim are copying the two Imaams mentioned and have made a mistake to try to derive an attribute for Allah from a hadith about a false god. Let the one with wisdom be careful and stay with the first three generations.
Therefore, let us use care when discussing these matters. You held the right understanding in remaining skeptical when people make such assertions without a definite text. The attributes of Allah are not derived or insinuated from the Qur'an and Hadith, they are mentioned therein in which we know them to be the case. I hope that this answered your question.
I proceeded to quote Sidi Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali a statement provided by Ibn Abi Ya’la on Ahya forums from Imam al-Saffarini whereby Ibn Abi Ya’la stated in the thread he named:
“Ask Pseudo-Hanbali Text society about…”
What 'Allama Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Saffarini al-Hanbali said about Allah's Eyes..
He says in his commentary of his own Creed,
"{Fa-sa'ir al-Sifat wa'l-Af'al - Qadimat Allah Dhi'l-Jalal}.. [fa-sa'ir al-sifat] of the Essence (al-dhatiyyah), from the Life, the Power, the Will, the Hearing, the Seeing, the Knowledge, the Speech, and other then them, and the rest of all the Sifat of Report (sifat al-khabariyyah), from the Face, and the Two Hands, and the Foot, and the Two Eyes (al-wajh wa'l-yadayn wa'l-qadam wa'l-'aynayn) and their like.."
See p. 216, line 5f, of Lawa'ih al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah wa-Sawati' al-Asrar al-Athariyyah - the Sarh of his Durra al-Mudiyyah fi 'Aqd al-Firqa al-Mardiyyah - 2 vol. Cairo edition of 1323-4)
as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
Noble brother,
Thank you for your e-mail and may Allah reward you. Imaam as-Saffaarini's creed is the mu`tamad text in the Hanbali creedal foundations. However the quotes are out of context. The Hanbali theologians put the Attributes of Allah in three categories,
a) Sifaat ul-Fi`l, those Attributes where Allah has stated that He is doing something such as Istiwaa, Planning, Happiness and the like. These are not from the Essence.
b) Sifaat ul-Khabariyyah, those Attributes that we only know about them due to the fact that we have been informed in the revelation about them. These are attributes such as eyes, hands, face and the like. These are not from the Essence.
c) Sifaat udh-Dhaatiyyah, those Attributes that are from the Essence of Allah, such as Knowledge, Power, Not Resembling His Creation and the like.
The Imaam and the page number that you quoted states the exact same thing, but this has not been presented properly. I possess both the commentary and the normal text, both of which do not state what the claimant has put forward.
The shaykh then went on to clarify further in an addendum to his initial email…….
Also, in addition to what you had mentioned to me before, I wanted to state an additional point. The Salafiyyah organisation refers to two attributes that they call the two eyes, but they hold them literally. The position of Muslim Orthodoxy is the principle of tafwid. Thus if one believes in the attribute of eyes, which most have considered plural while some have considered dual, as attributes with tafwid, there is no harm in this at all.
However, the primary way that the Salafiyyah organisation affirms the attribute of the eye is through taking that hadith in Sahih Muslim which had been quoted. But in order to derive an attribute of two literal (haqiqah) eyes from that, one would have to compare Allah with the Dajjal in form and essence, something which is not to be accepted. I hope that this clarification made sense. If you look in any concordance under the Attributes of Allah, you should find the verses that you can make use of and read for yourself.
And carrying on from his second email on the issue of Tafwid and the rejection by some of what some have referred to as tafwid al-ma’na as well as clarification of some the quotes provided by Salafiyyah from some Hanbalis such as Abdul Qadir al-Jilani RH mentioning taking the apparent meaning of certain texts pertaining to the attributes Sidi Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali mentioned:
With regard to the issue of tafwid, none of the Hanaabilah have ever made such a difference, whether that be in the creed of Imaam as-Saffaarini, rahimahullah or those besides him who are mu`tamad. The actual terms that you have quoted being used have yet to be substantiated in the Arabic dictionary or in the Shari`a of the believers.
Again there is no separation of tafwid into categories, for is someone was to say that they follow the tafwid in kayfiyyah, or howness but not in ma`na, meaning, this would mean that they know what the Attributes of Allah mean. Again, they are to be congratulated, as they have either seen Allah or been given information that the first three generations, including, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, did not know.
With regard to taking things on their apparent meaning, the word used in its' context is Zaahir or zawaahir. The context that the Hanbali theologians have used is that they pass the verses on their apparent wording. This means that they believe in the texts and affirm the wording, without interpretation or likening them. Thus the quote from Shaikh `Abdul Qaadir al-Jilaani, rahimahullah would have not problem with someone striving to follow the way of the Orthodox Muslims, for we do leave the texts on the outward form, but we do not assert a meaning for that outward form.
To give meaning to and assert a meaning for the outward form, the zaahir then becomes haqiqah, which would mean the actual form in which something is known in this life to us. Thus, when Salafi theologians say that they take the ayaat, pass them by on their haqiqah, they have gone from the zaahir to actually affirming a meaning for the ayaat that is known in this life. Thus if someone should say that this is a hand on its' haqiqah, this would mean that it was a literal hand as we understand it in this life.
This is what the word means in the Arabic language as well as the Shari`a. Thus one must be careful in its' usage. And this is where Salafiyyah and Orthodox Islam part ways, Salafiyyah teaching that the Attributes can be known and that they are haqiqah, literally meaning what they mean in this life and the Orthodox who state that we are to affirm the wording of the text and leave the meaning to Allah.
Thus any of the quotes that they have given you from the Orthodox fathers are going to necessarily be translated from the text out of context or the word zaahir is going to be translated, 'on its' apparent meaning.' They will then resort to interpretation to insist that this is the Salafi position which is the position of the ancient scholars, something that should be seen through by every believer. My advice to you is not to waste time debating on these forums but to learn your creed as well as what makes salvation so special.
If you indeed know that this website is harmful, but you continue to frequent it, then you are putting yourself in a compromising situation. Perhaps a good idea would be to invite people that you believe could leave this cult to speak to you off-line through e-mail or perhaps through live chat. This would be a great start. For if they are online, they may be more defensive and when they are in a public arena that is their own, they could become even more belligerant.
I hope that this answered your question. And with Allah is every success,
was-Salaam,
brother in Islam
And finally, I asked for further clarification of his statement in clarification of the quote provided by Ibn Abi Ya’la from Imam al-Saffarini RH:
"The Imaam and the page number that you quoted states the exact same thing, but this has not been presented properly. I possess both the commentary and the normal text, both of which do not state what the claimant has put forward."
as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
Noble brother,
Thank you for your question and may Allah reward you.
With regard to my statement,
"The Imaam and the page number that you quoted states the exact same thing, but this has not been presented properly. I possess both the commentary and the normal text, both of which do not state what the claimant has put forward."
this is what I intended by it:
Indeed, the quote that he gave is true based upon the printing house, year and copy given, but there are a number of problems with the quotes that the claimant gave,
a) The Shaikh ul-Islam Muhammad as-Saffarini, rahimahullah, actually states,
'Thus takwin does not mean the actually bringing into being, while the remainder of the Essential Attributes are Life, Power, Will, Hearing, Sight, Knowledge, Speech and others.
The remainder of the Khabariyyah Attributes are the Face, the Two Hands, the Foot and other.'
b) This quote does not include the word al-`Ayn (eye) nor al-`Aynayn (two eyes), nor does this actual wording appear in the work quoted. This wording actually appears in the Imaam's other work, Lawaa'ih ul-Anwaar as-Sanniyyah, V. 1, pp. 269-270
c) The closest quote to what the claimant put forward is where the Imaam mentioned in the same work,
'Another group, and they are the Ash`aris and Maturidis and whoever is with them from Muslim Orthodoxy from the followers of the four imaams and these are known as the Siffatiyyah, affirm the Essential Attributes which are Life, Power, Will, Hearing, Sight, Knowledge and Speech.
'But these groups differ in what has been related regarding the wording of Hand, Eye, Face and other things such as this, and a group interpreted them, this group being the vast majority of the theologians from the later generations.'
Quoted from the said source above, V. 1, pp. 301-302
By reading this quote in context, one can see that the only mention of the word `ayn (eye) is in the singular form and not the plural or dual. The mu`tamad position of the Hanbali school is to affirm the attribute of al-`Ayn, in singular form, neither the dual, nor the plural.
d) And to directly address the statement made by the claimant, that being,
> "{Fa-sa'ir al-Sifat wa'l-Af'al - Qadimat Allah
> Dhi'l-Jalal}.. [fa-sa'ir al-sifat] of the Essence
> (al-dhatiyyah), from the Life, the Power, the Will,
> the Hearing, the Seeing, the Knowledge, the Speech,
> and other then them, and the rest of all the Sifat
> of
> Report (sifat al-khabariyyah), from the Face, and
> the
> Two Hands, and the Foot, and the Two Eyes (al-wajh
> wa'l-yadayn wa'l-qadam wa'l-'aynayn) and their
> like.."
>
> See p. 216, line 5f, of Lawa'ih al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah
> wa-Sawati' al-Asrar al-Athariyyah - the Sarh of his
> Durra al-Mudiyyah fi 'Aqd al-Firqa al-Mardiyyah - 2
> vol. Cairo edition of 1323-4)"
Imaam as-Saffarini, rahimahullah, has not affirmed the dual al-`Aynayn as an Attribute.
This can be known by first going to the actual printed matn of the work that he commented upon. This is known as ad-Durrat ul-Mudiyyah, pp. 54-55, poetic verses 47-48, where the Imaam states,
'From mercy and what is like that, such as the face, His Hand and all of what has been given from Him, His Eye and the Attribute of Descent.'
The commentary of this text by the aforesaid Imaam is that,
'And His `Ayn, Mighty and Majestic, is clearly stated and its' way is clearly affirmed in what has been related and faith in it is correct without likening, nor giving semblance, nor rejecting, nor negating. Indeed we affirm, we submit to it, believe in all of that and affirm the existence of the Attribute, without giving likeness of how or limit. And from these things to be affirmed is al-`Ayn.'
Lawaami` ul-Anwaar ul-Bahiyyah, V. 1, pp. 238-239
The same thing was stated by other commentators on ad-Durrat ul-Mudiyyah, such as Imaams Ali Mansur al-Karmi (d. 1315 AH) and Hasan ibn `Umar ash-Shatti (d. 1274 AH), who affirmed al-`Ayn in the singular as an Attribute of Our Lord.
Another mu`tamad father, who was also the best friend and classmate of Imaam as-Saffaarini, rahimahullah, Imaam Mar`ii ibn Yusuf al-Karmi, rahimahullah, says the following,
'And al-`Ayn is also from the mutashabihah.'
al-Aqaawil uth-Thiqaat fi Ta'wil il-Asmaa'I was-Siffaat, pp. 146-147
The noble Imaam said in the same work in another place,
'The Hanbalis, according to what has been related textually, affirm for the Exalted One an attribute that is known as al-`Ayn.'
[The same work quoted for Imaam al-Karmi, pp. 147-148]
I hope that this answered your question. If you do indeed require further clarification, do not hesitate to send us an e-mail. And with Allah is every success,
was-Salaam,
Abu Ja`far al-Hanbali
Anyway, I hope that has been of some help to any Hanbalis out there. It would appear, in conclusion, from the quotes provided by Sidi Abul Hasan and Sidi Abu Ja'far that, as mentioned by Imam al-Karmi 'The Hanbalis, according to what has been related textually, affirm for the Exalted One an attribute that is known as al-`Ayn.'
Please note also that Sidi Abu Ja'far al-Hanbali is contactable through his website www.htspub.com for further clarification should it be needed.
:)
Wasalam.