Salafi [SPUBS] quotes, Tafwid and Tashbih

[faqir]

:salam:

Elsewhere someone had posted a "refutation" from the spubs site containing various quotes in support of their position that the divine texts pertaining to the "attributes" are interpreted literally. I was able to track down the article to the notorious SPUBS site!

(see HERE (http://www.spubs.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=NDV07&articleID=NDV070009&articlePages=1) for direct link to article)


Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d.241H): "The hadeeth, in our estimation, is to be taken by its apparent (dhaahir) meaning, as it has come from the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam..."

(Usool as Sunnah no.27 of Imaam Ahmad)

Al-Khattaabee (d.388H) said: "The madhab of the Salaf with regard to the Attributes of Allaah is to affirm them as they are with their apparent (dhaahir) meaning, negating any resemblance to the creation and without asking how they are."

(Al-Ghuniyah ‘an Kalaam wa Ahlihi, as quoted in Mukhtasar al-’Uluww (p.257/no.311). See also al-Asmaa was-Sifaat (2/p.198) of al-Bayhaqee)

Al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadee (d.463H) said: "As for speech about the Attributes (of Allaah), what is authentically related about them in the Sunnah, then the way of the Salaf, may Allaah be pleased with them all, was to affirm them all as they are, upon their apparent (dhaahir) meaning..."

(Al-Kalaam ‘alas-Sifaat (pp.19-20) of al-Baghdaadee)

Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qaadir al-Jeelaanee (d.561H) said: "It is essential to carry the Attribute of al-Istawaa (Allaah’s ascending) upon its apparent sense... it is related from them (i.e. the Salaf) that they carried the meaning of Istawaa with its apparent meaning."

(Al-Ghuniyatut-Taalibeen (1/50) of ‘Abdul-Qaadir al-Jeelaanee)

Ibn Qudaamah (d.620H) said: "The way of the Salaf is to have faith in the Names and Attributes of Allaah that He has described Himself with in His Revelation, or upon the tongue of His Messenger sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, without increasing or decreasing upon it, nor exceeding the limits, nor explaining them, nor making ta’weel of them in a way which opposes the apparent (dhaahir) meaning."

(Dhammut-Ta’weel (p.11) of Ibn Qudaamah)

Al-Haafidh ibn ‘Abdul-Barr (d.463H) wrote: "Ahlus-Sunnah are agreed in affirming all of the Attributes which are related in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, having faith in them and understanding them in a real sense (‘alal-haqeeqah) not metaphorically."

(ibn ‘Abdul-Barr, At-Tamheed 7/145)

Abul Hasan al-Ash’aree (d.324H) who wrote in Al-Ibaanah ‘an Usool ad-Diyaanah (p.133):

"The ruling concerning the Speech of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, is that it is taken upon its apparent (dhaahir) and real meaning. Nothing is removed from its apparent meaning to a metaphorical one except with a proof..."

Or are these scholars not considered from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah?


What is interesting to note is that the majority of these quotes are not even taken from the Salaf but most would be considered to be from the Khalaf! So who then is the "khalafi" and who is the "salafi"?

It has already been clarified by one of the greatest Ulema from the Khalaf, Shaykh al-Islam Imam Nawawi RH, that regarding the Hadith and verses of the divine attributes:

"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)."

Yet, he goes on to say that:

"The second school is that of the majority of the scholars of kalam and a number of the Salaf - related from Malik and al-Awza`i - and holds that they are interpreted figuratively but only according to their appropriate contextual meanings."





Anyway, the quotes provided from the Salaf and Khalaf by SPUBS are not a problem because they are merely affirming the methodology of the majority of the Salaf when understanding the mutashabihat - i.e. TAFWID.




Of course, the "salafis" have a problem with Tafwid so they invented a subdivision of Tafwid!

This is why one often hears from them such nonsensical and illogical statements as:


Also their saying 'they left them as they are' necessitates that [what the Attributes] indicated would remain as it were, and they came as words indicating a meaning, so if what they indicated was also to be negated then it would have been necessary to say, 'they left the words [as they are] with the belief that the meaning was not known'..."


To quote Sh. GF Haddad: "....when the Salafiyya were faced with the reality of Tafwid (committal) among the Salaf, they invented the subdivision of Tafwid al-Kayfiyya ('committal of modality'!) so as to deny that the Salaf actually practiced Tafwid al-Ma`na ('committal of meaning'!)...."

InshaAllah this will all be made clear in the quotes from Imam Ahmad provided below.



Some of the quotes provided by SPUBS are from some of the Hanbali theologians so it may be worth quoting what Sidi Abu Ja'far al-Hanbali of www.htspub.com had to say when I asked him regarding a quote from Sh. Abdul Qadir al-Jilani earlier (see here (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6537) ). The following excerpt is from the link provided:

....

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.





Shaykh Nuh Keller summarises in his excellent article on the subject Literalism and the Attributes of Allah (http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/littlk.htm):

To summarize everything I have said tonight, we have seen three ways of understanding the mutashabihat, or ‘unapparent in meaning’ verses and hadiths: tafwid, ‘consigning the knowledge of what is meant to Allah,’ ta’wil, ‘figurative interpretation within the parameters of classical Arabic usage,’ and lastly tashbih, or ‘anthropomorphic literalism.’

We saw that the way of tafwid or ‘consigning the knowledge of what is meant to Allah,’ was the way of Shafi‘i, Ahmad, and many of the early Muslims. A second interpretive possibility, the way of ta’wil, or ‘figurative interpretation,’ was also done by the Companions (Sahaba) and many other early Muslims as reported above. In classical scholarship, both have been considered Islamic, and both seem needed, though tafwid is superior where it does not lead to confusion about Allah’s transcendence beyond the attributes of created things, in accordance with the Qur'anic verse,

"There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him" (Qur'an 42:11).

As for anthropomorphism, it is clear from this verse and from the entire history of the Umma, that it is not an Islamic school of thought, and never has been. In all times and places, Islam has invited non-Muslims to faith in the Incomparable Reality called Allah; not making man a god, and not making God a man.





Anyway, coming back to the quotes provided, it is clear that the majority of quotes are merely affirming the methodology of the vast majority of Salaf i.e. to leave the mutashabihat texts on their Dhahir and pass them by - commiting the meaning of the text to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala

Now, perhaps the reader will not buy any of the above so it becomes necessary to take some examples from what has been provided by SPUBs and elaborate further so as to clarify that all that is being mentioned is the methodology of TAFWID.

We should first look at the [only] quote provided from one of the Salaf – Imam Ahmad RH.


Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d.241H): "The hadeeth, in our estimation, is to be taken by its apparent (dhaahir) meaning, as it has come from the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam..."



It would appear to me that this quote has been ripped out of its context.

The following excerpt begins with point no 25. of Usool As Sunnah [Salafi translation so no idea about its authenticity] to understand what Imaam Ahmad is speaking about.

Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d.241H) said:

[i]25. To have faith in the Ru’yah (that Allaah will be seen) on the Day of Judgement has been reported from the Prophet(sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) in the authentic ahaadeeth.

26. And that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)saw his
Lord since this has been transmitted from the Messenger of It has been reported by Qataadah from ‘lkrimah from Ibn Abbaas. And al-Hakam ibn Ibaan reported it from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbaas. Also ‘Alee ibn Zaid reported it from Yoosuf ibn Mahraan from Ibn ‘Abbaas .

27. And the hadeeth, in our estimation, is to be taken by its apparent meaning (alaa dhaahirihi) , as it has come from the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). And indulging in theological rhetoric with respect to it is an innovation.

(Usool as Sunnah no.25-27 of Imaam Ahmad)


Obviously when the statement provided by SPUBS is looked at in its context it becomes clear that the Imam is referring to a specific Hadith and not all hadith or verses.

In addition, to understand the methodology Imam Ahmad we can see what has been quoted from him by the Hanbali Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Khallal (311/923) in his al-Sunna [The sunna] through his chain of narrators from Hanbal (d. 273/886), the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that

Imam Ahmad was asked about the hadiths mentioning "Allah’s descending," "seeing Allah," and "placing His foot on hell"; and the like, and he replied:

"We believe in them and consider them true, without ‘how’ and without ‘meaning’ (bi la kayfa wa la ma‘na) [emphasis mine]."


And he said, when they asked him about Allah’s istiwa’ [translated above as established]:

"He is ‘established’ upon the Throne (istawa ‘ala al-‘Arsh) how He wills and as He wills, without any limit or any description that be made by any describer

It has already been mentioned that Hanbalis in creed do not give literal meaning to the attributes of Allah, but defer the meaning to Allah, as Imam Ahmad did when he said:

[i]'We believe in them, affirm them without how and without meaning.'

[Lum`at ul-I`tiqaad, p. 6]

So, Alhamdolillah the statement from Imam Ahmad has been made clear now as has his methodology. And so much for the rejection of Tafwid al-Ma'na by the pseudo-Salafiyyah!

By the way, we have already provided elsewhere an example of Imam Ahmad’s ta’wil but we will not digress here.

More on the other quotes later, inshaAllah.

[faqir]

Al-Khattaabee (d.388H) said: "The madhab of the Salaf with regard to the Attributes of Allaah is to affirm them as they are with their apparent (dhaahir) meaning, negating any resemblance to the creation and without asking how they are."

(Al-Ghuniyah ‘an Kalaam wa Ahlihi, as quoted in Mukhtasar al-’Uluww (p.257/no.311). See also al-Asmaa was-Sifaat (2/p.198) of al-Bayhaqee)


InshaAllah, the following article previously found on the sunnah.org website (which has been down for some time) should explain clearly to all the position of Imam al-Khattabi:


Al-Khattabi on the Priority of Avoiding tashbih For Both the Salaf and the Khalaf



As we have shown in the excerpts of Nawawi and Subki [See posts: "Nawawi on ta'wil" and "Subki on ta'wil"] concerning the avoidance of and the recourse to figurative interpretation among both the Salaf and the Khalaf, the priority was to repel false understandings and prevent the pitfall of attributing to Allah the characteristics of creation. Again and again, the paradigm upon which is grounded the entire foundation for understanding Allah and His attributes is: "There is nothing like Him whatsoever." This paradigm becomes even more essential, if such a thing is possible, in times when the threat of heretical views becomes excessively felt.


The great hafiz Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 386) addresses this absolute priority in clear and direct terms in his Commentary on Abu Dawud's Sunan:



Abu `Ubayd (d. 222) [1] used to say: "As for us we narrate those hadiths but we do not smear them with meanings."

Abu Sulayman says: It is even more relevant for us not to be forward in that from which those who have more knowledge, antiquity, and seniority than us stood back.

However, the people of the time in which we live have joined two parties. The first [the Mu`tazila and Jahmiyya] altogether disavow this kind of hadith and declares them forged to begin with, which 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 Mushabbiha] gives its assent to the narrations and appplies 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'wil) extracted according to the known meanings of the foundations of the Religion and the schools of the scholars, without rejecting the narrations to begin with, as long as their chains are acceptable and narrators trustworthy. [2]


1 Abu `Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam.


2 Al-Khattabi, Ma`alim al-sanan `ala sunan Abi Dawud (Hims ed.)5:95. Cited in al-Buti, al-Salafiyya marhalatun zamaniyyatunmubarakatun la madhhabun islami (Damascus: dar al-fikr, 1408/1988) p. 140.




Wasalam.

[faqir]

As for the folowing quotes, they have been explained above in the statement of Sidi Abu Ja'far al-Hanbali.



Al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadee (d.463H) said: "As for speech about the Attributes (of Allaah), what is authentically related about them in the Sunnah, then the way of the Salaf, may Allaah be pleased with them all, was to affirm them all as they are, upon their apparent (dhaahir) meaning..."

(Al-Kalaam ‘alas-Sifaat (pp.19-20) of al-Baghdaadee)

Shaykh ‘Abdul-Qaadir al-Jeelaanee (d.561H) said: "It is essential to carry the Attribute of al-Istawaa (Allaah’s ascending) upon its apparent sense... it is related from them (i.e. the Salaf) that they carried the meaning of Istawaa with its apparent meaning."

(Al-Ghuniyatut-Taalibeen (1/50) of ‘Abdul-Qaadir al-Jeelaanee)


These quotes are merely affirming the methodology of the majority [though not all] from the Salaf i.e. to leave the mutashabihat texts on their Dhahir and pass them by - commiting the meaning of the text to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala . For details one can go back and read post 1 again.



From the article :al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/al_khatib_al_baghdadi.htm)


‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Ahmad al-Kattani said: "Al-Khatib followed the [doctrinal] school of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari – Allah have mercy on him." Al-Dhahabi reports this and comments: "This is true. For al-Khatib explicitly stated, concerning the reports on the Divine Attributes, that they are passed on exactly as they were received, without interpretation." Ibn al-Subki comments: "This is al-Ash‘ari’s position, yes. But al-Dhahabi is the victim of his lack of knowledge of Shaykh Abu al-Hasan’s position just as others were also victims: for al-Ash‘ari also has another position allowing for figurative interpretation (al-ta’wîl)." Al-Dhahabi does go on to relate al-Khatib’s precise disowning of both nullification (ta‘tîl) and anthropomorphism (tajsîm) of the divine Attributes

Bakr al-Khatib said: "As for what pertains to the divine Attributes, whatever is narrated in the books of sound reports concerning them, the position of the Salaf consists in their affirmation and letting them pass according to their external wordings while negating from them modality (kayfiyya) and likeness to things created (tashbîh). <A certain people have contradicted the Attributes and nullified what Allah I had affirmed; while another people have declared them real then went beyond this to some kind of likening to creation and ascription of modality. The true objective is none other than to tread a middle path between the two matters. The Religion of Allah I lies between the extremist and the laxist.> The principle to be followed in this matter is that the discourse on the Attributes is a branch of the discourse on the Essence. The path to follow in the former is the same extreme caution as in the latter. When it is understood that the affirmation of the Lord of the Worlds [in His Essence] is only an affirmation of existence and not of modality, it will be similarly understood that the affirmation of His Attributes is only an affirmation of their existence, not an affirmation of definition (tahdîd) nor an ascription of modality. So when we say: Allah I has a Hand, hearing, and sight, they are none other than Attributes Allah I has affirmed for Himself. We should not say that the meaning of ‘hand’ is power (al-qudra) nor that the meaning of ‘hearing’ and ‘sight’ is knowledge (‘ilm), nor should we say that they are organs (lâ naqûlu innahâ jawârih)! Nor should we liken them to hands, hearings, and sights that are organs and implements of acts. We should say: All that is obligatory is [1] to affirm them because they are stated according to divine prescription (tawqîf), and [2] to negate from them any likeness to created things according to His saying ( There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him) (42:11) ( and there is none like Him) (112:4)."

Our teacher Dr. Nur al-Din ‘Itr comments al-Khatib’s position thus:

This is a vulnerable spot where feet tread a slippery path. Many are those who fell into likening Allah to His creatures because of it, or into something like it – our refuge is in Allah! – while believing that this was the position of the pious Salaf y but Allah has exonerated the latter from holding it. … Imam al-Khatib passed the obstacle at which point pens lapsed and illusions flared, for he refuted the Mu‘tazila and their likes who contradict the divine Attributes, and he understood the position of the Salaf as it truly is by affirming those Attributes with a kind of affirmation that commits to Allah I the knowledge of their reality, not an affirmation of dimensionality and modality (athbata tilka al-sifât ithbâtan yufawwidu ‘ilma haqîqatihâ ilâ Allâhi ta‘âlâ lâ ithbâta tahdîd wa takyîf). He thereby asserted the school of the Salaf as it really was, not as some erratic people in our time understand it to be. The latter are in fact arrogant wranglers who cannot tell the difference between the Salaf’s committal of the actual knowledge of these matters to Allah I , their holding His Transcendence above whatever anthropomorphism the terms may suggest, and the anthropomorphism of the ignorant Karramiyya!


Allah's refuge is sought!




Ibn Qudaamah (d.620H) said: "The way of the Salaf is to have faith in the Names and Attributes of Allaah that He has described Himself with in His Revelation, or upon the tongue of His Messenger sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, without increasing or decreasing upon it, nor exceeding the limits, nor explaining them, nor making ta’weel of them in a way which opposes the apparent (dhaahir) meaning."

(Dhammut-Ta’weel (p.11) of Ibn Qudaamah)


Interesting quote - again, not really a problem [well, not all of it anyways ;) ]

Rather, their quoting Ibn Qudamah is more of a problem for them. :D

Can we ask those from SPUBS why Imam Muwaffaq ud-Din Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi [whose anti-Ta'wil views the pseudo-Salafiyyah like to regurgitate] was attacked by a favourite of the "salafis" Muhammad ibn Ibrahim for his views on Tafweed ul-Ma'na?

Imam Muwaffaq ud-Din says:

[i]‘And we believe in Him without boundary and without limit.’

[Lum`at ul-I`tiqaad, p. 6]


Elsewhere, Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Din RH tells us the method of the first generations,

[i]"So their words, 'We believe in it,' are proof on a type of tafwid (consignment) and submission to something that they were not able to know its' meaning.

[Rawdat un-Naadhir wa Junnat ul-Munaazir, V. 1, pp. 215-216]


Our brother Sidi Abul Hasan has posted an excellent article on the subject of Ibn Qudamah already and there is no need to say anything further.

Please see:

Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali the Mufawwid and todays Pseudo-Salafiyya (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5916)

Wasalam.

[faqir]

:salam:

Two quotes remain to be discussed:



Abul Hasan al-Ash’aree (d.324H) who wrote in Al-Ibaanah ‘an Usool ad-Diyaanah (p.133):

"The ruling concerning the Speech of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, is that it is taken upon its apparent (dhaahir) and real meaning. Nothing is removed from its apparent meaning to a metaphorical one except with a proof..."


For a start, it is obvious that the text they have chosen to quote from is a corrupt text that cannot be reliably established to be from Imam al-Ashari in its present form.

Please see for a decisive refutation of those who would claim otherwise the following link provided by Sidi Abul Hasan al-Hanafi:

A Scientific Look at the Attribution of al-Ibana in its Entirety to Imam al-Ashari (http://www.sunniforum.com/media/Problems%20with%20Al_Ibana_by_Shaykh%20Ghawiji.pdf )

As for the quote, if it is even from the Imam then why has it been cut off just as it was appearing to get juicy? :cheesygri

Regardless, the position of Imam al-Ashari and indeed all Ash'aris has been expanded upon and explained by Imam Ibn al-Subki who comments in Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (5:191-192) (http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/slfm_e.html) :

"Ash`aris have two well-known positions regarding the affirmation of the Attributes and whether they are let pass according to their literal meaning but in confirmity with Transcendence, or whether they should be interpreted. The first position is that which is traced back to the Salaf and forms the Imam's choice in al-Risala al-Nizamiyya as well as in other passages of his kalam works. So his 'return' means a return from interpretation (al-ta'wil) to committal (al-tafwid). Neither the latter nor the former are condemned for it is a question of ijtihad. I mean the question of interpreting on the one hand or committing together with Transcendence. The great problem and terrible disaster consists in letting them pass according to literal meaning while believing that the latter is the actual meaning and that it is not impossible for it to apply to the Creator. And that is the creed of the idol-worshipping anthropomorphists. {Those in whose hearts is doubt} (3:7), their doubt impels them to pursue that which is allegorical {seeking to cause dissension}. Allah's curses be upon them uninterruptedly! How bold they are in committing lies, and how little is their understanding of realities!"


The final statement is from Hafidh Ibn Abdal Barr:


Al-Haafidh ibn ‘Abdul-Barr (d.463H) wrote: "Ahlus-Sunnah are agreed in affirming all of the Attributes which are related in the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, having faith in them and understanding them in a real sense (‘alal-haqeeqah) not metaphorically."

(ibn ‘Abdul-Barr, At-Tamheed 7/145)

For information on Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr click on this link (http://web.archive.org/web/20040207101630/http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/ibn_abd_al_barr.htm) for his biography including details of his works and claims made against him.

The full statement [from which SPUBS have only provided a very short excerpt] and its discussion can be found in the following pdf file which was posted in this thread (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6114):

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=582

Alternatively, please see the following link:

The Hadith of Allah's "Descent" (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7488)

I will include a relevant excerpt from the above post here:



IBN `ABD AL-BARR'S CONTROVERSY

Literalists often quote Ibn `Abd al-Barr's controversial words on the hadith of descent in al-Tamhid:

The hadith [of Allah's descent] provides evidence that Allah is in (fi) the heaven, on (`ala) the Throne, above (fawq) seven heavens, as the Congregation (jama`a) said, and this is part of their proof against the Mu`tazila and the Jahmiyya's claim that Allah is in every place and not on the Throne....

Part of the right owed Allah's Speech is that it be taken in it literal sense (`ala haqiqatihi), until the Community concurs that what is meant is the metaphorical meaning, when there is no way to follow what is revealed to us from our Lord except in that way....

Istawa is known in the language and understood to be height (`uluw), rising above something, fixity in a place (al-tamkin), and settledness in it (al-istiqrar fih).... and istawa is "settledness in height" (al-istiqrar fi al-`uluw). Allah said to us: That you may mount upon (tastawu) their backs, and may remember your Lord's favor when you mount (istawaytum) thereon (43:13), And it (the ship) came to rest (istawat) upon (the mount) al-Judi (11:44), and And when you are on board (istawayta) the ship, you and whoso is with you (23:28). [37]


IBN AL-`ARABI'S REFUTATION OF IBN `ABD AL-BARR

The above was firmly rejected by Ibn al-`Arabi in his commentary on the hadith of descent in al-Tirmidhi:

Some ignorant people have trespassed bounds in interpreting this hadith, claiming there is proof in it that Allah "is in the Heaven, on the Throne, above the seven heavens." We say that this is a sign of tremendous ignorance.

What the hadith said is "He descends to Heaven" without specifying from where He descends or how He descends. Yet they said - and their proof is, again, based on the literal sense - {The Merciful established Himself over the Throne} (20:4).

We ask: What is the Throne in Arabic, and what is istawa?

They reply: As Allah said: That you may mount upon (tastawu) their backs, and may remember your Lord's favor when you mount (istawaytum) thereon (43:13).

We say: Allah is Mighty and Higher than to have His istiwa' on His Throne compared to our sitting on the backs of animals.

They say: And as He said: And it (the ship) came to rest (istawat) upon (the mount) al-Judi (11:44).

We say: Allah is Mighty and Higher than a ship that sailed and then docked and stopped.

They said: And as He said: And when you are on board (istawayta) the ship, you and whoso is with you (23:28).

We say: Allah forbid that His istiwa' be similar to that of Noah and his people. Everything in the latter case is created, as it consists in istiwa' with an elevation and a settling in a place involving physical contact. The entire Umma is in agreement, even before hearing the hadith of descent and the arguments of those who rejected it, that Allah's istiwa' does not involve any of those things. Therefore do not give examples from His creation for Him!...

They say: Allah said: {"He rules all affairs from the Heaven to the Earth} (32:5).

We say: This is true, but it does not provide any proof for your innovation.

They say: All the firm believers in the Oneness of Allah raise their hands to the Heavens when supplicating him, and if Musa had not said to Pharaoh: "My Lord is in the Heaven," Pharaoh would not have said: {O Haman... set up for me a lofty tower in order that I may survey the god of Moses} (28:38).

We say: You are lying about Musa (, he never said that. But your conclusion shows that you are indeed the followers of Pharaoh, who believed that the Creator lies in a certain direction, and so he desired to climb up to Him on a ladder. He congratulates you for being among his followers, and he is your imam.

They say: What about Umayya ibn Abi al-Salt who said: "Glory to Him Whom creatures are unable to know in the way He deserves to be known, Who is on His Throne, One and One Alone, Sovereign and Possessor over the Throne of Heaven, unto Whose Majesty faces are humbled and prostrate"? And he - Umayya - had read the Torah, the Bible, and the Psalms.

We say: It is just like you, in your ignorance, to cite as proof, first Pharaoh, then the discourse of a pre-Islamic Arab supported by the Torah and the Bible, which have been distorted and changed. Of all of Allah's creation the Jews are the most knowledgeable in disbelief and in likening Allah to creation. [38]

What we must believe is that Allah existed and nothing existed with Him; that He created all creation, including the Throne, without becoming subject to disclosure through them, nor did a direction arise for Him because of them, nor did He acquire a location in them; that He does not become immanent, that He does not cease to be transcendent, that he does not change, and that He does not move from one state to another.

Istiwa' in the Arabic language has fifteen meanings both literal and figurative. Some of these meanings are suitable for Allah and the meaning of the verse (20:4) is derived from them. The other meanings are not accepted under any circumstances. For example, if it is taken to mean being fixed in a place (tamakkun), settling (istiqrar), connecting (ittisal), or being bounded (muhadhat): then none of these are suitable for the Creator Almighty and Exalted and no-one should try to find His likeness in His creation.

One may refrain from explaining the verse, as Malik and others have said: "Istiwa' is known" - he means: its lexical sense- "and its modality is unknown" (wa al-kayfu majhul) [39] - that is: the modality of whatever is suitable for Allah among the senses of istiwa': therefore who can specify such modality? - "and asking about it is innovation" - because, as we have just made clear, probing this matter is looking for dubious matters and that is asking for fitna.

Hence, from what the Imam of Muslims Malik has said, we can conclude that the istiwa' is known; that what is suitable for Allah is left unspecified; and that He is declared transcendent above what is impossible for Him. As for specifying what is not suitable for Him, it is not permissible for you, since you have completed the declaration of oneness and belief by negating likeness for Allah and by negating whatever it is absurd to believe concerning Him. There is no need for anything beyond that, and we have already explained this in detail.

As for the phrases: "He descends, He comes, He arrives," and similar ones whose meanings it is impermissible to apply to His Essence: they refer to His actions... Al-Awza`i explained this when he said, about this hadith: "Allah does what he wishes." [40] It suffices to know or simply to believe that Allah is not to be defined by any of the characteristics of creatures and that there is nothing in His creation that resembles Him and no interpretation that can explain Him.

They said: We must say "He descends" without asking how. We say: We seek refuge in Allah from asking how! We only say whatever Allah's Messenger -- Allah bless and greet him -- has taught us to say and what we have understood from the Arabic language in which the Qur'an was revealed. And the Prophet said: "Allah says: O My servant, I was ailing and you did not visit me, I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me drink..." [41] None of this is suitable of Allah whatsoever, but He has honored all these actions by expressing them through Him. In the same way, the saying "Our Lord descends" expresses that His servant and angel descends in His name with His order pertaining to whatever He bestows of His Mercy, gives out of His generosity, and showers His creation out of His bounty.

The poet says:

I have descended - therefore do not suspect me of jealousy! - in the station of the generous lover. [42]

A descent can be either figurative or physical. The descending that Allah spoke about, if understood as physical, would mean His angel, Messenger, and slave. However, if you can understand it to mean that He was not doing any of this and that He then turned to do it in the last third of the night, thereby answering prayers, forgiving, bestowing, and that He has named this "descending from one degree to another and from one attribute to another," then that - ironically - is addressed to those who have more knowledge than you and more intelligence, who are firmer in belief in Allah's Unity and are less confused than you - nay, who are not confused at all! [43]

They say in ignorance that if He meant the descending of his Mercy he would not make that only in the last third of the night, because His Mercy descends day and night. We say: Yes, he singled out the night, and the day of `Arafa, and the hour of Jum`a, because the descent of His mercy in them is more abundant, and its bestowal is even greater then. Allah told us of this when He said: {And those who beg forgiveness in the early hours of the morning} (3:17). [44]


AL-`IRAQI AND IBN JAHBAL'S DISMISSAL OF IBN `ABD AL-BARR

The Renewer of the eighth Islamic century and teacher of Ibn Hajar, Shaykh al-Islam Zayn al-Din al-`Iraqi said about Ibn `Abd al-Barr: "He is one of those who hold that Allah has a direction, therefore beware of him." [45] The Shafi`i Imam Ibn Jahbal al-Kilabi indicated Ibn `Abd al-Barr's isolation from the position of most scholars, particularly Malikis, on the questions of istiwa' and descent:

Concerning what Abu `Umar ibn `Abd al-Barr said, both the elite and the general public know the man's position and the scholars' disavowal of if. The Malikis' condemnation of it, from the first to the last of them, is well-known. His contravention (mukhalafa) of the Imam of North Africa, Abu al-Walid al-Baji, is famous. [46] It reached a point that the eminent people of North Africa would say: `No-one in North Africa holds this position except he and Ibn Abi Zayd!' although some of the people of knowledge cited an excuse for Ibn Abi Zayd in the text of the great qadi Abu Muhammad `Abd al-Wahhab [ibn `Ali ibn Nasr al-Baghdadi (d. 422)] al-Baghdadi al-Maliki [47] - may Allah have mercy on him. [48]







In all that I have posted above I have tried to keep out my own words and just quote from the people of knowledge. Nevertheless, I would request all those who read the above to inform me if they find any mistakes in what I have posted from myself.

And Allah knows best.

Wasalam.

[faqir]

:salam:

This is a good one from the pseudo-Salafis. It was posted by an old buddy of mine on Ummahforums ;). I must say that I was well and truly shocked when I read this. :lol:


tafweed according to ahlul kalam (the people of innovated speech and rhetoric) is to believe in the attributes of Allaah as they have come without accepting their meanings. Or in other words, believing in the wording only. This is a belief which blatantly opposes the belief of Ahlus Sunnah and the way of the Salaf.

Tafweed is worse than tashbeeh, ta'teel, and tamtheel as it leads the person into denial of the names and attributes of Allaah subhanahu in totality without him knowing (in some cases).

Although some of our famous scholars of the past had fallen into this error, it is none the less from the various misguided beliefs of the Asha'eerah, Maturi'diyyah, and the Rafidah to name a few.

It is also a common belief amongst Ikhwaanul Muslimeen as Hasan Al-Banna himself alleged in his writings that this was the way of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah.

Giving a very brief example, if we look at the attribute, Al-Baseer (the All-Seeing) then we find the mufawwid claiming belief in this attribute but because he cannot free himself of tashbeeh (likening Allaah to His creation) he falls into the sin of tafweed or believing in Al-Baseer as being a mere word, nothing more. To the mufawwid there is no difference between Al-Baseer and As-Samee' (the All-Hearing).

The mufawwid says "We believe in the attribute without a meaning or without saying how rather we leave both the MEANING and the HOW to Allaah".

Ahlus Sunnah on the other hand practice tafweed in KAYFIYYAH (Mannerism and the HOW) only and not in the meaning. We do not indulge in HOW Allaah did, does, or will do a thing nor do we seek to know what He - subhanahu wa ta'ala - looks like. Rather we believe in the names and attributes as they have come without resemblance, or distortion of the intended meaning. If Allaah says He has a hand then He has a hand which befits his majesty. What it looks like is none of our concern. All of Allaah's attributes are perfect attributes and we cannot comprehend how they are. Nor do we say that the hand in which Allaah refers to in the Book means "his power" nor do we say "we do not know the meaning and we leave its meaning to Allaah" or "the meaning is too deep for us to gather because we are a weak creation and Allaah is too deep for us" or any of the other crazy statements floating on the tongues of the Ash'aarees.

This is evident in the statement of Imaam Maalik (rahimahullaah) when asked about the Istiwaa (decending of Allaah to the last heaven), He said: "The istiwaa is not unknown and how is not understandable". So he mentions the Istiwaa is being something known, understood and how as being something unknown.

Imaam Ad-Dhahabee (rahimahullah) said commenting on Imaam Maaliks famous statement:

"This is the statement of Ahlus Sunnah without exception, that the manner of Istiwaa we cannot comprehend rather we are ignorant of it and that the Istiwaa is ma'loom (known) as He (Allaah) has mentioned in His Book and that it is done in a manner befitting Him. We do not go deep into it nor do we fake as if we have knowledge of it. We do not delve in to the affairs of it by disproving or proving it (the manner). Rather we remain silent and stop where the Salaf stopped. And we know that if there were an explanation for it then indeed the Sahabah and the Tabi'oon would have rushed to clarify it"

Many of the Mufawwidoon attempt to pin this evil on Sheikhul Islaam ibn Taymiyyah but he (rahimahullaah) CLEARLY states the opposite when he commented on the above statement of Imaam Maalik saying:

"It is such that the remainder of Imaams agree with the statement of Maalik in that we do not know the manner of His descension just as we do not know Him (what He looks like). However we do know the meaning in which the texts prove. So we know the meaning of Istiwaa and we do not know HOW (it takes place). We know the meaning of descension but we do not know how. We know the meaning of As-Sam' (The Hearing), Al-Basr (The Seeing), Al-Ilm, (the Knowledge, Al-Qudrah (The Ablility) but we do not know their manner. We know the meaning of Ar-Rahmah (the Mercy) and Al-Ghadab (The Anger), Ar'Ridaa (The Pleasure), Al-Farh (the Happiness), and Al-Dahak (the Laughter) but we do NOT know their manner" Al-Fatawa (vol:5 pg365)

The statements of the Salaf in this area are too many to bring for myself but each of them indicate and point to tafweed of Ahlus Sunnah being denial of the manner or HOW and not denial of the meaning AND the manner. http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=8&Topic=1048


Now, can somebody tell me, have I got the wrong end of the stick or has the author just called the statement of Imam Dhahabi RH "evil"?? :confused:

And, where does such an article leave the likes of Imam Ahmad RH, Imam Ibn Qudamah RH, Imam Nawawi RH and others? According to the pseudo-Salafi sect they are all deniers of attributes?

SubhanAllah!

What follows is a short excerpt quoted from Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad’s “Albani & his Friends – a concise guide to the Salafi Movement” Section 11. Mashhur Hasan Salman (p. 110-112)


One of the main reasons for Salman’s attack against Imam al-Nawawi is in order to dispute the latter’s Sunni definition of tafwid. In many passages of Sharh Sahih Muslim, al-Nawawi defines tafwid as “committal of the meaning” (Tafwid al-ma’na) by which, according to him, we speak of “the Hand of Allah” but we commit the meaning of this expression to Allah Most High. Mashhur Salman, copying Ibn Taymiyya, defines tafwid as “committal of the modality” (tafwid al-kayf) and not that of meaning, thus asserting that when we speak of “the Hand of Allah” we do understand its meaning but commit its modality to Allah Most High, and that to say that we commit its meaning “is the way of nullification of the Divine Attributes (ta’til)!” (204) In other words, according to the “Salafis”, (1) those who commit the meaning to Allah are like Mu’tazilis and Jahmis who deny the reality of the Attributes of Allah and (2) they – the “Salafis” – know the meaning of the Divine Attributes but do no know the “how” of this meaning.

One can only surmise that the reason Mashhur Salman insists so much on such an aberration is because he is such an ardent lover of Ibn Taymiyya and another one of his bumbling literalist imitators. In his attempt to force a particular error of the latter through the wall of correct doctrine, namely his claim that “Malik did not say that the modality was inexistent but only that it was unknown,” (205) Salman desperately tries to prove that committal must therefore consist only in the committal of modality (kayfiyya) and not that of meaning (ma’na).

But the premise itself of the argument is entirely based on an inauthentic version of Imam Malik’s statement on istiwa’! For the authentic narrations of Imam Malik’s famous statement all have, “The modality is altogether inconceivable” (al-kayfu ghayru ma’qul), not “unknown” as claimed by “Salafis”. Therefore, as held by al-Nawawi in the Ashari School and by Imam al-Pazdawi in the Maturidi – as the latter explained in the passage on the mutashabih of his monumental work on usul – the meaning itself is the problem. (206)


From Ja`far ibn `Abd Allah: "We were with Malik when a man came and asked him: ‘O Abu `Abd Allah! "The Merciful is established over the Throne" (20:5): how is He established?’ Nothing affected Malik as much as that man’s question. He looked at the ground and started prodding it with a twig he held in his hand until he was completely soaked in sweat. Then he lifted his head and said: ‘The "how" of it is inconceivable; the "establishment" part of it is not unknown; belief in it is obligatory; asking about it is an innovation; and I believe that you are a man of innovation.’ Then he gave an order and the man was led out." (207)

From Ibn Wahb: "We were with Malik when a man asked him: ‘O Abu `Abd Allah! "The Merciful is established over the Throne" (20:5): how is His establishment?’ Malik lowered his head and began to sweat profusely. Then he lifted up his head and said: ‘"The Merciful is established over the Throne" just as He described Himself. One cannot ask "how." "How" does not apply to Him. And you are an evil man, a man of innovation. Take him out!’ The man was led out." (208)


From Yahya ibn Yahya al-Tamimi and Malik’s shaykh Rabi`a ibn Abi `Abd al-Rahman: "We were with Malik when a man came and asked him: ‘O Abu `Abd Allah! "The Merciful is established over the Throne" (20:5): how is He established?’ Malik lowered his head and remained thus until he was completely soaked in sweat. Then he said: ‘The establishment is not unknown; the "how" is inconceivable; belief in it is obligatory; asking about it is an innovation; and I do not think that you are anything but an innovator.’ Then he ordered that the man be led out." (209) Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki pointed out that the inconceivability of the modality of istiwa’ proved that it precluded the meaning of sitting. (210)




NOTES:

204. Salman, al-Rudud wal-Ta’aqqubat (p. 67-84)
205. Ibn Taymiyya, al-Iklil fil-Mutashabih wal-Ta’wil in his Majmu’at al-Rasa’il (13:309-310)
206. Al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim (Turath ed. 3:19-20; 5:24-25; 6:36-37; 12:211-212; 16:166; 16:204; 17:3; 17:36; 17:129-132; 17:182-183; Pazdawi (d.482), Usul al-Pazdawi and Kashf al-Asrar (1:55-60)
207. Al-Dhahabi, Siyar (7:415)
208. Narrated by al-Bayhaqi with a sound chain in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat (2:304-305 #866), al-Dhahabi in the Siyar (7:416), and Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1959 ed. 13:406-407; 1989 ed. 13:501).
209. Narrated by al-Bayhaqi with a sound chain in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat (2:305-306 #867), al-Baghawi in Sharh al-Sunna (1:171), al-Lalika’i in Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad (2:398), Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani in al-Jami` fi al-Sunan (p. 123), Abu Nu’aym in the Hilya (6:325-326), cf. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid (7:151) and Ibn Hajar in the Fath (13:407).
The wording that says: "The `how' is unknown" (al-kayfu majhul) is falsely attributed to Imam Malik, although also cited from Rabi`a with a sound chain by al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wa al-Sifat (2:306 #868) and without a chain by Ibn al-Arabi in Aridat al-Ahwadhi (2:235), but is an aberrant narration (riwaya shadhdha). Yet it is the preferred wording of Ibn Taymiyya in Dar' Ta`arud al-`Aql wa al-Naql (1:278) and Majmu`a al-Fatawa (17:373) as he infers from it support for his positions although he reports it as “The ‘how’ is inconceivable” in his Hamawiyya (p. 307)



[end quote]



This is the narration favoured by the Salafis:

“Al-Istiwâ is known, and how is unknown, to have îmân in it is obligatory and to question it is an innovation.” Then he said to the questioner: “I do not think, except that you are an evil man.” So he ordered him to be expelled.


If we accept it as authentic then one can refer to the explanation of Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-`Arabi in his commentary on the hadith of descent in al-Tirmidhi [`Aridat al-ahwadhi 2:234-237]:

One may refrain from explaining the verse, as Malik and others have said: "Istiwa' is known" - he means: its lexical sense- "and its modality is unknown" (wa al-kayfu majhul) - that is: the modality of whatever is suitable for Allah among the senses of istiwa': therefore who can specify such modality? - "and asking about it is innovation" - because, as we have just made clear, probing this matter is looking for dubious matters and that is asking for fitna.

Hence, from what the Imam of Muslims Malik has said, we can conclude that the istiwa' is known; that what is suitable for Allah is left unspecified; and that He is declared transcendent above what is impossible for Him. As for specifying what is not suitable for Him, it is not permissible for you, since you have completed the declaration of oneness and belief by negating likeness for Allah and by negating whatever it is absurd to believe concerning Him. There is no need for anything beyond that, and we have already explained this in detail.


[end of quote from Qadi Abu Bakr]


I have also seen the following quoted elsewhere (with explanation in brackets):


Imam al-Lalaka'iyy narrated about Umm Salamah and Rabi^ah Ibn Abi ^Abdar-Rahman:

http://www.aicp.org/IslamicInformation/images/10w.gif

which means: "The (attribute of) istiwa' is not unknown (because it is mentioned in the Qur'an) Al-kayf, that is, the how of it is inconceivable, (because its applicability to Allah is impossible)"


:salam:

[faqir]

Imam Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi said in his Daf shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih:

If you had said, "We but read the hadiths and remain silent," no one would have condemned you. What is shameful is that you interpret them literally. Do not surrreptiously introduce into the madhhab of this righteous, early Muslim man [Ahmad ibn Hanbal] that which is not of it. You have clothed this madhhab in shameful disgrace, until it can hardly be said "Hanbali" any more without saying anthropomorphist"

[faqir]

:salam:




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


وفي سير أعلام النبلاء للحافظ الذهبي – رحمه الله – (8/105) يقول ما نصه: فقولنا في ذلك وبابه: الإقرار، والإمرار، وتفويض معناه إلى قائله الصادق المعصوم

Meaning:

Siyar Alam al-Nubala of Imam al-Dhahabi, 8/105:

"Our saying in this and what falls under it is: Submission to the text, passing it on as it came and consigning the knowledge of its meaning (tafwidh m’anahu) to its Sacrosant and Truthful Sayer…

No wonder the Salafiyya have it in for Imam al-Dhahabi!

:jazak: for the quote Sidi!

[Omar HH]

As for anthropomorphism, it is clear from this verse and from the entire history of the Umma, that it is not an Islamic school of thought, and never has been. In all times and places, Islam has invited non-Muslims to faith in the Incomparable Reality called Allah; not making man a god, and not making God a man.

Can I have the proofs for that Akhi?

Wa Jazakallahu Khayrun

[Omar HH]

Here is what I see as the main objections of the Salafis:

Rasul Allah :saw: told the slave girl she was correct when she said Allah is in the sky.
Rasul Allah :saw: said that we will certainly see Allah in the hereafter just as one see's the sky.
Allah ('Azza wa Jal) says that he has established himself on the throne.
Rasul Allah :saw: said that Allah has created us in His image.

Therefore Allah is anthropomorphic.

Astaghfirallah.

I've been having some Shaytanic doubts lately, wa Jazakallahu Khayrun.