Tafwid al-Kaif wal-Ma'na

[al-Hanbali]

As Salam Alaikum,

I was reading Ibn Qudamah's book, Dhamm at-Ta'wil (on Hanbali creed in condemnation of Ta'wil) and in the beginning, he said after metioning that the Salaf affirmed the attributes of Allah the Exalted:

"...without resemblence to the attributes of the creation or the qualities of (things) brought into existance. Rather, they passed them on (narated them) as they came and relegated the knowledge of them to the One who spoke them (Allah) and the meaning of them to the One that said them."

(rough translation)

then he said:

"And they (the Salaf) knew that the One who spoke them (Allah) was truthful without doubt, so they believed Him. And they did not know the real meaning (Haqiqah Ma'naha) of them (the attributes) so they were silent about what they did not know."

[Djibril]

assalam alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh,

akhi al-karim, could u please indicate the page numbers?

barakallahu fik :)

[al-Hanbali]

wa alaikum as salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

I read it online

http://www.tawhed.ws/r?i=508

it is after the introduction

(Disclaimer: I dont necessarily agree with the other contents on that site)

(The in depth aqidah section is closed, so i thought that I would add the following to this post for general benefit)

al-Imam adh-Dhahabi in his biography of Muwaffaq ad-Din Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi:

"Abu Shamah (the historian and Ash'ari scholar) said:

"He (Ibn Qudamah) was an Imam and notable in knowledge and action. He authored many books, however, his words in matters of creed were upon the well known way of the people of his Madh'hab (the Hanbali Madh'hab). So far removed is the One who did not clarify for him this matter despite his noblity in knowledge and awareness of the meanings of the (hadith) reports."

I (adh-Dhahabi)say:

"And him and his likes are also amazed at you all with your knowledge and cleverness, how you said (in matters of creed). And similarly, every group is amazed at the others and this is not strange. We hope for all who have expanded their best efforts in serching for the truth to be forgiven from this Ummah that has been bestowed mercy.

[faqir]

An interesting quote from Imam al-Dhahabi provided by Sidi Abul Hasan:


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…



See for full quote:

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


here is the dhamm at-ta'wil link http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:_3q3BlF_UtEJ:www.alsunnah.info/r%3Fi%3D508+%22%D8%B0%D9%85+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8% A3%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%84%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

[faqir]

Another related thread:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=54907&postcount=1

[al-Hanbali]

Yeah, when i used to be salafi and or salafi inclined, i used to believe that the meaning of tafwid al ma'na was to negate false ta'wil. but what happened (as has happened in so many other issues) is that i kept coming across stuff from not only ibn qudamah (i found more since starting this thread) or adh-Dhahabi, but other Hanabilah that quite explicitly mention tafwid al ma'na and negation of ta'wil as seperate things. In sha Allah, i will soon post some of these statements.

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

Has it not occurred to you that these statements are ambiguous as explained carefully in Abd al-Rahman al-Qadi's book Manhaj Ahl al-Tafwid? Or has it not occured to you what Ibn Taymiyyah said about that in his Dar Ta'arrud al-Aqql wa'l-Naql and elsehwhere? Were it not for the confusion that would increase I would have stated all those instances wherein Ibn Hamid, Qadi Abu Ya'la, Ibn al-Zaghuni, Abu'l-Khattab al-Kalwadhani and their likes from the A'immat al-Hanabilah stated words similar to Ibn Qudamah or to that of the Ahl al-Ta'wil..

..it behoves a student to read first the current literature concerning a given subject, in this case al-Tafwid, before making sweeping statements concerning the words of others he does not understand..

..you may begin with the following booklet, before proceeding to the above-mentioned one and their like:

Naqd al-Tafwid al-Mubtadi' wa-Bayan 'Alaqat baynah wa-bayn al-Tajahhum.

[al-Hanbali]

Bro Ibn Abi Ya'la, Salamullahi Alaykum

I am aware of the works you are citing, but let me ask you a few questions if you do not mind.

1. What is your opinion of Qadi Abu Ya'la's book on Ibtal at-Ta'wil and is it a relied upon book in our Madh'hab?
2. What do you say when Imam adh-Dhahabi and others clearly affirm Tafwid al-Ma'na and in the same passages, negate Ta'wil in a manner such that it is impossible to say that what they meant by tafwid al-Ma'na was negation of Ta'wil (which is the standard salafi apoligist explanation-which interestingly enough, is not shared by most salafi scholars whcih shows that what is being said here is not just a case of misunderstanding a scholars words)?
3. What is the classical Hanbali view (excluding Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah) regarding the Akhbar as-Sifat: are they from the Mutashabih or not?

I have seen some of your comments on this forum, and I think that you also dont really understand what is meant by Tafwid as spoken by the Hanabilah.

Obviously, you and others will come to a different conclusion if you study issues of Sifat from books like Naqd al-Tafwid al-Mubtadi', and Abd al-Rahman al-Qadi's book Manhaj Ahl al-Tafwid-which for the most part a speaking from the premise that everything Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah said (especially regarding Tafwid) is 100% correct.

On the issue of Sifat, most Salafis take the bulk of their beliefs from works like al Qawa'id al Muthla of Ibn Uthaymin. Bro, I am aware of what the "other side" is saying as i was a part of that other side for years. In fact, i studied al Qawa'id al Muthla twice with people "qualified" to teach it.

Hindsight is 20/20, and upon reflection, I saw that most of us were applying the principles in that book like students from al Maghrib institute apply Usuli principles after taking the "code of the scholars" class. We learned principles from that book, and on the basis of that, we were going around saying stuff like: Allah gets bored (in a manner that befits His majesty!) ect.

Salafis are taught that the principles in that book form the core principles of Ahlus-Sunnah in issues regarding the Sifat. But as with almost everything else, as one goes deeper, one sees that not everything is a clear as is it made out to be. For a glimpse of some of the differences between Salafis themselves on issues of Sifat, just look at Ali al-Khudair's book, al-Wasit: http://www.tawhed.ws/a?i=13

HayakAllah

[faqir]

http://al-insaf.blogspot.com/2005/11/matters-where-salafis-have-opposed_16.html

Interesting quotes akhi!

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

Mr. al-Hanbali, take my e-mail adress and add it to your MSN please.

[al-Hanbali]

i dont use msn bro. you can always PM me.

was salam

[tilmeedh]

:salam:

I have a question! :)

From Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar of Al-Imam Al-A'dham:

He has a hand, a face, and a self (nafs); the mention that God most High has made of these in the Qur'an has the sense that these are among His attributes, and no question can be raised concerning their modality (bila kayf). It cannot be said that His hand represents His power of His bestowal of bounty, because such an interpretation would require a negation of an attribute. This is the path taken by the Qadarites and the Mu'tazilites (two theological sects in early Islam that deviated from the path of Ahl as-Sunna - trans.) Rather, His hand is an attribute, of unknowable modality, in the same way that His anger and pleasure are two attributes of unknowable modality God Most High created things out of nothing, and He had knowledge of them in pre-eternity, before their creation.

Now my question has to do with how Ibn Taymiyyah, Salih Al-Fawzan, Ibn 'Uthaymin and others have accepted the verses/ahadith of the attributes.
They will say 'take the attributes literally but without any tashbeeh to the creation'.
My question: Why should this be considered tashbeeh? Like the Fiqh Al-Akbar states, we are to accept the attribute without interpreting it, and without knowing the kayf (modality). Is this not similar to what the Salafis say? How, then, can we call the salafis anthropomorphists, when they negate tashbeeh?

Secondly, Ibn Taymiyyah in his Wasitiyyah states:

All that Allah The Glorified mentioned-that He is on the Throne (al-'Arsh) and that He is with us-true in itself does not warrant distortion but should be protected from false conjectures, such as thinking that the apparent meaning of His saying "In Heavens" means that heavens contain Him. This is invalid according to the consensus of all the people of knowledge and faith.In light of this, I would like to know why people criticize Ibn Taymiyyah while he was only confirming what the Sunnah confirmed, and condemned hadd (being contained in the sky)?

Personally, I read the Wasitiyyah, and did not come across any anthropomorphism, nor any contradiction of the Sunnah. Moreover, Imam Al-Dhahabi confirmed that he believed in everything found in the Wasitiyyah.
May I then know what the gripe is with this book?


ws

[tilmeedh]

:salam:

I was reading Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah's Kitab Al-'Arsh (http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=10&book=2072), and I came across this:


وأجمع الخلق جميعا أنهم إذا دعوا الله جميعا رفعوا أيديهم إلى السماء فلو كان الله عز وجل في الأرض السفلى ما كانوا يرفعون أيديهم إلى السماء وهو معهم في الأرض ثم تواترت الأخبار أن الله تعالى خلق العرش فاستوى عليه بذاته ثم خلق الأرض والسماوات فصار من الأرض إلى السماء ومن السماء إلى العرش فهو فوق السماوات وفوق العرش بذاته متخلصا من خلقه بائنا منهم

Also, Al-Muzani:


الحمد لله أحق من ذكر وأولى من شكر... علا على عرشه في مجده بذاته، وهو دان بعلمه من خلقه...


And Abu Zayd Al-Qayrawani:


وأنه فوق عرشه المجيد بذاته، وأنه في كل مكان بعلمه

Now, my question: again, isn't this exactly what Ibn Taymiyyah said too?