On the SPUBS article: "A Reply to a Jahmee : Nuh Keller Unveiled"

[faqir]

"Produce your proof if you are truthful." [Al-Baqarah 2:111]

I hope to compile a few replies to the article by Abu Iyad al-Salafi and Dawud Burbank as I feel that they have made a few errors and have unjustifiably attacked the creed of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah.

Much of what is mentioned by the authors of the article has been dealt with in scattered posts by various brothers on this forum already so this is merely an effort to bring all their work together. I hope that brothers like Sidi Abul Hasan, samrqandi, al-Hanbali, some of the excellent moderators [who always like to remain anonymous] and others who post here will not mind me extracting useful excerpts from their posts where necessary.

[faqir]

"Concerning the Jahmite's Allegation about Tafweed"

Concerning the Jahmite's Allegation about Tafweed

The aforementioned Jahmee also stated: "The real aqeedah of Imaam Ahmad was very simple and consisted mainly of tafweedh, that is to consign to Allaah the meaning of the mutashaabihaat - or unapparent meanings of the Qur'aan and Hadeeth..." - and this is a wicked lie against Imaam Ahmad - free is Imaam Ahmad of the Jahmee as is the milk from dung and blood.

Shaikh Muhammad bin Saalih al-Uthaimeen - may Allaah protect Him - said: "The aqeedah of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, therefore, is free from tahreef and ta'teel. And by this we come to know misguidance or the lie of those who say: 'The way of the Salaf is tafweedh'. These people have gone astray if they have said this whilst being ignorant of the way of the Salaf and if they said that with knowledge, they have lied (deliberately). We can also say: They have lied in two ways: In the sense of the language of the Hijaaz, since kadhib (a lie) to the people of the Hijaaz is with the meaning of khata' (a mistake). And in any circumstance, there is no doubt that those who say: The madhhab of Ahl us-Sunnah is tafweedh - that they have erred because the madhhab of Ahl us-Sunnah is to affirm the meaning but to do tafweedh of its kaifiyyah (how it is).

And let it be known that speaking with tafweedh - as Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah[36] has said - is amongst the most evil of the sayings of the Ahl ul-Bid'ah wal-Ilhaad. When a person hears about tafweedh he says: 'This is good, I will be safe from these (people) and those (people). I will not speak with the madhhab of the Salaf and nor will I speak with the madhhab of those performing ta'weel, I will take the middle path and will be saved from all of this. And I will say: Allaah knows best, we do not know what its meaning is.'

However Shaikh ul-Islaam says: "This is amongst the most evil of the sayings of Ahl ul-Bid'ah wal-Ilhaad".

And he - may Allaah have mercy upon him - has spoken the truth. When you reflect upon it you will find that this necessitates (the following): a denial of the Qur'aan, that the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was ignorant, and arrogance on behalf of the people of philosophy.

A denial of the Qur'aan because Allaah says:

And We have revealed to you (O Muhammad) the Book as an exposition of every single thing [Soorah Nahl 16:89]

Where is the explanation in words whose meanings are not known?! And most of what has been mentioned in the Qur'aan are the Names of Allaah and His Attributes. If we do not know what their meanings are, is the Qur'aan an exposition for everything?! Where is the explanation?!

These people are saying: 'The Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) does not know the meanings of the Qur'aan with respect to what is related to the Names and Attributes'. And when the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) does not know then it is certain and foremost that those besides Him do not know.

More amazing than that is that they say: 'The Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) speaks about the Attributes of Allaah and he does not know what they mean. He says: 'O Allaah, our Lord Who is above the Sky' and when He is questioned about this he (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) says: 'I don't know!' And likewise regarding his saying: 'Our Lord descends to the lowest heaven...' and when he is asked about the meaning of 'Our Lord descends' he says: 'I don't know' and built upon this - the same can be said [for all the other Attributes].

And is there a greater slander of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) than this? Rather this is amongst the biggest of slanders. A Messenger from Allaah sent to explain to mankind and yet he does not know the meaning of the aayaat of the Attributes and the ahaadeeth pertaining to them. And he is speaking with words whose meanings he does not know. So it [i.e. the evil of tafweedh] is from two aspects - a denial of the Qur'aan and ascribing ignorance to the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam)"[37] End of his words - may Allaah have mercy upon him.

It has already preceded - in the words of Imaam Maalik - which are "the balance for all of Allaah's Attributes"[38] - that the meaning of the Attributes are known but the kaifiyyah (how they are) is not.[39]


Notes to above:


36 In 'Dar ut-Ta'aarudh al-Aql wan-Naql' (1/121)

37 Sharh Aqeedatil-Waasitiyyah (1/94) of Ibn Uthaimeen

38 Sharh Aqeedatil-Waasitiyyah (1/100) of Ibn Uthaimeen.

39 Imaam Maalik (d. 179H) said: "Al-Istiwaa is known, and how is unknown, to have eemaan in it is obligatory and to question it is an innovation." Reported by al-Bayhaqee in al-Asmaa was-Sifaat (p.516) with the wording: "Al-Istiwaa is not unknown and how is unknown, to have eemaan in it is obligatory and to question it is an innovation." Ad-Daarimee also reported it in ar-Radd alal-Jahmiyyah (p.55).

Asalamu alaykum,


"I believe in Allah and what has come about Allah according to the intent of Allah."

[ Imam Shafi'i as quoted in Luma'h Al-`Itiqaad Al- Haadi ilaa ilaa Sabeel al-Rashaad ]


The discussion is on the issue of Tafweed or more specifically Tafweed al-ma'na.


This is established from Imam Ahmad as the following quotes demonstrate:


The Hanbali Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Khallal (311/923) in his al-Sunna [The sunna] through his chain of narrators from Hanbal [ibn Ishaq al-Shaybani] (d. 273/886), the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, states 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 below 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

Ibn Qudamah quotes Imam Ahmad in his Lum`at ul-I`tiqaad, p. 6 as saying:

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


[some quotes and excerpts from Sidi Abul Hasan's posts are included in some of what follows (with slight editing by me)]

The Hanbali, Shaykh Ibn Qudama is constantly quoted by the Salafis due to his anti-Ta'wil stance. His fellow Hanbali Imam Ibn al-Jawzi who many consider greater in overall rank as an accomplished scholar took the line that Ta'wil of the Sifat, when called for, has a basis in the way of the Salaf and classical Arabic language. Ibn al Jawzi's line has close resemblance to some of the Asha'ira in this respect.

Anyway, there is no need to digress because the issue at hand is that of Tafweed and NOT ta'wil. The following quotes will clearly prove the position of Ibn Qudamah [and Imam Ahmad] on the issue of Tafweed al-Ma'na.

وكل ما جاء في القرآن أو صح عن المصطفى عليه السلام صفات الرحمن وجب الإيمان به وتلقيه بالتسليم والقبول وترك التعرض له بالرد والتأويل والتشبيه والتمثيل وما أشكل من ذلك وجب إثباته لفظا وترك التعرض لمعناه ونرد علمه إلى قائله ونجعل عهدته على ناقله اتباعا لطريق الراسخين في العلم الذين أثنى الله عليهم في كتابه المبين بقوله سبحانه وتعالى ( والراسخون في العلم يقولون آمنا به كل من عند ربنا) آل عمران 7 وقال في ذم مبتغي التأويل لمتشابه تنزيله فأما الذين في قلوبهم زيغ فيتبعون ما تشابه منه ابتغاء الفتنة وابتغاء تأويله وما يعلم تأويله إلا الله ) آل عمران 7 فجعل ابتغاء التأويل علامة على الزيغ وقرنه بابتغاء الفتنة في الذم ثم حجبهم عما أملوه وقطع أطماعهم عما قصدوه بقوله سبحانه وما يعلم تأويله إلا الله .

قال الإمام أبو عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه في قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إن الله ينزل الى سماء الدنيا و إن الله يرى في القيامة وما أشبه هذه الأحاديث نؤمن بها ونصدق بها لا كيف ولا معنى ولا نرد شيئا منها ونعلم أن ما جاء به الرسول حق ولا نرد على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا نصف الله بأكثر مما وصف به نفسه بلا حد ولا غاية (ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير) الشورى 11 ونقول كما قال ونصفه بما وصف به نفسه لا نتعدى ذلك ولا يبلغه وصف الواصفين نؤمن بالقرآن كله محكمه ومتشابهه ولا نزيل عنه صفة من صفاته لشناعة شنعت ولا نتعدى القرآن والحديث ولا نعلم كيف كنه ذلك إلا بتصديق الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وتثبيت القرآن .

Translation:

All what is mentioned in the Qur'an or is authentically reported upon "the Chosen One" (al-Mustafa) - 'alayhis-salam - from among the attributes of al-Rahman, it is incumbent [upon us]:

to believe in [that report]

to receive it with submission and acceptance

and to forsake resisting it by (i) rejection, (ii) allegorically interpretation (at-ta'wil), or by resembling (at-tashbih) or likening (at-tamthil) [the attribute to that of His creation].

Whatever of [these reports that we find] difficult [to comprehend] it is required to affirm its wording and to forsake delving into its meaning. We [rather] entrust knowledge of its reality to He who has spoken it and we place the responsibility [of our faith in it] upon he who transmitted it. Thereby following the way of those firmly grounded in knowledge whom Allah has praised in His Clear Scripture by His statement - subhanahu wa ta'ala, "And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, `We believe in it; all is from our Lord."' (3:7) While He has said in condemnation of those who seek the interpretation (at-ta'wil) of the ambiguous (mutashabih) of His revelation: "As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only Allah." So He made seeking its interpretation an indication of perversity [of the heart] and He linked it in its condemnation with seeking dissension (fitna). He then veiled them from that which they sought and He cut off their hope [of ever reaching that] by His statement - subhanahu, "And none knows its interpretation, save only Allah."

Imam Abu `Abdullah Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal - may Allah be pleased with him - has said regarding the Prophet's statements - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam- that Allah descends to the lowest heaven, that Allah will be seen on the day of Resurrection, and what resembles such statements. "We have faith and believe in them without how or meaning. We do not reject any of [these reports]. We know that what the Messenger came with is the truth. We do not reject what the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - has brought. Nor do we describe Allah with more than what He has described Himself without [ascribing to Him] a limit or an end. 'Like Him there is naught. And He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing.' (42:1 1). We say as He has said and we describe Him as He has described Himself. We do not transgress that. The descriptions of men do not reach Him. We believe in the whole of the Qur'an - its definitive (mukham) and its equivocal (mutashabih). We do not separate from Him any of His attributes due to the protests of anyone. We do not transgress the Qur'an and the hadith. Nor do we know the reality of [these attributes] except by believing the Messenger - sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam - and affirming the Qur'an."


Similar quotes are found from Ibn Qudamah in Dhamm at'Ta'wil where 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."


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."

("rough translation" by brother al-Hanbali reproduced with thanks)

Now, my dear brothers and sisters, I ask you, will Abu Iyad al-Salafi & Dawud Burbank label these Imam's as filthy "jahmees" for their stance on Tafweed al-Ma'na?!



Just to mention that some have tried to weaken some of the narrations from Imam Ahmad on the basis that they are narrated from Hanbal Ibn Ishaq.

all from the narrations of Hanbal bin Ishaaq, who is alone in reporting these narrations - and the scholars have discussed that it is common to find that what Hanbal is alone in narrating contradicts the famous and well-known stances of Imaam Ahmad, and therefore some of the Hanbalee scholars like al-Khallaal and others did not depend upon these type of narrations from him

In the same category falls the narration that Keller quotes from Imaam Ahmad, "we believe in them and consider them true without how and without meaning" for it is also singularly narrated by Hanbal bin Ishaaq.

Hanbal ibn Ishaq is:

هو حنبل بن إسحاق بن حنبل بن هلال بن أسد أبو علي الشيباني وهو ابن عم أحمد بن حنبل

the cousin of Imam Ahmad.

Al Khatib Baghdadi said about him in his Tarikh:

ثقة ثبت

- Extremely trustworthy


Ibn Abi Ya`la in Tabaqat al-Hanabila narrated that al-Khallal - the principal compiler of the early Hanbali Madhhab - said of Hanbal that his narrations from Ahmad were so good that "I might compare them to those of al- Athram in excellence, thoroughness, and perfection"!




Let me now quote from Imam al-Dhahabi RH so we can clarify that he had no problem with Tafwid al-ma'na:

أَبُو أَحْمَدَ بنُ عَدِيٍّ: حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بنُ عَلِيٍّ المَدَائِنِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بنُ إِبْرَاهِيْمَ بنِ جَابِرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو زَيْدٍ بنُ أَبِي الغَمْرِ، قَالَ:

قَالَ ابْنُ القَاسِمِ: سَأَلْتُ مَالِكاً عَمَّنْ حَدَّثَ بِالحَدِيْثِ: الَّذِيْنَ قَالُوا: (إِنَّ اللهَ خَلَقَ آدَمَ عَلَى صُوْرَتِهِ)، وَالحَدِيْثِ الَّذِي جَاءَ: (إِنَّ اللهَ يَكْشِفُ عَنْ سَاقِهِ)، (وَأَنَّهُ يُدْخِلُ يَدَهُ فِي جَهَنَّمَ حَتَّى يُخْرِجَ مَنْ أَرَادَ). (8/104)
فَأَنْكَر مَالِكٌ ذَلِكَ إِنْكَاراً شَدِيْداً، وَنَهَى أَنْ يُحَدِّثَ بِهَا أَحَدٌ.
فَقِيْلَ لَهُ: إِنَّ نَاساً مِنْ أَهْلِ العِلْمِ يَتَحَدَّثُوْنَ بِهِ.
فَقَالَ: مَنْ هُوَ؟
قِيْلَ: ابْنُ عَجْلاَنَ، عَنْ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ.
قَالَ: لَمْ يَكُنِ ابْنُ عَجْلاَنَ يَعْرِفُ هَذِهِ الأَشْيَاءَ، وَلَمْ يَكُنْ عَالِماً.
وَذَكَرَ أَبَا الزِّنَادِ، فَقَالَ: لَمْ يَزَلْ عَامِلاً لِهَؤُلاَءِ حَتَّى مَاتَ.
رَوَاهَا: مِقْدَامٌ الرُّعَيْنِيُّ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي الغَمْرِ، وَالحَارِثِ بنِ مِسْكِيْنٍ، قَالاَ: حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ القَاسِمِ.
قُلْتُ: أَنْكَرَ الإِمَامُ ذَلِكَ، لأَنَّهُ لَمْ يَثبُتْ عِنْدَهُ، وَلاَ اتَّصَلَ بِهِ، فَهُوَ مَعْذُورٌ، كَمَا أَنَّ صَاحِبَي (الصَّحِيْحَيْنِ) مَعْذُورَانِ فِي إِخرَاجِ ذَلِكَ - أَعْنِي: الحَدِيْثَ الأَوَّلِ وَالثَّانِي - لِثُبُوتِ سَنَدِهِمَا، وَأَمَّا الحَدِيْثُ الثَّالِثُ، فَلاَ أَعْرِفُه بِهَذَا اللَّفْظِ، فَقَولُنَا فِي ذَلِكَ وَبَابِهِ: الإِقرَارُ، وَالإِمْرَارُ، وَتَفْويضُ مَعْنَاهُ إِلَى قَائِلِه الصَّادِقِ المَعْصُومِ. (8/105)

وَقَالَ ابْنُ عَدِيٍّ: حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بنُ هَارُوْنَ بنِ حَسَّانٍ، حَدَّثَنَا صَالِحُ بنُ أَيُّوْبَ، حَدَّثَنَا حَبِيْبُ بنُ أَبِي حَبِيْبٍ، حَدَّثَنِي مَالِكٌ، قَالَ:
يَتَنَزَّلُ رَبُّنَا - تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى - أَمْرُهُ، فَأَمَّا هُوَ، فَدَائِمٌ لاَ يَزُولُ.
قَالَ صَالِحٌ: فَذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لِيَحْيَى بنِ بُكَيْرٍ، فَقَالَ: حَسَنٌ وَاللهِ، وَلَمْ أَسْمَعْهُ مِنْ مَالِكٍ.
قُلْتُ: لاَ أَعْرِفُ صَالِحاً، وَحَبِيْبٌ مَشْهُوْرٌ، وَالمَحْفُوْظُ عَنْ مَالِكٍ -رَحِمَهُ اللهُ- رِوَايَةُ الوَلِيْدِ بنِ مُسْلِمٍ، أَنَّهُ سَأَلهُ عَنْ أَحَادِيْثِ الصِّفَاتِ، فَقَالَ: أَمِرَّهَا كَمَا جَاءتْ، بِلاَ تَفْسِيْرٍ.

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…


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


What will these people say about Imam al-Dhahabi now? Will they label him as a filthy Jahmee?!


"salafees" will say NO! These Imams believed in the Dhahir of these texts so they are only relegating the How of the texts and not the meaning!


Fine then no problem - what will you say then about what as-Suyuti, al-Bayhaqi or Imam Ibn Hajar says?

قال الحافظ في هدي الساري 143:
فيهما بالكسر مقصورا وأما المقصور فبمعنى غير قوله ساوى الظل التلول معناه ماثل امتداده ارتفاعها وهو قدر القامة وشرحه الداودي بما وهم فيه قوله استوى على العرش هو من المتشابه الذي يفوض علمه إلي الله تعالى ووقع تفسيره في الأصل قوله اهـ

Ibn Hajar on tafwid

Ibn Hajar in Hadi us-Sari [online Sahab version, page 103] states:

قوله استوى على العرش هو من المتشابه الذي يفوض علمه إلي الله تعالى ووقع تفسيره في الأصل

While defining certain words used in Sahih Al-Bukhari, Ibn Hajar says:

‘The statement istawa alal arshi is from the mutashabih (unclear verses) whose knowledge is consigned (yufawwadu from tafwid) to Allah the Almighty although by principle its manifestation has already occurred.’

فتح الباري، شرح صحيح البخاري، - للإمام ابن حجر العسقلاني

الحديث: -1145-حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنْ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ وَأَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْأَغَرِّ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ:
يَنْزِلُ رَبُّنَا تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى كُلَّ لَيْلَةٍ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ الدُّنْيَا حِينَ يَبْقَى ثُلُثُ اللَّيْلِ الْآخِرُ يَقُولُ: مَنْ يَدْعُونِي فَأَسْتَجِيبَ لَهُ مَنْ يَسْأَلُنِي فَأُعْطِيَهُ مَنْ يَسْتَغْفِرُنِي فَأَغْفِرَ لَهُ.
الشرح: قوله: (عن أبي سلمة وأبي عبد الله الأغر، عن أبي هريرة) في رواية عبد الرزاق، عن معمر، عن الزهري، " أخبرني أبو سلمة بن عبد الرحمن وأبو عبد الله الأغر صاحب أبي هريرة، أن أبا هريرة أخبرهما".
قوله: (ينزل ربنا إلى السماء الدنيا) استدل به من أثبت الجهة وقال: هي جهة العلو، وأنكر ذلك الجمهور لأن القول بذلك يفضي إلى التحيز تعالى الله عن ذلك.
وقد اختلف في معنى النزول على أقوال: فمنهم من حمله على ظاهره وحقيقته وهم المشبهة تعالى الله عن قولهم.
ومنهم من أنكر صحة الأحاديث الواردة في ذلك جملة وهم الخوارج والمعتزلة وهو مكابرة، والعجب أنهم أولوا ما في القرآن من نحو ذلك وأنكروا ما في الحديث إما جهلا وإما عنادا.
ومنهم من أجراه على ما ورد مؤمنا به على طريق الإجمال منزها الله تعالى عن الكيفية والتشبيه وهم جمهور السلف، ونقله البيهقي، وغيره عن الأئمة الأربعة والسفيانين والحمادين والأوزاعي والليث وغيرهمومنهم من أوله على وجه يليق مستعمل في كلام العرب.
ومنهم من أفرط في التأويل حتى كاد أن يخرج إلى نوع من التحريف، ومنهم من فصل بين ما يكون تأويله قريبا مستعملا في كلام العرب وبين ما يكون بعيدا مهجورا فأول في بعض وفوض في بعض، وهو منقول عن مالك وجزم به من المتأخرين ابن دقيق العيد
قال البيهقي: وأسلمها الإيمان بلا كيف والسكوت عن المراد إلا أن يرد ذلك عن الصادق فيصار إليه، ومن الدليل على ذلك اتفاقهم على أن التأويل المعين غير واجب فحينئذ التفويض أسلم

Ibn Hajar on the Hadith of Descent (nuzul)

The hadith of descent from Sahih Al-Bukhari:

Abdullah bin Maslamah narrates from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Abu Salamah and Abdullah Algharr both of whom narrate from Abu Huraira that:

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said:

‘Our Lord, the Blessed, the Superior, descends every night to the nearest Heaven when the last third of the night remains, saying: “Is there anyone to invoke Me, so that I may respond to invocation? Is there anyone to ask Me, so that I may grant him his request? Is there anyone seeking My forgiveness, so that I may forgive him?”’

Ibn Hajar’s comments from Fathul Bari


Those who assert direction for Allah have used this hadith as proof that He is in the direction of above-ness (uluww). The vast majority of the scholars reject this, because saying such leads to establishing boundaries for Him and Allah is exalted above that.

And so there is disagreement regarding the meaning of 'Nuzool' upon the [following] sayings (i.e. of the scholars):

• So from them are those who hold that that it is upon its Thaahir (apparent) and its Haqeeqi (real literal) meaning, and they are the Mushabbihah (those who make tashbeeh which is to liken Allah to his creation), exalted is Allah from their sayings.
• Some reject the validity of the ahadith cited in that chapter altogether. These are the Khawarij and the Mu’tazila and this view is highly contentious. What is strange is that they interpret figuratively what is related to this in the Qur'an, but they reject what is in the ahadith either out of ignorance or out of obstinacy.
• Some have taken them as they have come, believing in them without specificity, declaring Allah to be transcendent above modality (kayfiyya) and likeness to creation (tashbih): these are the vast majority of the Salaf. That position is reported by Al-Bayhaqi and others from the four Imams, Sufyan ibn ‘Uyayna, Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Hammad ibn Salama, Hammad ibn Zayd, Al-Awza’i, Al-Layth, and others.
• Some interpreted them in a way that befits the linguistic usage of the Arabs.
• Some have over-interpreted them to the point that they almost tampered with the text (tahrif).
• Some have made a difference between a kind of interpretation that is likely and current in the linguistic usage of the Arabs, and another kind which is far-fetched and archaic, interpreting in the former case and committing the meaning to Allah in the latter. [I.e. if the Arabic equivalent is sensible and befitting to Allah’s majesty it would be accepted but if the Arabic usage opposes the majesty of Allah then tafwid is practised]. This is reported from Malik, and among the later scholars (muta‘akhkhirun) it is asserted decisively by Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id.

Al-Bayhaqi said: “The safest method is to believe in them without modality, and to maintain concerning what is meant except if the explanation is conveyed from the Prophet himself, in which case it is followed.” The proof for this is the agreement of the scholars that the specific interpretation is not obligatory, and that therefore the commitment of meaning to Allah (tafwid) is the safest option.

فتح الباري، شرح صحيح البخاري - للإمام ابن حجر العسقلاني
المجلد الثالث عشر >> كِتَاب التَّوْحِيدِ >> باب وَكَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ وَهُوَ رَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ

وقال إمام الحرمين في الرسالة النظامية اختلفت مسالك العلماء في هذه الظواهر فرأى بعضهم تأويلها والتزم ذلك في آي الكتاب وما يصح من السنن، وذهب أئمة السلف إلى الانكفاف عن التأويل وإجراء الظواهر على مواردها وتفويض معانيها إلى الله تعالى والذي نرتضيه رأيا وندين الله به عقيدة اتباع سلف الأمة للدليل القاطع على أن إجماع الأمة حجة فلو كان تأويل هذه الظواهر حتما لأوشك أن يكون اهتمامهم به فوق اهتمامهم بفروع الشريعة، وإذا انصرم عصر الصحابة والتابعين على الإضراب عن التأويل كان ذلك هو الوجه المتبع انتهى.
وقد تقدم النقل عن أهل العصر الثالث وهم فقهاء الأمصار كالثوري والأوزاعي ومالك والليث ومن عاصرهم، وكذا من أخذ عنهم من الأئمة، فكيف لا يوثق بما اتفق عليه أهل القرون الثلاثة، وهم خير القرون بشهادة صاحب الشريعة، وقسم بعضهم أقوال الناس، في هذا الباب إلى ستة أقوال قولان لمن يجريها على ظاهرها أحدهما من يعتقد أنها من جنس صفات المخلوقين وهم المشبهة ويتفرع من قولهم عدة آراء، والثاني من ينفي عنها شبه صفة المخلوقين لأن ذات الله لا تشبه الذوات فصفاته لا تشبه الصفات فإن صفات كل موصوف تناسب ذاته وتلائم حقيقته، وقولان لمن يثبت كونها صفة ولكن لا يجريها على ظاهرها، أحدهما يقول لا نؤول شيئا منها بل نقول الله أعلم بمراده، والآخر يؤول فيقول مثلا معنى الاستواء الاستيلاء، واليد القدرة ونحو ذلك، وقولان لمن لا يجزم بأنها صفة أحدهما يقول يجوز أن تكون صفة وظاهرها غير مراد، ويجوز أن لا تكون صفة، والآخر يقول لا يخاض في شيء من هذا بل يجب الإيمان به لأنه من المتشابه الذي لا يدرك معناه

Ibn Hajar on Imam Ibn Al-Juwayni’s exposition from Ar-Risalat An-Nizamiyyah

Ibn Hajar writes in Fathul Bari:

Imam Al-Haramayn (Ibn Al-Juwayni) wrote in Ar-Risalat An-Nizamiyyah:

‘The ways of the scholars have differed over the texts concerning the Attributes (dhawaahir) that occur in the Book and Sunnah; some have viewed they should be interpreted figuratively and make such interpretations necessary for the verses of the Qur’an and the sahih ahadith. The Salaf took to refraining from figurative interpretation and leaving these dhawahir as they are cited and to relegate (tafwid) their meanings to Allah the Almighty. And that which we are pleased with as our view and as our belief in Allaah is by following the salaf; and the textual evidence is unequivocal that the consensus of the nation is a proof that is to be followed; so if it is the case that some interpret these dhawaahir figuratively to such an extent that they occupy themselves in such pursuits more than the occupation of the branches of shari’ah while the era of the Sahabah and Tabi’in have passed in avoiding such interpretations then that [the era of the salaf] is what we follow.’


I have previously mentioned the opinions of the third generation (of scholars), the jurists of the major cities, such as Ath-Thawri, Al-Awza’i, Malik, Al-Layth and their contemporaries as well as those Imams who took from them, so how can we not legalise what has already been agreed upon by the first three generations who are the best of generations, as any who understands the shari’ah will certify?

Some have divided the views of the people on this issue into six categories:

Two of which is to take them according to their apparent meaning:

• The first believe that they are from the same type of attributes as the attributes of creation; these are the Mushabbahah and many other opinions branch off from their view
• The second deny that they are similar to the creation because the essence (dhat) of Allah is not similar to any other essences so it follows His attributes (sifat) are not similar to any attributes, since the attributes of every descriptive being (mawsuf) has a complementary essence and reality (haqiqah)

Two views which confirm they are from the attributes of Allah but do not take them to be literal:

• The first say we do not interpret anything whatsoever rather we say Allah knows best its meaning
• The other interprets them figuratively so, for example, they interpret istiwa to mean istila (to dominate) and yad (hand) to mean qudrah (power) etc.

Two views which claim they are not necessarily attributes:

• The first say it is possible they are attributes although the literal meaning is not intended but it is also possible that they are not attributes
• The other says this should not even be discussed; rather it should simply be believed in since they are from the mutashabih (unclear verses) whose meaning cannot be comprehended

As-Suyuti on tafwid

قال الإمام جلال الدين السيوطي في كتابه "الإتقان في علوم القرآن" (2/6

ومن المتشابه آيات الصفات ... وجمهور أهل السنة، منهم السلف وأهل الحديث على الإيمان بها، وتفويض معناها والمراد منها إلى الله تعالى ولا نفسرها مع تنزيهنا له عن حقيقتها" . اهـ

As-Suyuti writes in Al-Itqan:

..and the majority of the Ahlus Sunnah, which includes the Salaf and the people of hadith, have opined that such verses should be believed in but their meanings should be consigned to Allah, and we do not interpret them in such a way that negates their reality.

As-Suyuti as quoted by Imam Ibn al-Imad al-Hanbali in Shadharatudh Dhahab [ online meshkat version, volume 8, page 17] :

فوض أحاديث الصفات * ولا تشبه أو تعطل
الارمت إلا الخوض في * تحقيف معضلة فأول
إن المفوض سالم * مما تكلفه المؤول

Consign (the meaning) of the ahadith of attributes (to Allah)
And do not liken them to the creation nor negate them
If all other pursuits have past except embarking upon
The solving this problem, only then search for an interpretation
'Indeed the one who consigns (its meaning to Allah) is saved
From the burden of the one who interprets figuratively’

And in this is a refutation of the People of Innovations and Desires - such as this Jahmee - who claim that the verses (and ahaadeeth) mentioning the Attributes of Allaah are from the mutashaabihaat (unclear verses) whose meanings are unknown. Rather, it is the kaifiyyah (precise nature) which is unknown, but as for the meanings, then the way of the Salaf, in opposition to the way this Jahmee, is to affirm them but to relegate the knowlege of exactly how they are (kaifiyyah), to Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic. And here you may note a further difference between the Salaf and the People of Innovations and Desires. The Salaf relegate the knowledge of exactly how the Attributes are to their Lord, but they affirm the apparent meanings of these Attributes, in a real sense. As for the Innovators, they relegate the knowledge of the meanings of the Attributes to Allaah, claiming that affirming them would necessitate tashbeeh?! And thus, this Jahmee, like his forefathers, Jahm bin Safwaan and al-Qaadee Abdul-Jabbaar, describes Allaah with nothingness! The falsehood of this claim has already been discussed above and more will be said about it in what follows, inshaa'allaah.

SubhanAllah, let us see what some of the Hanabilah said about the Sifat - did they consider them from the mutashabihaat and if so, will these brothers label them Jahmees?!?


Imām Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisī (ra) said in ar-Rawdah an-Nādhir with the gloss of Ibn Badrān (1/186):

“What is correct is that the Mutashābih are: what has been narrated (textually) regarding the attributes of Allāh the Exalted.”

Ibn Muflih (ra) said in al-Usūl (1/316):

“The Muhkam is: that, the meaning of which is clear, not needing any clarification, and the Mutashābih are the opposite; either due to (the words) sharing (in meaning, Ar. Ishtirāk) or generality (in expression, Ar. Ijmal). A group of our companions (from the Hanābilah) and others (have defined it as): that which the apparent thereof (implies) resemblance (Ar. Tashbīh), such as the attributes of Allāh.”

Imām al-Mardāwī (ra) said in at-Tahbīr Sharh al-Tahrīr (3/1395):

“What is most correct is: The Muhkam is: that, the meaning of which is clear and the Mutashābih are the opposite either due to (the words) sharing (in meaning, Ar. Ishtirāk) or generality (in expression, Ar. Ijmal) or the apparent (implication) of resemblance (Ar. Tashbīh), such as the attributes of Allāh.”

[quotes provided by al-Hanbali]


Now tell me who these [Hanbali] Imams are to Abu Iyad and Dawud Burbank? Will they only label the Asharis/Maturidis as Jahmees for their position on Tafweed or will they dare label all of these Imams who share the same view as them to be "vile, filthy, treacherous Jahmees"?

It has already preceded - in the words of Imaam Maalik - which are "the balance for all of Allaah's Attributes"[38] - that the meaning of the Attributes are known but the kaifiyyah (how they are) is not.[39]

Nonsense.

Here is the footnote they provide for the words they put in Imam Malik's mouth

39 Imaam Maalik (d. 179H) said: "Al-Istiwaa is known, and how is unknown, to have eemaan in it is obligatory and to question it is an innovation." Reported by al-Bayhaqee in al-Asmaa was-Sifaat (p.516) with the wording: "Al-Istiwaa is not unknown and how is unknown, to have eemaan in it is obligatory and to question it is an innovation." Ad-Daarimee also reported it in ar-Radd alal-Jahmiyyah (p.55).

Brothers you can see that no where has Imaam Malik said that the "meaning of the Attributes is known"!


There are two points to consider:

1) the variant they quote is a riwaya shadhdha - see below.

2) if we accept it then it means that al-Istiwa is "known" in the sense that it is mentioned in the Qur'an - and to claim that it means that Imam Malik knew the meaning of the attributes from it is a fallacy.


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.

Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-`Arabi in his commentary on the hadith of descent in al-Tirmidhi [`Aridat al-ahwadhi 2:234-237] states:

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:



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)"



[TO BE CONTINUED]

[faqir]

"That Allaah the Most High has Two Eyes"

Secondly, the point that Ibn ul-Qayyim - may Allaah have mercy upon him - explains in Ijtimaa ul-Juyoosh and in Mukhtasaarus-Sawaa'iq (1/34-37) that Allaah has two Eyes.

Then he explains that this is the position of the Salaf. He quotes Abu Hasan al-Ash'aree who states:

"And He has two eyes without any mention of how, just as He said:

Floating under Our Eyes [Soorah Qamar 54:14]"[16]

Ibn ul-Qayyim says: "So al-Ash'aree and others do not understand from the plural: a'yun (eyes) many eyes, nor from the plural 'aidee' (hands) many hands..."[17]

Ibn Hajr also mentions[18] that al-Bayhaqee mentions a witness to the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah - [i.e. the hadeeth reported by Aboo Daawood that the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) recited Soorah an-Nisaa, aayah 58 and read up to: 'Sameean Baseeraa', and placed his thumb on his ear and the one next to it upon his eye][19] - from the hadeeth of Uqbah bin Aamir: I heard Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) say upon the minbar: "Our Lord certainly hears and sees" and he pointed to his two eyes" Ibn Hajr says: Its isnaad is hasan. [20]

That Allaah the Most High has Two Eyes - in the manner that befits Him and without any resemblance to the creation - is also stated by ad-Daarimee in his reply upon Bishr al-Maarisee and by Ibn Khuzaimah in his Kitaabut-Tawheed and by al-Laalikaa'ee in Sharh Usool il-I'tiqaad.

So the Salafees follow and accept the aqeedah of the Salaf and there is no contradiction or ta'weel here.

InshaAllah I hope to continue the discussion of Abu Iyad al-Salafi & Dawud Burbank's article entitled "a reply to a jahmee : nuh haa mim keller unveiled"

The author's are trying to establish an attribute of TWO eyes for Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.

If we are going to establish a point of Aqida and indeed criticise others for not holding to it [and label them as Jahmees for doing such] then we need to have a clear and unambiguous proof from the primary texts i.e. Qur'an and Sunnah for TWO eyes.

The Qur'an states "My Eye" (`ayni) (see 20:39) in the singular and "Our Eyes" (see 52:48, 54:14) in the plural but never two eyes in the dual.


{ فاصبر لحكم ربك فإنك بأعيننا }

“So wait patiently (O Muhammad) for the Decision of your Lord, for verily, you are under Our Eyes.” [Soorah at-Toor: 58]

{ وحملناه على ذات ألواح ودسر . تجري بأعيننا جزاء لمن كان كفر }

“And We carried him on a (ship) made of planks and nails, Floating under Our Eyes, a reward for him who had been rejected!” [Al-Qamar: 13-14]

{ وألقيت عليك محبة مني ولتصنع على عيني }

“And I endued you with love from Me, in order that you may be brought up under My Eye.” [TaaHaa: 39]


Note brothers - no mention of TWO eyes anywhere!

So immediately these "proofs" are discounted.




Let us then examine some of the narrations from our Nabi salallahu alayhi wa sallam brought by some in their support for their belief:



"The Antichrist (al-dajjal) is [A'war] one-eyed whereas your Lord is not [A'war] one-eyed"

[Narrated from Ibn `Umar in al-Bukhari, Muslim, and the Sunan]

First of all, what is clear from the Hadith is that no where does the Prophet sallalahu alayhi wa sallam state that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala has TWO eyes. He merely states he is not A'war.

Indeed "Any primer on logical fallacies could have told Abu Iyad al-Salafi and Dawud Burbank that the negation of a quality does not entail the affirmation of its contrary, an example of the "Black and White Fallacy" (for example, "If it is not white, it is therefore black," "If you are not my friend, you must be my enemy," and so on)"

Second thing is the translation of A'war as one eyed is misleading. Some have mistakenly taken from the hadith that Dajjal has one eye like a cyclops or something when we know from the hadith of the Prophet salallahu alayhi wa sallam in Jaami` us-Saghir that the Dajjal has green eyes, in the plural, and therefore, like the rest of the human race which he belongs to and is born into as a child he has two eyes. So actually a`war means to have a damaged eye or to be deprived of vision in an eye.

In relation to this hadith and the ayaat quote thus far instead of quoting from Imam Nawawi or Imam Ibn Hajar let us quote the famous Hanbali theologians Ibn al-Jawzi and his predecessor Ibn Aqil [quotes provided by Sidi Abul hasan]:



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….




Coming on to the next narration I have seen some give as "proof", inshaAllah:

As ‘Ataa’ has narrated from Aboo Hurayrah (ra) from the Prophet (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said, ‘When the slave stands in Prayer, he stands between the Two Eyes of ar- Rahmaan…’”

(Narrated by Ibn al-Qayyim in As-Sawaa’iq Al-Mursalah (256))


This is probably the weakest of daleels. First off if we take the hadith literally, would it mean that there is a big gap between Allah’s two eyes?

More importantly the sanad for that tradition has been declared weak by the scholars that the salafiyya refer to: Naasir ad-Deen Al-Albaanee said in As-Silsilah Al-Dha’eefah (1024), “Dha’eef Jiddan”. Also narrated by Al-‘Uqaylee in Al-Dhu’afaa’ (pg. 24), and Al-Bazzaar in his Musnad (553 – Kashf Al-Astaar). And Ibn al-‘Uthaymeen also declared it Dha’eef in his long Sharh to Al-‘Aqeedah Al-Waasitiyyah (1/313-314).



Next is the narration of Abu Hurayra that “The Prophet salallahu alayhi wa sallam recited the verse "Lo! Allāh commands you that you restore deposits to their owners, and, if you judge between mankind, that you judge justly. Lo! excellent is this which Allāh admonishes you. Lo! Allāh is ever Hearer, Seer" (4:58) whereupon he sallallahu alayhi wa sallam placed his thumb on his ear and his index finger on his eye.”


Abu Iyad al-Salafi & Dawud Burbank state in their reference to this very Hadith:

19 Abu Daawood (3/1324) and it is saheeh


Indeed the hadith is narrated by Abu Dawud, and Ibn Hibban (1:498 #265) with a sound chain, also from his shaykh Ibn Khuzayma in al-Tawhid, al-Hakim (1:24), al-Lalika’i in Sharh I‘tiqad Ahl al-Sunna (3:410 #788) and al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma’ wal-Sifat.

Yet, AGAIN dear brothers, where has the Prophet salallahu alayhi wa sallam said that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala has TWO eyes?

NO WHERE!

So what is the point of citing this hadith? Allah knows best. It proves nothing for them.


As I said the Hadith is cited by Ibn Hibban.


What follows is his own commentary (see: 1:498 #265) [translation by Dr. GF Haddad]:


"By placing his fingers on his ear and eye the Prophet [salallahu alayhi wa sallam] wanted to let people know that Allah Almighty does not hear by means of the ear that has an auditory meatus and curves, nor does He see with the eye that has eyelids, a pupil, and a white part. Highly exalted is our Lord above any likeness with His creatures in any way whatsoever! Rather, He hears and sees without organ (āla) in any way He wishes."


Imam Al-Bayhaqi said of the same hadīth in Al-Asma’ wal-Sifat (Hashidi ed. 1:462-463):

What is meant by the gesture narrated in this report is the verification that Allāh is described as possessing hearing and sight. He therefore pointed to the two places of hearing and sight in us to affirm that Allah possesses the Attributes of hearing and sight.



Next, Abu Iyad al-Salafi & Dawud Burbank say Ibn Hajr also mentions[18] that al-Bayhaqee mentions a witness to the hadeeth of Abu Hurairah - [i.e. the hadeeth reported by Aboo Daawood that the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) recited Soorah an-Nisaa, aayah 58 and read up to: 'Sameean Baseeraa', and placed his thumb on his ear and the one next to it upon his eye][19] - from the hadeeth of Uqbah bin Aamir: I heard Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) say upon the minbar: "Our Lord certainly hears and sees" and he pointed to his two eyes" Ibn Hajr says: Its isnaad is hasan.


I say again that this second hadith from Uqbah bin Aamir - even if it were Sahih [which it is not] - would still not matter as once again no where has the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam affirmed TWO eyes for Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala!

Thus far I have not been able to get any further information on the sanad of this hadith.

Even so, why as they favouring the text of this hadith which they themselves declare hasan to the text of Abu Hurayrah RA of this same incident as found in Abu Dawud which they admit to be SAHIH? If anyone can explain this to me please do so.


Also, if they want to quote a hadith apparently cited by Imam Bayhaqi then surely they must have read what he said in Al-Asma’ wal-Sifat (Hashidi ed. 1:462-463):

What is meant by the gesture narrated in this report is the verification that Allāh is described as possessing hearing and sight. He therefore pointed to the two places of hearing and sight in us to affirm that Allah possesses the Attributes of hearing and sight.


Also, perhaps they can explain why the noble Imam himself no where to my knowledge affirms TWO eyes for Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala?

The brothers are truly clutching at straws!


In conclusion brother and sisters, I have seen no definitive text in Qur'an and Sunnah that proves TWO eyes for Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.


Perhaps this is why Ibn Hazm RH [a well known opponent of the Asharis in many aspects] stated in Al-Fisal fil-Milal (2:166):

"Saying: 'He has two eyes' is null and void and part of the belief of the anthropomorphists... Allah[subhanahu wa ta'ala] said 'eye' (`ayn) and 'eyes' (a`yunin)... so it is not permissible for anyone to describe Him as possessing 'two eyes' because no text has reached us to that effect."




You can bring me quote after quote if you like saying fulan said two eyes but at the end of the day, as Shaykh Abul Qasim al-Ansari (d. 512 AH) in his Sharh al-Irshad quoted Imam 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.”


So, to those who wish to consider Ahl al-Sunna to be Jahmees for there rejecting TWO eyes for Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala we say "bring your daleel!"

And Allah knows best

[faqir]

"And with regard to the aforementioned Jahmee's claim about the saying of Ibn Abbaas"

And with regard to the aforementioned Jahmee's claim about the saying of Ibn Abbaas - may Allaah be pleased with him - about the aayah: "It is the Day of Resurrection, a day of grief and calamity" reported with various chains from him by at-Tabaree in his tafseer, the Ash'ariyyah say that this is a case of ta'weel.......

.......which is why we find Ibn Abbaas [if the narrations are authentic from him][27]

Footnote [27] : Shaikh Saleem al-Hilaalee says, "Summarising what has been reported from ibn Abbaas on this issue: with this you will know, O beloved (reader) - may you learn the good - that the chains of narration that are reported from ibn Abbaas to do with his explanation of His saying, "the Day when the Shin will be exposed" cannot be used to establish a proof, because they are all da'eef.

So if it is said: 'Can they be considered under the definition of hasan li ghayrihi (i.e. hasan due supporting each other).'

I say (in reply): Indeed the weakness of them is such that they cannot support one another...

Firstly: Some of them are severely weak and cannot be used to support rather they make the matter worse. For example:

i) the route of Usama bin Zayd from Ikrimah from him (ibn Abbaas), and it is no. 1

ii) the route of al-Uofiyyeen and it is no. 2

iii) the 'masaa'il' of Naafi bin al-Azraq, and it is no. 8

Secondly: Some of them have a single deficiency, and that is inqitaa (missing links in the chain), so when this is the case then they do not support or strengthen others, and they are:

i) the route of Alee bin Abee Talha from him and it is no.3

ii) the route of Ibraaheem an-Nakha'i from him and it is no.6

iii) the route of Dahhaak bin Mazaahim al-Hilaalee and it is no.7

Thirdly: Some of them cannot support others because they do not have the same meaning:

i) So in some of them he says, "distress and severity"

ii) in some of them he says, "the matter will be exposed and the actions will be shown"

iii) in some he says, "a severe matter"

iv) in some he says, "the Day of Judgement and the Hour due to it's severity."

....and due to this we are certain that the narration is not authentic to ibn Abbaas." al-Manhal ar- Raqraaq' (p. 30)

The Ayah under question was translated by Abu Iyad al-Salafi and Dawud Burbank as follows:

The Day that the shin shall be laid bare and they shall be summoned to bow in adoration but they shall not be able [Soorah Qalam 68:42]


The Mufassir Ibn Kathir in his Tafseer of the Qur'aan beneath this Aāyah says:

يَعْنِي يَوْم الْقِيَامَة وَمَا يَكُون فِيهِ مِنْ الْأَهْوَال وَالزَّلَازِل وَالْبَلَاء وَالِامْتِحَان وَالْأُمُور الْعِظَام

"Meaning, the day of judgment and whatever of it from the horrors, earthquakes, trials, tests, and gear matters that will occur."

Imām Al-Qurtubi also mentions the narrations of the great Mufassir of Makkah, Mujāhid ibn Jabr via Ibn Jurayj from him that he said,

شِدَّة الْأَمْر وَجَدّه .

"The Severity of the matter and its seriousness."



Anyhow, in the article which the two brothers are "refuting" the following was mentioned by Sh. Nuh:

At-Tabaree also relates from Muhammad ibn Ubayd al-Muharabee
who relates from Ibn al-Mubaarak
from Usama ibn Zayd
from Ikrimah,
from ibn Abbaas,
that the Shin in the above verse means, quote, "A Day of war and direness"

all these narrators are those of the saheeh - except Usama ibn Zaid whose hadeeth are hasan.

If we look at each individual narrator then we can see how strange the claim made by Abu Iyad and Dawud Burbank is.

Al-Tabari also relates from Muhammad ibn ‘Ubayd al-Muharibi

1. Muhammad ibn Ubaid:

6120- محمد ابن عبيد ابن محمد ابن واقد المحاربي أبو جعفر وأبو يعلى النخاس الكوفي صدوق من العاشرة مات سنة إحدى وخمسين

- He is Muhammad ibn Ubaid ibn Muhammad ibn Waqid al Muharibi, Abu Ja'far....reliable. (Taqrib Al Tadhib of Ibn Hajar)

روى له ابو داود والترمذي والنسائي

- from him narrated Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi and Nisa'i. (Tadhib al Tadhib, Al Kamil)

Below is one of the Hadith from Tirmidhi through Muhammad ibn Ubaid:

‏حدثنا ‏‏ محمد بن عبيد المحاربي ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏أسباط بن محمد ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏سليمان التيمي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏سيار ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي أمامة ‏
‏عن النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏إن الله فضلني على الأنبياء ‏ ‏أو قال أمتي على الأمم ‏ ‏وأحل ‏ ‏لي الغنائم

which is:

‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏أبو عيسى ‏ ‏حديث ‏ ‏أبي أمامة ‏ ‏حديث حسن صحيح

- Abu Isa said the hadith of Abi Amamah is Hasan Sahih.

Simarly another hadith in Tirmidhi under ما جاء في لبس الخاتم في اليمين is also Hasan Sahih and passes through Al Muharibi. The Sharh of Tirmidhi entitled تحفة الأحوذي بشرح جامع الترمذي states the same as Ibn hajar regarding Muharibis reliability:

‏قوله : ( حدثنا محمد بن عبيد ) ‏
‏بن محمد بن واقد المحاربي الكندي أبو جعفر النحاس الكوفي صدوق من العاشرة

who relates from Ibn al-Mubarak,

Ibn al-Mubarak

3570- عبدالله ابن المبارك المروزي مولى بني حنظلة ثقة ثبت فقيه عالم جواد مجاهد جمعت فيه خصال الخير من الثامنة مات سنة إحدى وثمانين وله ثلاث وستون ع

- Abdullah ibn Al Mubarak Al Mawuzi Mawla Banu Hanzalah, extremely trustworthy, Faqih....

(Taqrib)

from Usama ibn Zayd,

Usama ibn Zayd

317- أسامة ابن زيد الليثي مولاهم أبو زيد المدني صدوق يهم من السابعة مات سنة ثلاث وخمسين وهو ابن بضع وسبعين خت م

- Usama ibn Zayd al Laythi, reliable.

(Ibid)

Usama ibn Zayd is a narrator in Sahih Muslim and even in Bukhari (In Ta'aaliq form) as Ibn Hajar states in his Tahdhib:

م البخاري في التعاليق والأربعة ومسلم أسامة بن زيد الليثي

Secondly, even Albani narrates a Hadith that goes through him and states the sanad as "Hasan" quoting Laythi being 1. From the men of Muslim (Min rijal Muslim) and 2. The verdict of Ibn Hajar on his reliability.

وهذا اسناد حسن كما قالوا ، فإن رجاله كلهم ثقات غير اسامة بن زيد وهو الليثي وهو من رجال مسلم ، على ضعف في حفظه ، قال الحافظ في التقريب : ( صدوق يهم

(Silsila Daeefa)

from ‘Ikrima, from Ibn ‘Abbas that shin in the above verse means

"a day of war and direness (harbin wa shidda)"

'Ikrima

عكرمة أبو عبدالله مولى ابن عباس أصله بربري ثقة ثبت عالم بالتفسير لم يثبت تكذيبه عن ابن عمر ولا تثبت عنه بدعة من الثالثة مات سنة أربع ومائة وقيل بعد ذلك

- Ikrimah Abu Abdullah Maula Ibn Abbas...Extremely trustwortthy, Alim in Tafsir.

(Ibid)





InshaAllah that is sufficient with regards to their supposed refutation.






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


Next, I will put up the post of our brother Abul Hasan who has wonderfully responded to an article posted by a brother from Amr Abdal Mun’im Salim:





Assalamu alaikum

In continuation of what Br. Faqir posted in refutation of Abu Rumaysah and his “authority” in weakening the narration: Salim al-Hilali (plagiarist according to his own brethren in faith!), we noticed sometime back a similar style of weakening of this narration elsewhere!

Amr Abdal Mun’im Salim – (one of the defenders of the late Nasir al-Albani (d. 1999) from Egypt; who was refuted by his fellow Egyptian, the Shafi’i Muhaddith: Shaykh Mahmud Saeed Mamduh on another issue connected to al-Albani’s mistakes in Hadith)

- In his feeble attempt to weaken the above narration said as conveyed by the anti-Ash’ari slanderer: Ali Rida Qadri from Karachi

- who took it from here with taqleed:

الأول : ما رواه ابن جرير في (( التفسير ))(29/24) ، والحاكم في (( المستدرك )) (2/499) ، والبيهقي في (( الأسماء والصفات )) (746) من طريق : ابن المبارك ، عن أسامة بن زيد ، عن عكرمة ، عن ابن عباس : { يوم يكشف عن ساق } . قال : (( هو يوم كرب وشدة )) . ولفظه عند البيهقي : (( هذا يوم كرب وشدة )) وصححه الحاكم .
? قلت : بل هذا سند ضعيف ، ففيه أسامة بن زيد ، وهو وإن كان ابن أسلم أو الليثى فكلاهما ضعيف لا يحتج به ، إلا أن ابن أسلم ضعيف جداً . وأما الليثى : فقال أحمد : (( ليس بشىء )) ، وقال عبد الله بن أحمد ، عن أبيه : (( روى عن نافع أحاديث مناكير )) ، فقلت له : (( أُراه حسن الحديث )) ، فقال :(( إن تدبرت حديثه فستعرف فيه النكرة )) . وقال ابن معين في بعض الروايات : (( ثقة )) ، وزاد في رواية الدورى : (( غير حجة )) ، أى أنه ثقة من حيث العدالة ، إلا أنه ضعيف من حيث الضبط ، وبسط الكلام في حاله يطول.

Reply:

Amr Abdal Mun’im admitted that the narration was declared Sahih by al-Hakim, then went on to weaken it by questioning a narrator in the Isnad by the name of Usama ibn Zayd and his veracity as a sound conveyer of the narration.

This narration is also found in Imam ibn al-Mubarak’s Kitab al-Zuhd wal Raqa’iq, Tafsir al-Tabari (no. 32142) and al-Bayhaqi’s Kitab al-Asma wal Sifat (no. 746) – all via the route of Usama ibn Zayd.

There are 2 narrators by the name of Usama ibn Zayd, one is Usama ibn Zayd al-Laythi and another is Usama ibn Zayd ibn Aslam al-Adawi. Let not the reader confuse these 2 narrators with the famous Sahabi with the same name.


Usama al-Adawi is da’eef as al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al Asqalani declared in his Taqrib al-Tahdhib (no. 315). The one that is found in the Asanid of the Mustadrak of al Hakim, Tafsir al-Tabari, Bayhaqi’s al-Asma wal Sifat and Ibn al-Mubarak’s Kitab al-Zuhd is no doubt Usama ibn Zayd al-Laythi as this is what is inferable from the Huffaz of Hadith who knew this Hadith and its overall grading better than the deceitful weakening and hiding by the likes of Amr Abdal Mun’im, AR Qadri and the pseudo-Salafiyya who close their eyes when it suits them - of some vital facts behind this narration!

Mr Amr Abdal Mun’im admitted that al-Hakim had authenticated it as we mentioned above, hence to al-Hakim, despite his lenience and many mistakes in his al-Mustadrak ala’l Sahihayn knew that the Usama in question was al-Laythi, because he said that its Isnad was Sahih (rigorously authentic). This means that al-Hakim believed that Usama ibn Zayd al-Laythi is Thiqa (trustworthy) as a narrator of the narration he recorded via him in his al-Mustadrak.

Secondly, the unscholarly Tadlis (deception) in this is the fact that Amr Abdal Mun’im hid one vital fact, and that is the fact that in the footnotes to the Mustadrak he used and which I will scan up here Insha’Allah, the critical notes of Hafiz al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) were printed from his work known as Talkhis al-Mustadrak (printed beneath the Hyderabad edition of al-Hakim’s Mustadrak)

In the Talkhis al-Mustadrak (vol. 2/p. 500), Imam al-Dhahabi agreed with al Hakim and said that the narration is: Sahih (rigorously authentic)! The reader can decide why this was deliberately left out by Amr Abdal Mun’im and his conveyers do not usually mention this fact also!

The fact that al-Dhahabi agreed with al-Hakim on its authenticity is a direct and clear cut proof that al-Dhahabi accepted Hadrat Ibn Abbas’ (ra) Ta’wil of the ayat mentioning the Saaq (translated by some as “Shin” in English); and I say this knowing full well that al-Dhahabi didn’t advocate Ta’wil but was on the way of Tafweed as we know from his Siyar a’lam an-Nubala. This is a rare example of al-Dhahabi having no problem with Ta’wil when there is a solid proof for its validity, alhamdulillah.

Later, mention will be made of those who either authenticated the above narration further after al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi’s time, as well as those who remained silent on the narration without any critical rejection of it.

For now, let us examine what the Hadith Masters have said about Usama ibn Zayd al-Laythi.

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (Vol. 1/no. 392) mentioned the following on al-Laythi:

[ 392 ] خت 4 م البخاري في التعاليق والأربعة ومسلم أسامة بن زيد الليثي مولاهم أبو زيد المدني روى عن الزهري ونافع مولى بن عمر وعطاء بن أبي رباح ومحمد بن المنكدر وصالح بن كيسان وعبد الله بن رافع مولى أم سلمة وعمرو بن شعيب وجماعة روى عنه يحيى القطان وابن المبارك والثوري وابن وهب والأوزاعي والداروردي ووكيع وأبو نعيم وغيرهم قال أحمد تركه القطان بآخرة وقال الأثرم عن أحمد ليس بشيء وقال عبد الله بن أحمد عن أبيه روى عن نافع أحاديث مناكير فقلت له أراه حسن الحديث فقال أن تدبرت حديثه فستعرف فيه النكرة وقال بن معين في رواية أبي بكر بن أبي خيثمة كان يحيى بن سعيد يضعفه وقال أبو يعلى الموصلي عنه ثقة صالح وقال عثمان الدارمي عنه ليس به بأس وقال الدوري وغيره عنه ثقة زاد غيره حجة وقال أبو حاتم يكتب حديثه ولا يحتج به وقال النسائي ليس بالقوي وقال أبو أحمد بن عدي يروي عنه الثوري وجماعة من الثقات ويروي عنه بن وهب نسخة صالحة وهو كما قال بن معين ليس بحديثه بأس وهو خير من أسامة بن زيد بن أسلم قلت وقال البرقي عن بن معين أنكروا عليه أحاديث وقال بن نمير مدني مشهور وقال العجلي ثقة وقال الآجري عن أبي داود صالح الا أن يحيى يعني بن سعيد أمسك عنه بآخرة وذكره بن المديني في الطبقة الخامسة من أصحاب نافع وقال الدار قطني لما سمع يحيى القطان أنه حدث عن عطاء عن جابر رفعه أيام مني كلها منحر قال اشهدوا إني قد تركت حديثه قال الدارقطني فمن أجل هذا تركه البخاري وقال الحاكم في المدخل روى له مسلم واستدللت بكثرة روايته له على أنه عنده صحيح الكتاب على أن أكثر تلك الأحاديث مستشهد بها أو هو مقرون في الإسناد وقال بن حبان في الثقات يخطئ وهو مستقيم الأمر صحيح الكتاب وأسامة بن زيد بن أسلم مدني واه وكانا في زمن واحد الا أن الليثي أقدم مات سنة 153 وكان له يوم مات بضع وسبعون سنة وقال بن القطان الفاسي لم يحتج به مسلم إنما أخرج له استشهادا قال وقال عمرو بن علي الفلاس حديثا عنه يحيى بن سعيد ثم تركه قال يقول سمعت سعيد بن المسيب قال بن القطان هذا أمر منكر لأنه بذلك يساوي نسخة الزهري انتهى كلام بن القطان ولم يرد يحيى بذلك ما فهمه عنه بل أراد ذلك في حديث مخصوص يتبين من سياقه اتفق أصحاب الزهري على روايته عنه عن سعيد بن المسيب بالعنعنة وشذ أسامة فقال عن الزهري سمعت سعيد بن المسيب فأنكر عليه القطان هذا لاغير

The above mentions the various positive and negative criticisms leveled against al-Laythi. The likes of Amr Abdal Mun’im, Salim al-Hilali and Co are not Huffaz of Hadith, so they are not considered by the more learned Ulama of Hadith to be in the rank of those known as Ahlul Istiqra – those whose views are taken as a Hujja in finalizing the most acceptable stance on the overall credibility of a narrator or narration under scrutiny.

Imam al-Dhahabi declared Usama al-Laythi in his Siyar a’lam an-Nubala (6/342) to be:

“An Imam, The Alim, al-Saduq (The truthful)”

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al Asqalani in al-Taqrib al-Tahdhib declared Usama ibn Zayd al-Laythi to be Saduq yahim (truthful with some suspected mistakes)


Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar said in Fath al Bari (read the red underlined part carefully)

فتح الباري، شرح صحيح البخاري، - للإمام ابن حجر العسقلاني
المجلد الثامن >> كِتَاب تَفْسِيرِ الْقُرْآنِ >> باب يَوْمَ يُكْشَفُ عَنْ سَاقٍ
(Fath al Bari, 8/664)

الشرح: قوله: (باب يوم يكشف عن ساق) أخرج أبو يعلى بسند فيه ضعف عن أبي موسى مرفوعا في قوله: (يوم يكشف عن ساق) قال " عن نور عظيم، فيخرون له سجدا " وقال عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن قتادة في قوله (يوم يكشف عن ساق) قال: عن شدة أمر، وعند الحاكم من طريق عكرمة عن ابن عباس قال: هو يوم كرب وشدة قال الخطابي: فيكون المعنى يكشف عن قدرته التي تنكشف عن الشدة والكرب وذكر غير ذلك من التأويلات كما سيأتي بيانه عند حديث الشفاعة مستوفي في كتاب الرقاق إن شاء الله تعالى.

ووقع في هذا الموضع " يكشف ربنا عن ساقه " وهو من رواية سعيد بن أبي هلال عن زيد بن أسلم فأخرجها الإسماعيلي كذلك ثم قال: في قوله " عن ساقه " نكرة.

ثم أخرجه من طريق حفص بن ميسرة عن زيد بن أسلم بلفظ " يكشف عن ساق " قال الإسماعيلي: هذه أصح لموافقتها لفظ القرآن في الجملة، لا يظن عن أن الله ذو أعضاء وجوارح لما في ذلك من مشابهة المخلوقين، تعالى الله عن ذلك ليس كمثله شيء.

In the above words al-Hafiz mentioned a narration from Abdar Razzaq from Qatada making Ta’wil of the ayat connected to the Saaq and he mentioned al-Hakim’s narration from Ibn Abbas. Indeed, this is the very narration under discussion that Amr Abdal Mun’im attempted to weaken, and it is a rule known from the words of al-Hafiz to his Muqaddima to al-Fath, that whenever he remained silent on a narration then it is at least Hasan (good) to him in most cases.

To be more explicit let us show Imam ibn Hajar declaring this narration that Amr Abdal Mun’im and Co weakened to be: Hasan (good) in its Isnad

Again in Fath al-Bari (13/428) he said:

وأما الساق فجاء عن ابن عباس في قوله تعالى (يوم يكشف عن ساق) قال عن شدة من الأمر، والعرب تقول قامت الحرب على ساق إذا اشتدت، ومنه: قد سن أصحابك ضرب الأعناق وقامت الحرب بنا على ساق وجاء عن أبي موسى الأشعري في تفسيرها عن نور عظيم قال ابن فورك: معناه ما يتجدد للمؤمنين من الفوائد والألطاف.
وقال المهلب كشف الساق للمؤمنين رحمة ولغيرهم نقمة.
وقال الخطابي تهيب كثير من الشيوخ الخوض في معنى الساق، ومعنى قول ابن عباس أن الله يكشف عن قدرته التي تظهر بها الشدة، وأسند البيهقي الأثر المذكور عن ابن عباس بسندين كل منهما حسن، وزاد: إذا خفي عليكم شيء من القرآن فأتبعوه من الشعر وذكر الرجز المشار إليه، وأنشد الخطابي في إطلاق الساق على الأمر الشديد " في سنة قد كشفت عن ساقها " وأسند البيهقي من وجه آخر صحيح عن ابن عباس قال: يريد يوم القيامة،

Note also, al-Hafiz in his biography of the famous Sahaba, known as al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba, under the biography of the prominent Sahabi: Abu Hurayra (ra) mentioned a chain of transmission from al-Dawlabi via a route containing Usama ibn Zayd al-Laythi. Al-Hafiz said:

الإصابة، - لابن حجر
الجزء السابع. >> [باب الكنى] حرف الهاء القسم الأول من ذُكِرَ له صحبة، وبيان ذلك
(p. 427)


وأخرج الدولابي بسند حسن عن أسامة بن زيد الليثي عن عبيدالله بن أبي رافع والمقبري قالا كان اسم أبي هريرة عبد شمس بن عامر بن عبدالشري والشري اسم صنم لدوس

The red highlighted portion mentions al-Hafiz declaring al-Dawlabi’s Isnad to be Hasan via a route containing Usama ibn Zayd al-Laythi.

These examples serve to show that al-Hafiz considers Usama ibn Zayd al-Laythi’s narrations to be generally good (Hasan) and not da’eef as Amr Abdal Mun’im and his colleagues claimed.

Usama al-Laythi’s narrations were acceptable to Imam Muslim in his Sahih (for Mutabiat/shawahid as some have said) and to al-Bukhari in Ta’liq form (as Ibn Hajar said above in the Arabic quotation from his Tahdhib al-Tahdhib). An example from Sahih Muslim containing Usama al-Laythi

صحيح مسلم - للإمام مسلم
الجزء الثالث >> 25 - كتاب الوصية.

3 - (1627) وحدثنا أبو كامل الجحدري. حدثنا حماد (يعني ابن زيد). ح وحدثني زهير بن حرب. حدثنا إسماعيل (يعني ابن علية). كلاهما عن أيوب. ح وحدثني أبو الطاهر. أخبرنا ابن وهب. أخبرني يونس. ح وحدثني هارون بن سعيد الأيلي. حدثنا ابن وهب. أخبرني أسامة بن زيد الليثي. ح وحدثنا محمد بن رافع. حدثنا ابن أبي فديك. أخبرنا هشام (يعني ابن سعد). كلهم عن نافع، عن ابن عمر، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم. بمثل حديث عبيدالله. وقالوا جميعا (له شيء يوصي فيه). إلا في حديث أيوب فإنه قال (يريد أن يوصي فيه). كرواية يحيى عن عبيدالله.

Note also that Ibn Hibban and ibn Khuzayma in their respective “Sahih” collections have accepted Usama’s narrations, and the editors of these works have also shown that they hold the narrations via al-Laythi to be Hasan (good). See the Tahqiq by Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut to Sahih ibn Hibban (no. 4846) and even al-Albani’s grading of Hasan in the follow up to Sahih ibn Khuzayma’s tahqiq by Dr Mustafa al A’zami (3/174, no. 1851).


The narration from Ibn Abbas as reported in the Mustadrak of al-Hakim was also mentioned by the Hanbali Shaykh: Zaynud-Din Mar’ie ibn Yusuf al-Karmi (d. 1033 AH) in his work known as Aqawil al-Thiqat fi Ta’wil al-Asma wal Sifat wal Ayat al-Muhkamat wal Mutashabihat (p. 174). The editor of this work was the Muhaddith: Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut.

Shaykh al-Karmi did not reject the authenticity of the Mustadrak narration, and indeed Shaykh Shu’ayb in the footnote (no. 4) mentioned that the narration was authenticated by al-Hakim, agreed to be so by al-Dhahabi and that al-Hafiz ibn Hajar declared it Hasan. Shaykh Shu’ayb did not disagree with this; hence his silence is an affirmation of these views from these Huffaz.


Conclusions:


The narration from Ibn Abbas (ra) via the route containing Usama ibn Zayd al-Laythi was declared:

i) To have a Sahih Isnad by al-Hakim
ii) Declared Sahih by al-Dhahabi
iii) Hasan in Isnad to Ibn Hajar al Asqalani
iv) Not criticized by al-Karmi
v) Accepted by al-Arna’ut


Hence, the claims of would be Muhaddithin like Amr Abdal Mun’im, Salim al-Hilali etc and their Muqallids in conveyance: Abu Rumaysah and Ali Rida al-Qadri are rejected and in diametric opposition to the major Huffaz and their grading's leading to acceptability of this narration.

[faqir]

"Concerning the Jahmee's lie against Allaah - the Most High - and His saying: And we constructed the Heaven with power (bi aidin)... [Dhaariyaat 51:47]"

Thirdly, concerning the Jahmee's lie against Allaah - the Most High - and His saying:

And we constructed the Heaven with power (bi aidin)... [Dhaariyaat 51:47]

The tafseer of Tabaree and the reports that the Jahmee quotes from the Salaf explain 'aidin' to mean 'power' which is what it indeed does mean and it can be found in any dictionary under alif yaa daa. Nor is there any contradiction between it and between aayaat affirming Allaahs Hands (aidee and yadaan)

Do they not see that We have created for them of what Our Hands (aideena) have created... [Soorah Yaa Seen 36:71]

Nay, both His Hands (yadaahu) are outstretched [Soorah Maa'idah 5:64]

So from the foolishness of the Ash'ariyyah - to which this Jahmee ascribes himself - is that they also declare that Allaah's Hand (yad) has to be explained to mean his Power!! So then what about His Two Hands?! Two powers?![21]

Furthermore, this is rebutted by the aayah where it is mentioned that Allaah created Adam with His Two Hands. Abu Hasan al-Ash'aree stated in his Maqaalaat: "...And that He has Two Hands without asking how, just as He has said:

(Allaah said): O Iblees! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with My Two Hands?" [Soorah Sa'd 38:75]

And also, the hadeeth of intercession where Aadam is being addressed as the one whom Allaah created with His Hand[22]. And likewise the hadeeth wherein it is mentioned that: "On the Day of Resurrection, Allaah will grasp the (whole planet of) Earth by His Hand all the heavens in His Right, and then He will say: I am the King".[23]

But from the deception and corruption of this vile and lowly Jahmee is that in his lecture, he translated the aayah in question as: "And the sky, We have built with Hands, verily We outspread it."

Translating 'aidin' as 'Hands' instead of 'power' (which is what it actually means in this verse) enabling himself thereby, to justify his falsehood that the Salaf have done ta'weel of this aayah because they explain it to mean 'with power' and by claiming that at-Tabaree has ascribed this figurative explanation (ta'weel) to Ibn Abbaas, Qataadah, Mansoor ibn Zadaana and Sufyaan ath-Thawree - free and innocent are they from the Jahmee's filth and the Jahmee and his filth from them, as Yoosuf (alaihi-salaam) was from the wife of al-Azeez. The Jahmee is obviously ignorant or feigning ignorance of the fact that 'aidin' in the language has the meaning of 'power'[24] and that this is the natural explanation given, which is devoid of any ta'weel, and which at-Tabaree has quoted from the Salaf.[25]

A brother elsewhere mentioned the following:

The plural of yad اليد is aydin أيدٍ according to dictionary Lisan al-Arab (لسان العرب). The reason this word has two kasras is because the ya ي is dropped. If the ya isn’t dropped then it would be الأيدي. This form of that word is also mention in Lisan al-Arab. Lisan al-Arab also states that اليد: القوة Yad means power, or more literally al-Yad means the power. Lisan al-Arab also quotes the verse “The heavens that We Created with Aydin” [51:47] والسَّماءَ بَنَـيْنَاها بأَيْد in reference to this word. Hence it considers this verse to be talking about the aydin, the plural of yad. (Note: Translation of the verse was taken from the post quoted above.)

It’s not only the dictionary Lisan al-Arab that declares aydin to be the plural of yad, and yad to mean power, the dictionaries Qamoos al-Muheet (قموس المحيط) and Misbah al-Muneer (مصباح المنير) say the plural of yad is aydin and that yad means power.

One can also look at the verse 7:195 as further proof that indeed aydin is the plural of yad: Do they have feet to walk on, or have hands (أيدٍ) to grip with, or eyes to see with, or ears to hear with? Say, “ Call on your idols, then scheme against me relentlessly!” [7:195]

(Qamoos al-Muheet: بَطَشَ به ... أخَذَهُ بالعُنْفِ)

Stated in the verse is “or have hands [aydin].” In commenting on this verse, Tafseer Jalalayn (الجلالين) states that aydin is the plural of yad.

Hence, if one wants to be literal about the verse in question, she or he would translate it as “We built the skies with hands and made them (the skies) vast.” [51:47]

Lisan al-Arab mentions the verse 51:47 in both places, in the definition of yad and ayd. It wouldn’t have put the word in the definition of yad if it was impossible for the word to mean hands in that verse.

As far as that verse is concerned, Imam Bagawi said that the word means قوة and قدرة. Imam al-A’lusi said it’s not the plural of yad. He went on futher stating that The Imam allowed it being the plural of yad as long as it is correct to use it as an allusion. Imam Fakr al-Deen Al-Razi said that it may be the plural of hand. However, he said in reality it would mean the same thing as Ayd. That’s because Imam Razi considers it impossible for God to literally have hands.

It is an opinion that it’s the plural of hands. However, since so many people consider it impossible for God to have hands, they rather just say that it’s ayd and not the plural of hands. The ones that will say it’s the plural of hands will make ta’weel of it and say it doesn’t literally mean hands, it means power, considering power is a valid lexical use of the word. Imam Bagawi went further then just stating it’s power, as we’ve seen. To further support this opinion, الصحاح في الغة also mentions it after talking about yad, not ayd.

Hence, a literal translation can look like
this: “We built the skies with hands and made them vast.” [51:47]
or this:“We built the skies with power and made them vast.” [51:47]

Of course this can be interpreted as establishing God has a hand and power, or that since it’s indefinite, it’s not clear proof that it’s talking about an attribute of God. One can go with the opinion that it means power here and not hands, so it’s like the verse talking about Dawood, peace be upon him.

What’s interesting though is that Mufradaat considers the verse talking about Dawood to be the ady that’s the plural of yad and the verse talking about God to be the ayd that literally means power.

Oh, and thank you for welcoming me to the group. Continue writing, it’s useful stuff.

Why not finish this up with what some of the major mufasseroon say about the Dawood verse, since tafseer is always nice.

اصْبِرْ عَلَى مَا يَقُولُونَ وَاذْكُرْ عَبْدَنَا دَاوُودَ ذَا الْأَيْدِ إِنَّهُ أَوَّابٌ
[38:17]
قال ابن عباس: أي القوة في العبادة

قال مجاهد: الأيد: القوة في الطاعة

To translate, it may mean power in worship, or power on obedience.

Sh. Gibril Haddad has an excellent article I will share here:


Let us see if brothers Abu Iyad and Dawud Burbank dare label the Imams quoted in the article that follows to be "Jahmees"!

The “Hand” of Allāh

by GF Haddad – Rajab 1423

“I heard Mālik [ibn Anas] say: ‘Whoever recites the Hand of Allāh (3:73, 5:64, 48:10, 57:29) and indicates his hand, or recites the Eye of Allāh (cf. 20:39, 11:37, 23:27, 52:48, 54:14) and indicates that organ of his: let it be cut off to discipline him concerning the Sacredness and Transcendence beyond what he has compared Him to, and above his own comparison to Him. Both his life and the limb he compared to Allāh are cut off.’”

– Ibn Wahb [1].

Ibn ‘Asākir wrote:

The Mu‘tazila said: He has a “hand” (yad) but His “hand” is his power (qudra) and favor (ni‘ma), while His “face” (wajh) is His existence. The H.ashwiyya said: His hand is a limb (jārih.a), and His face has a form (s.ūra)[2]. Al-Ash‘arī took the middle road and said: His hand is an Attribute and His face is an Attribute, just like His hearing and His sight [3].

The Salaf and later scholars interpreted the Hand of Allāh  in various ways depending, among other factors whether the singular or the plural is used.

Concerning the verse We have built the heaven with (Our) hands (51:47), al-T.abarī narrated in his Tafsīr that Ibn ‘Abbās said: “It means: with strength.” He reports an identical position from Mujāhid, Qatāda, Mans.ūr, Ibn Zayd, and Sufyān al-Thawrī. This is also Imām al-Ash‘arī’s explanation a reported by Ibn Fūrāk in the latter’s recension of Ash‘arī’s school [4].

However, al-Ash‘arī in al-Ibāna and his student Ibn Khafīf pointed out the difference between the plural hands (aydin) on the one hand, and the singular and dual on the other [5]. The ta’wīl of the Salaf with regard to the plural hands is based on the lexical possibility of the meaning of al-yad among the Arabs as signifiying strength (al-quwwa). Thus the same verse (51:47) is cited in al-Zabīdī’s massive Arabic dictionary as an illustration that “hands” means “strength.” [6] This is also the interpretation retained by al-Nawawī in his commentary on Muslim’s S.ah.īh. and other later Ash‘arīs. It is confirmed by the verse: Make mention of our bondmen, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, men of parts [literally “of two hands”] and vision (38:45) meaning men possessing strength.

It also means ownership (al-milk) as He said: Lo! the bounty is in the hand of Allāh (3:73).

According to some scholars it also means favor (al-ni‘ma), as it is said: “So-and-so has a hand over so-and-so,” to mean that he owes him a favor.

It also means a kind of link, as Allāh said: Or he agrees to forego it in whose hand is the marriage tie (2:237).

Other meanings are generosity, kindness, and mercy. Dr. al-Būt.ī wrote: “The hand of Allāh  is His strength in His saying: The hand of Allāh is over their hand (48:10) and His generosity in His saying: Nay, both His hands are spread wide, and He bestows as He wills (5:64).” [7]

Imām al-Bayhaqī said in his masterpiece al-Asmā’ wal-S.ifāt:

Some of the keenest scholars have said that the Right (al-yamīn) signifies the Hand (al-yad), and the Palm (al-kaff) likewise, in the sense that the hand for Allāh is an Attribute, not a limb [8]. Thus every passage that mentions it in the Book and the authentic Sunna carries a meaning in connection with the object of mention such as folding up, taking, seizing, spreading, sweeping, accepting, giving, and other acts connecting the personal Attributes to what those attributes entail, without touch nor contact. There is never in all this any likeness between Allāh and creation whatsoever. Others have said that the handful (al-qabd.a) [in the verse The whole earth is His handful on the Day of Resurrection (39:67)] may be by means of a limb – exalted is Allāh beyond that! – while others said that it may mean dominion (al-mulk) and power (al-qudra).. . . as in His saying: From among those whom your right hands possess (30:28) which signifies property. It was also said that by the verse And the heavens are rolled in His right hand (39:67) is meant that the heavens are bound to disappear according to his oath. That is, He swore an oath to abolish them. . . .

About the Prophet’s  h.adīth: “No one spends something good in charity – and Allāh accepts nothing but good – except the Merciful takes it with His right hand (yamīnih), if only a date; it increases in the palm of the Merciful (kaff al-Rah.mān) until it exceeds the size of a mountain, just as one of you makes his parcel of land productive.”[9] His saying “The Merciful’s palm” (kaff) means His dominion and sovereignty according to the keenest scholars. [10]

Al-Māzarī said: “This h.adīth and its likes are only expressions that follow their usage so that they would understand his [the Prophet’s] meaning, so it metaphorically refers (kanna) to the acceptance of alms as ‘the right hand’ and to its reward as its increase.” ‘Iyād. said something similar, both as reported by Ibn H.ajar. [11]

Al-Bayhaqī continues:

About the h.adīth whereby a Jew – or: one of the rabbis – said to the Prophet : “Allāh places the heavens on a finger, the earths on a finger, the trees on a finger, the undersoil on a finger, and all creatures on a finger.” Hearing this, the Prophet  smiled until his molar teeth showed. A version in the two S.ah.īh.s specifies: “he smiled in confirmation of the rabbi’s words.” Then he said: And they esteem not Allāh as He has the right to be esteemed (39:67). [12] Abū Sulaymān al-Khat.t.ābī said:

The Jews are anthropomorphists, and they claim that part of the revealed Torah consists in expressions that support anthropomorphism. However, the Muslims do not accept such expressions among their doctrines. It is established that the Prophet  said: “Whatever the People of the Book narrate to you, neither believe nor disbelieve them, but say: We believe in Allāh and whatever was revealed to us (2:136).”[13] The Prophet  is the most apt of all creation to have applied this command in the above report. The proof for the veracity of this fact is that he did not utter a single word to confirm nor deny it. All that he let show was a smile, which in one case expresses approval, in another, surprise and disapproval. Then he recited the verse which may apply to either case, but there is no mention of fingers in the verse. As for the words of one of the narrators – “in confirmation of the rabbi’s words” – they are pure speculation, and the matter of this supposed confirmation remains a weak view for what he let show does not explicitly disclose one view over the other.... To adduce a proof from smiling or laughter in such a tremendous instance is therefore not allowed in the presence of two conflicting interpretations for the evidence. [14]

About the Prophet’s  h.adīth: “There is no heart except it lies between the two fingers of the Merciful. If He wishes, He will set it aright; and if He wishes, He will lead it astray.” [15] It means that the hearts are under his power and dominion. They were mentioned specifically because Allāh Almighty has made the heart the seat of passing thoughts, will, resolutions and intentions, which are all the introductories of actions. Then He made all the limbs dependent on the heart in their motions and stillness, thereby showing that our actions are all measured out by Allāh and created, and that nothing happens without His will. The Prophet  exemplified for His Companions the Divine pre-eternal power with the illustration clearest to their own understandings [16], for none has more power over something than when he has it between his fingers. It may also mean the two favors of benefit and protection, or the two traces of Divine favor and justice. [17]

Of the h.adīth of the Rabbi, Shaykh al-Islām al-Nawawī said: “This is among the h.adīths of the Divine Attributes. We already mentioned the two schools on this. One school gives an explanation and the other refrains from giving an explanation together with belief in it and the conviction that the outward sense is not meant. According to those who gave an explanation, they interpret the fingers here to power and strength. That is, He created them in all their vastness without the least fatigue nor weariness. People speak of the fingers in this context for exaggeration and deprecation. For example, they say: ‘With one finger I can kill X.’ Meaning, it requires no effort on my part. It was also said that the finger of one of His creatures may be meant. This is not impossible. In any case, the hand as limb is precluded [for Allāh]. As for the narrator’s words, ‘the Messenger of Allāh  smiled in surprise (ta‘ajjuban) at what the rabbi had said and in confirmation (tas.dīqan) of his words then he said: And they esteem not Allāh as He has the right to be esteemed’: the apparent meaning here is that the Prophet  confirmed the rabbi’s words that Allāh  seizes the heavens and the earth and all creatures with the fingers, then he recited the verse that indicates something like what he had just said. Al-Qād.ī said that one of the Scholars of kalām [al-Khat.t.ābī] said: ‘His smiling  and his surprise and recitation of the verse do not constitute a confirmation for the rabbi but rather a refutation of what he said, disapproval, and surprise at his wrong belief. For the Jews are anthropomorphists and he [the Prophet ] understood this from him. As for the words “in confirmation of him,” they are an interpolation on the part of the narrator according to his understanding.’ But the first explanation is stronger.” [18]

These interpretations are all acceptable and they do not imply the slightest denial of any of the Divine Attributes on which there is consensus. We should nevertheless obligatorily believe that the word yad (hand) does not mean an organ as we know it, in accordance with the verse: There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him (42:11) and that the word yad does not imply a resemblance to creatures. Hence, Ibn H.ajar’s statement: “The elite of the mutakallimūn said: ‘He knows not Allāh, who attributes Him resemblance to His creation, or attributes a hand to Him, or a son.” [19]

Contrary to this, the doctrine of the Literalists consists in attributing an actual hand to the Creator. Thus Bin Baz charges al-Qād.ī ‘Iyād. and Ibn H.ajar with abandoning the way of Ahl al-Sunna for stating that the Hand of Allāh does not pertain to a bodily appendage. [20] This is similar to the pretext of the anthropomorphist who said: “We expelled Ibn H.ibbān from Sijistān for his lack of Religion: he used to say that Allāh is not limited.”

As for the saying reported from the Prophet : “The Black Stone is the right hand of Allāh,” [21] if established as true, then it is interpreted figuratively according to the doctrinal necessity that Allāh is neither spatially confined anywhere nor divisible, and the fact that the senses witness that the Black Stone is not really the right hand of Allāh. Therefore, the h.adīth is taken variously to mean prosperity, blessing, acceptance, and the context of the Muslims’ pledge of loyalty to their Creator. Yet Ibn Rajab relates that Ibn al-Fa‘ūs al-H.anbalī (d. 521) would say: “The Black Stone is the Right Hand of Allāh in reality (h.aqīqatan),” for which he was nicknamed “The Stony” (al-H.ajar) [22]. Ibn Fūrāk writes that he embarked on a study of kalām because of this h.adīth. [23] Ibn Qutayba said that it was actually a saying of Ibn ‘Abbās, and he relates a saying of ‘Ā’isha  that the Black Stone is the depository of the covenant of human souls with Allāh on the Day of Promise (alastu bi rabbikum). He interprets the Black Stone as representing the place where one declares one’s pledge of fidelity to the Sovereign. [24] Ibn H.ajar cites al-Khat.t.ābī’s and al-Muh.ibb al-T.abarī’s similar interpretations. [25] Al-Qurt.ubī said: “It means that the Black Stone has the standing (manzila) of the Right Hand of Allāh… metaphorically speaking.” [26]

Another h.adīth brought up by the anthropomorphists is the narration of Abū Hurayra that “The Prophet  recited the verse Lo! Allāh commands you that you restore deposits to their owners, and, if you judge between mankind, that you judge justly. Lo! excellent is this which Allāh admonishes you. Lo! Allāh is ever Hearer, Seer (4:58) whereupon he  placed his thumb on his ear and his index finger on his eye.” [27] This h.adīth must be read together with Ibn H.ibbān’s commentary:

By placing his fingers on his ear and eye the Prophet  wanted to let people know that Allāh Almighty does not hear by means of the ear that has an auditory meatus and curves, nor does He see with the eye that has eyelids, a pupil, and a white part. Highly exalted is our Lord above any likeness with His creatures in any way whatsoever! Rather, He hears and sees without organ (āla) in any way He wishes. [28]

Al-Bayhaqī said of the same h.adīth:

What is meant by the gesture narrated in this report is the verification that Allāh is described as possessing hearing and sight. He therefore pointed to the two places of hearing and sight in us to affirm that Allāh possesses the Attributes of hearing and sight. [29]

Ibn ‘Abd al-Salām gave the following fatwā concerning the interpretation of yad:

Q. What is the meaning of the Prophet’s  saying: “The heart of the believer is between two fingers of the Merciful, He turns it over as He wishes”? Does one contravene his obligation if he says: “I do not say anything concerning the verses and the h.adīths on the Attributes. Rather I hold the same belief concerning them as the Pious Salaf held. To speak about them is an innovation (bid‘a), and I let them pass according to their external sense,” or is interpretation necessary?

A. The meaning of the Prophet’s  saying, “The heart of the believer is between two fingers of the Merciful” is that Allāh exerts His custody over it with His power and determination as He wills, changing it from disbelief to belief and from obedience to disobedience or the reverse.

It is like His saying: Blessed is He in Whose hand is the dominion (67:1) and: O Prophet! Say unto those captives who are in your hands (8:70). It is understood that the captives were not left in the physical hands of the Muslims but that they were subdued and conquered by them. The same applies to the expressions: “Specific and non-specific matters are in the hand of so-and-so,” and “The slaves and the animals are in the hand of so-and-so.” It is understood that all these mean that they are in his control (istīlā’) and disposal and not in his physical hand. Similarly the saying of Allāh: Or he agrees to forgo it in whose hand is the marriage tie (2:237). The marriage tie is not in his physical hand, but the hand is only an expression of his empowerment and his ability to dispose of the matter.

For one to say: “I believe in this matter what the Salaf believed” is a lie. How does he believe what he has no idea about, and the meaning of which he does not know?

Nor is speaking about the meaning a reprehensible innovation, but rather an obligatory excellent innovation (bid‘a h.asana wājiba), whenever something dubious appears. The only reason the Salaf kept away from such discourse is that in their time no one construed the words of Allāh and those of His Prophet to mean what it is not permissible to construe them to mean. If any such dubiousness had appeared in their time they would have shown it to be a lie and rejected it strenuously! Thus did the Companions and the Salaf refute the Qadariyya when the latter brought out their innovation, although they did not use to address such matters before the Qadariyya appeared on the scene. Nor did they reply to the individuals who mentioned them. Nor did any of the Companions relate any of it from the Prophet  since there was no need for it. And Allāh knows best.” [30]

The Māturīdī position is comprehensively stated by Fakhr al-Islām al-Pazdawi (d. 482):

For us [Māturīdīs], those who are firmly grounded in knowledge (3:7) have no share in the knowledge of the ambiguous content of Qur’ān (al-mutashābih) other than pure acquiescence (al-taslīm), believing in the real nature of the meaning (h.aqqiyyat al-murād) in the Divine presence and that the pause at His saying: None knows its explanation save Allāh (3:7) is required (waqf wājib). The People of Belief belong to one of two levels in knowledge: some over-zealously demand that it be read without pause – those are tested with a form of ignorance – and some demand the pause – those are honored with a form of knowledge…. An example of the ambiguous verses are the individual letters that open certain suras. Another example is the affirmation of the vision of Allāh  with the sight of the eyes in reality in the hereafter, according to the explicit text of the Qur’ān: On that day will faces be resplendent, looking towards their Lord (75:22-23). For He exists with the Attribute of perfection, and the fact that He can be seen both by Himself and others, is among the characteristics of perfection; moreover, the believer is apt to receive such bestowal of the Divine gift. However, the affirmation of direction is precluded (ithbāt al-jiha mumtani‘). It follows that the description of the vision is among the ambiguities, ans so it is obligatory to acquiesce to it while believing in its reality. Similarly, the affirmation of the Hand and the Face are real (ithbāt al-yad wal-wajh h.aqq) in our School, known in its principle but ambiguous in its description (ma‘lūmun bi as.lihi mutashābihun bi was.fihi). It will not be permitted to invalidate the principle on the grounds that one is unable to comprehend the description. The Mu‘tazila went astray only in this respect, for they rejected the principles because of their ignorance of the Attributes and became nullifiers-of-the-Attributes (mu‘at.t.ila).” [31]

Allāh knows best.

NOTES:


[1] In Ibn al-‘Arabī al-Mālikī, Ah.kām al-Qur’ān (4:1740).
[2] This is the “Salafī” position as stated by ‘Abd Allāh al-H.āshidī, who openly attributes form and shape to Allāh in his comments on al-Bayhaqī’s al-Asmā’ wal-S.ifāt (2:60): “As for our Lord, we affirm that He possesses a form (sūra)” and (2:67) “As for us we affirm a form (sūra) for Allāh unlike forms.” Rather, as the first line in Ibn ‘Abd al-Salām’s Mulh.a states, “He is not a body endowed with form.” Note that the Karrāmiyya said: “Allāh is a body unlike bodies.” Al-Dhahabī, Siyar (10:10). Worse yet is the citation of the Torah’s verse “We shall create man in our image and likeness” by the anthropomorphist author of ‘Aqīdat Ahl al-Īmān fī Khalqi Ādama ‘alā S.ūrat al-Rah.mān! (“The Doctrine of the Believers Concerning the Creation of Ādam in the Image of the Merciful”). The pure Sunnī position is: “Allāh is described with the Attribute of Face and that of Hand, together with the upholding of His Transcendence (tanzīh) above having a form (s.ūra) and a limb (jārih.a).” ‘Ala’ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī (d. 730) in his commentary on al-Pazdawi’s Us.ūl entitled Kashf al-Asrār (1:60). Al-Bayhaqī states the Sunnī position thus: “It is impermissible that the Creator be attributed form (s.ūra), nor does He possess form, because form is variegated (mukhtalifa) and appearances are mutually contrasted (al-hay’āt mutad.ād.d.a). Because of their mutual contrast He cannot be described as having them in general; likewise, he cannot be described as having one of them in particular.” Al-Asmā’ wal-S.ifāt (Kawtharī ed. p. 289; H.āshidī ed. 2:60). Cf. Ibn al-Jawzī in Daf‘ Shibah al-Tashbīh (1998 al-Kawtharī repr. p. 35): “Know that it is obligatory upon every Muslim to firmly hold that it is impermissible to attribute to Allāh  form (sūra), which consists in physiognomy (hay’a) and combination (ta’līf).”
[3] Ibn ‘Asākir, Tabyīn (p. 150-151).
[4]4 Abū Bakr ibn Fūrāk, Mujarrad Maqālāt al-Ash‘arī (Beirut, 1987) p. 44.
[5] See Ibn Khafīf’s al-‘Aqīda al-S.ah.īh.a §28.
[6] Tāj al-‘Arūs (10:417).
[7] Al-Būt.ī, al-Salafiyya (p. 132-133). For “Hands” = kindness, mercy, generosity, etc. see al-Qārī, Mirqāt al-Mafātīh. (1892 ed. 2:137, 1994 ed. 3:302) and al-Nawawī, Sharh. S.ah.īh. Muslim, h.adīth “Then He stretches out both hands, saying: ‘Who shall loan One Who is neither indigent nor inequitable?’” This phrase concludes the h.adīth of descent in one of Muslim’s narrations.
[8] Cf. Imām Mālik as narrated by Ibn Wahb in this Appendix.
[9]Narrated from Abū Hurayra by Muslim, Ah.mad, al-Nasā’ī, Ibn Mājah, and al-Tirmidhī who said it is h.asan s.ah.īh..
[10] Al-Asmā’ wal-S.ifāt (Kawtharī ed. p. 330-331; H.āshidī ed. 2:159-160).
[11] In Fath. al-Bārī (3:280).
[12] Narrated from Ibn Mas‘ūd by al-Bukhārī, Muslim, al-Tirmidhī, and Ah.mad.
[13] Narrated from Abū Hurayra by al-Bukhārī. The complete narration states: “The People of the Book would read the Torah in Hebrew and explain it in Hebrew to the People of Islām, whereupon the Prophet  said: ‘Neither believe nor disbelieve the People of the Book, but say: We believe in Allāh and whatever was revealed to us (2:136).
[14] Al-Asmā’ wal-S.ifāt (Kawtharī ed. p. 334-338; H.āshidī ed. 2:169-170). Al-Qurt.ubī also explained the Prophet’s  smile here to mean disapproval in light of the verse that follows it and rejected the phrase “in confirmation of the rabbi’s words” as an narrator’s interpolation. Cf. Al-Asmā’ wal-S.ifāt (Kawtharī ed. p. 336) and Fath. al-Bārī (13:398) for both al-Khat.t.ābī and al-Qurt.ubī’s explanations. This is also al-Qād.ī ‘Iyād.’s position as mentioned by al-Nawawī in Sharh. S.ah.īh. Muslim and it is confirmed by another narration connected with the revelation of verse 39:67. Al-Mubārakfūrī typically voices the opposite opinion in Tuh.fat al-Ah.wadhī and cites Ibn Khuzayma’s (d. 311) vituperation in his al-Tawh.īd that whoever claims the Prophet  smiled in lieu of explicitly upbraiding, does not deserve to be called Muslim. This shows that the interpretation of the smile as meaning disapproval existed among the Salaf and long before al-Khat.t.ābī.
[15] Narrated from ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Amr by Muslim and Ah.mad, from Anas by al-Tirmidhī (h.asan s.ah.īh.) and Ibn Mājah, and from al-Nawwās ibn Sam‘ān al-Kilābī by Ah.mad, al-Nasā’ī, Ibn Mājah, Ibn H.ibbān, al-H.ākim, and others, all with sound chains. Al-H.ākim declared the h.adīth sound and al-Dhahabī concurred. The continuation of the h.adīth states that the Prophet  used to say: “O Transformer of hearts! Make firm our hearts in Your Religion,” and that he also said: “And the balance is in the hand of the Merciful, He elevates a people while he abases others, and so until the Day of Resurrection.”
[16] This is also al-Wāh.idī’s (d. 468) explanation in his Asbāb al-Nuzūl (p. 312 #774).
[17] Al-Asmā’ wal-S.ifāt (Kawtharī ed. p. 341; H.āshidī ed. 2:174).
[18] Al-Nawawī, Sharh. S.ah.īh. Muslim (17:129-131).
[19] Ibn H.ajar, Fath. al-Bārī (1959 ed. 3:361 #1425).
[20] Ibn H.ajar, Fath. al-Bārī (1959 ed. 3:361 n.; 1989 ed. 3:357 n.)
[21] Narrated from Ibn ‘Abbās, Jābir, Anas, and others by Ibn Abī ‘Umar al-Ma‘danī in his Musnad, al-T.abarānī, al-Suyūt.ī in his Jāmi‘ al-Saghīr (1:516 #3804-3805), Ibn ‘Asākir in Tārīkh Dimashq (15:90- 92), al-Khat.īb in Tārīkh Baghdād (6:328), and others. It is considered forged by Ibn al-Jawzī and Ibn ‘Adī (al-Kāmil 1:342). Cf. al-Ah.dab, Zawā’id Tārīkh Baghdād (5:321-323 #949). However, al-‘Ajlūnī stated that it is s.ah.īh. as a halted report from Ibn ‘Abbās as narrated by al-Qud.ā‘ī with the wording: “The Corner [of the Black Stone] (al-rukn) is the Right Hand of Allāh on earth…,” and declared it h.asan as a h.adīth of the Prophet . Ibn Qutayba in Ta’wīl Mukhtalif al-H.adīth (1972 ed. p. 215=1995 ed. p. 198, 262) said that it was a saying of Ibn ‘Abbās and relates a saying of ‘Ā’isha that the Black Stone is the depository of the covenant of human souls with Allāh  on the Day of Promise (alastu bi rabbikum). Its mention in the Reliance of the Traveller (p. 853b) as “narrated by al-H.ākim, who declared it s.ah.īh., from ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Amr,” is incorrect. Note: An authentic narration states that the Black Stone shall appear with two eyes and a tongue on the Day of Resurrection. Narrated by al-Tirmidhī, Ibn Mājah, Ah.mad, al-Dārimī, Ibn H.ibbān (#3711-3712), and others.
[22] Ibn Rajab, Dhayl T.abaqāt al-H.anābila (1:173-174 #74).
[23] As related by Ibn al-Subkī in T.abaqāt al-Shāfi‘iyya (4:129).
[24] Ibn Qutayba, Ta’wīl Mukhtalif al-H.adīth (1972 ed. p. 215; 1995 ed. p. 198, 262).
[25] In Fath. al-Bārī (1959 ed. 3:463 #1520).
[26] In al-Asnā fī Sharh. Asmā’ Allāh al-H.usnā (2:90-91).
[27] Narrated by Abū Dāwūd, Ibn H.ibbān (1:498 #265) with a sound chain, his shaykh Ibn Khuzayma in al-Tawh.īd, al-H.ākim (1:24), al-Lālikā’ī in Sharh. I‘tiqād Ahl al-Sunna (3:410 #788) and al-Bayhaqī in al-Asmā’ wal-S.ifāt. Al-Kawtharī comments (Asmā’ p. 179 n. 2): “This h.adīth is narrated only through [H.armala ibn ‘Imrān al-Tujībī] al-H.ājib, and if it were considered authentic among the people of Madīna, the Imām of the Abode of Emigration would not have shown the greatest severity in prohibiting this gesture, as in al-Qād.ī ‘Iyād.’s al-Shifā’.” (See above, n. 1.) Al-H.āshidī, quoting this comment, alters it to read (Asmā’ 1:463 n.): “This h.adīth is narrated only through al-H.ājib, although it is authentic…”!
[28] Ibn H.ibbān (1:498 #265).
[29] Al-Asmā’ wal-S.ifāt (Kawtharī ed. p. 179-180; H.āshidī ed. 1:462-463).
[30] Al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salām, Fatāwā (p. 55-57) and al-Fatāwā al-Maws.iliyya (p. 45-47).
[31] Al-Pazdawi in ‘Ala’ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī’s commentary on al-Pazdawi’s Us.ūl entitled Kashf al-Asrār (1:55-60). ‘Ala’ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī comments: (1:60) “By saying: ‘For us,’ the Shaykh shunned the position of those who say: ‘Allāh is not to be described as possessing a face and hands, rather, what is meant by the face is contentment (al-rida) or the Essence (al-dhāt) and the like; and what is meant by the hand is power or favor and the like.’ The Shaykh therefore said: Rather, Allāh is described with the Attribute of Face and that of Hand, together with the upholding of His Transcendence (tanzīh) above having a form (s.ūra) and a limb (jārih.a)…. Similarly with the affirmation of modality (ithbāt al-kayfiyya): its description is ambiguous, therefore it is obligatory to acquiesce to it, firmly believing in its reality without busying oneself with interpretation.”

[muslim786]

Nice one bro Faqir.

Maybe these salafis should sort their own house out before they try attack the righteous people. These spubs lot better sort their mates ahya out, who seem to be putting heat on them. Haq hey.

[al-Hanbali]

its very simple. They say that that they affirm the ayat of Sifat upon their Dhahir meanings. So all you have to do to is ask them: "So please tell me oh Salafi, what is the meaning of hand?"

What does it mean?

They have only two possibilities:
1. They actually explain the meaning-and i have yet to hear any of them do that openly
2. They are silent. If they are silent, we ask them: "Why are you concealing knowledge of this to us?


If they are so admanant on saying that they affirm the Dhahir meaning, then why dont they ever gift us with their knowledge of the real meaning?

[faqir]

Actually akhi, i had this same discussion elsewhere.... to date I received no meaning. Really they should be congratulated if they know the meaning of Allah's "Hand" and its like as they must have seen Him to have received this knowledge.

[LivingUnderACherryTree]

[B][COLOR=Purple][SIZE=3][CENTER].

Abu Rumaysah aint part of SPUBS

get ur facts straight

[Sword Of Allah]

Masha'Allah azuwwajul i would just like to thank brother faqir for the very informative article it cleared up alot of things for me. If you read the last 20-30 pages of sahih al bukhari published by darussalam they had added an extra bit in the end of it saying that Allah azuwwajul has 2 hands. Also this claim of 2 eyes has been relayed in SHARH AL AQIDA WASTATIYA by Uthaymeen also on page 11 of that book they state that Allah azuwwajul has feet etc AUDOBILLAH! Just like the christains turned God into a man the salafis are doing the exact same.. May Allah protect us all from their fitna AMEEN.