Statement of Allamah Anwar Kashmiri

[Zhulfiqar]

It was proven before he was not related in anyway to Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri. Also, this is fiqh related, not Aqida.

Assalaamu 'Alaikoem brother,

JazakAllah khayran. Akhi you know arabic and maybe you can insha Allah response to a claim of a Salafi which says that it doesn't make sense in the way you explained bila takyeef (without knowing the meaning), he says;

I say (Mar’i al-Hanbali): This tafsir is not pleasing to me, for if this was the intention (behind “al-istiwa is known”), he would have said: “To respond to that is bid’âh” (i.e. instead of saying: “to ask is bid’âh”). This is because the one who responds, it is he who is asked to pin-point the meaning. As for the questioner, then he is being general. As for his saying: “al-Istiwa is know: meaning, the various lexical meanings”, if that was the case, he would have said: “the intended meaning is unknown.”

What is dictated by the obvious wording is that their intent is by their saying:“al-Istiwa is known”, i.e. Allah Ta’âla’s Attribute that He Rose over the Throne, which is known with certainty and established by tawatur. Hence, comprehending its reality is something that rests on kayfiyya, and this is what was commented on (in their saying):“al-kayf is unknown”. The ‘unknown factor’, it is because there is no way for us to know its kayfiyya, for the kayfiyya depends on the maahiyya (the essence). Their saying: “To ask about it is bid’ah, i.e. because the Companions never asked the Messenger of Allah SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam about it, the Successors never asked the Companions, for the response to such question leads to the kayfiyya. This is why it is said to those in response, who are affected by this misconception, and are demanding to know the takyif by their question: “al-Kayf is unknown”. For that, the negation of which is proven by the Shar’, the intellect and the consensus of the Salaf, is only the knowledge of the servants with respect to kayfiyya. This (the Kayfiyya) is where the ambitions (to know) cease, and the minds become unable to comprehend. Rather, they (the minds) are unable to comprehend much less than that, for here is the soul, of which it is known to everyone that it leaves the body, and the angel takes it. Hence, this (i.e. the soul) which is known to all, the kayfiyya of it is unknown to all. In fact, the kayfiyya of food and drink coming down to our stomachs, and each of their residence in their own locations, then distribution of its elements around the body is unknown. Would not a deficient mind consider this in relation to comprehending the kayfiyya of the Rising of His Lord above His Throne, Subhanahu wa-ta’ala?

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

As salaam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh,

One thing that springs to mind is if the meaning is to be assigned to Allah (‘azza wa jal), then why even mention anything about Takyeef, bilaa Kayf, Tashbeeh, Tamtheel and Tajseem?

For if one does not affirm the apparent meaning, then such concepts do not even need to be addressed, let alone mentioned.

One may even object (and we seek refuge with Allah from such) to the use of the verses pertaining to Allah (‘azza wa jal) being unlike His creation because if the apparent meaning is not affirmed then what is there that could possibly cause one to form a similitude between Allah (‘azza wa jal) and His creation, what could possibly cause one to commit Tashbeeh, Tamtheel or Tajseem?

[Ansari]

One thing that springs to mind is if the meaning is to be assigned to Allah (‘azza wa jal), then why even mention anything about Takyeef, bilaa Kayf, Tashbeeh, Tamtheel and Tajseem?

You can use the same argument the other way around. If with bila takyif only the howness and not the meaning would be ascribed to Allah, why mention anything about tajsim, tamtheel, tashbih etc. when it was already said the 'howness' is not known at all? Where did they make a distinction? Nowhere! They refuse to speak about it.

And if you say the meaning is known, we ask you what the meaning is? Then the real issue comes up with using terms that the Sahaba and their students never used. Such as haqiqatan, jiha, hadd, istiqrar, bi dhatihi, julus, makan etc.

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

You can use the same argument the other way around. If with bila takyif only the howness and not the meaning would be ascribed to Allah, why mention anything about tajsim, tamtheel, tashbih etc. when it was already said the 'howness' is not known at all? Where did they make a distinction? Nowhere! They refuse to speak about it.

And if you say the meaning is known, we ask you what the meaning is? Then the real issue comes up with using terms that the Sahaba and their students never used. Such as haqiqatan, jiha, hadd, istiqrar, bi dhatihi, julus, makan etc.

As salaam alaikum,

Of course you can't use it the other way round. Affirming the meaning requires one to mention a negation of Tamtheel, Tajseem, and tashbeeh. Simply mentioning bilaa Kayf is not enough because there are many things in the world that we have heard of, but we do not know the Kayfiyyah of yet the Kayfiyyah might be like that of another creation. However, such is impossible for Allah because He is unlike anything created.

[Ansari]

As salaam alaikum,

Of course you can't use it the other way round. Affirming the meaning requires one to mention a negation of Tamtheel, Tajseem, and tashbeeh. Simply mentioning bilaa Kayf is not enough because there are many things in the world that we have heard of, but we do not know the Kayfiyyah of yet the Kayfiyyah might be like that of another creation. However, such is impossible for Allah because He is unlike anything created.

Wa alaykumussalaam,

So when Imam Malik said that the kayf was unknown or not ma'qul, it was not enough? He did not negate tajseem, tashbeeh etc.

We can use the same exact argument. To be clear, one can still negate any resemblance with the creation.

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

Wa alaykumussalaam,

So when Imam Malik said that the kayf was unknown or not ma'qul, it was not enough? He did not negate tajseem, tashbeeh etc.

We can use the same exact argument. To be clear, one can still negate any resemblance with the creation.

As salaam alaikum,

Brother, you seem quite knowledgeable. Can I ask, is it true that when you do Tafweedh of the Ma'naa, you do so whilst negating/rejecting the Dhaahir (apparent) meaning?

For example, do you:

1) Affirm the attribute Yad as a Hand, but leave the meaning to Allah?

or

2) Affirm the word Yad as Yaa and Daal and not accept that it means a Hand, and then leave the meaning to Allah?

Please let me know, may Allah reward you.

[Zhulfiqar]

As salaam alaikum,

Brother, you seem quite knowledgeable. Can I ask, is it true that when you do Tafweedh of the Ma'naa, you do so whilst negating/rejecting the Dhaahir (apparent) meaning?

For example, do you:

1) Affirm the attribute Yad as a Hand, but leave the meaning to Allah?

or

2) Affirm the word Yad as Yaa and Daal and not accept that it means a Hand, and then leave the meaning to Allah?

Please let me know, may Allah reward you.

We affirm the lafth like the Salaf thus the word Yad and leave the meaning to Allah the Most High.

[Ansari]

As salaam alaikum,

Brother, you seem quite knowledgeable. Can I ask, is it true that when you do Tafweedh of the Ma'naa, you do so whilst negating/rejecting the Dhaahir (apparent) meaning?

For example, do you:

1) Affirm the attribute Yad as a Hand, but leave the meaning to Allah?

or

2) Affirm the word Yad as Yaa and Daal and not accept that it means a Hand, and then leave the meaning to Allah?

Please let me know, may Allah reward you.

Wa alaykumussalaam,

We do not need to dwell into its meaning, since according to the ahl al-sunnah, we leave that to Allah and consider it from the mutashabihaat. Remember that this distinction between kayf and ma'na was not given by the reliable scholars of the salaf.

There is no real difference between the 2 concepts you have mentioned, since in both cases you do tafweed al-ma'na.

One can translate yad into hand and say it has a majazi meaning like some laymen amongst the Salafiyya have done without knowing.

The problem arises when Salafis go further and state that it has no majazi meaning and the meaning is literal [haqiqi]. And criticize those who reject jism and body parts. When we ask further, they even state that the fingers of Allah are a part of the hand of Allah.

As everybody can notice, they do not stop where the salaf have stopped.

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

، فالحاصل أن نزول الباري إلى سماء الدنيا نزول حقيقة يحمل على ظاهره ويفوض تفصيله وتكييفه إلى الباري عز برهانه ، وهو مذهب الأئمة الأربعة والسلف الصالحين كما نقله الحافظ في فتح الباري عنه [/SIZE]

As salaam alaikum,

Brother Ansari can you please translate the statement above. You posted it a while back trying to prove that Allaamah Anwar Shah Kashmeeri (rahimahullah) did Tafweedh al-Ma'naa.

Please translate the above, may Allah reward you.

[Abu Zayd al-Atharee]

As salaam alaikum,

Well, I wasn't expecting anything soon, so I took the liberty of getting the passage translated by a friend who is studying in the 3rd year of the Faculty of Shari'ah at al-Azhar ash-Shareef.

The following is the statement of 'Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmeeri (rahimahullah), posted by Ansari in an attempt to prove that the Salaf practised Tafweedh al-Ma'naa. However, it is quite apparent from the translation below that the statement supports Tafweedh al-Kayfiyyah whilst affirming the Dhaahir (apparent meaning).

Below is the Arabic text followed by the english translation:


، فالحاصل أن نزول الباري إلى سماء الدنيا نزول حقيقة يحمل على ظاهره ويفوض تفصيله وتكييفه إلى الباري عز برهانه ، وهو مذهب الأئمة الأربعة والسلف الصالحين كما نقله الحافظ في فتح الباري عنه



So, the conclusion is that the Descention of Al-Baaree (The Originator of all from nothing without any previous examples to that which He Created) to the Earths sky (it should have been al-samaa' al-dunya meaning the lowest heaven as is in the hadeeth, but the meaning is, inshallah, the same) is a true decention carried upon its literal/primary meaning with its detail and modality left to Al-Baaree, honoured be his proof and evidence, and it is (this conclusion) the mathhab of the four imams and the pious predicessors, as al-haafidth (ibnu hajar) related in al-fath (fathul-baaree- his commentary of saheehul-bukhaaree).