Ikhtilaf -- a treatise by Muhadith Hijaz Muhammad Hayat Sindi (d. 1163 AH)

[abul_hussain]

Brother Abul Hussain, my point of contention wasn't anything to with Dhaahir or Tafweedh, rather the statement 'pass them as they come' to mean 'take the Apparent meaning' which is not the case according Hafidh Ibn Hajr al-'Asqalani.



You translated this:

وَإِجْرَاءَهَا عَلَى ظَاهِرِهَا

to this:

pass them on their Dhahir (literal/apparent meaning)

Brother, I will address your other points later, but I want to you and others brothers to understand that we want to get to the bottom of the issue, there should be no ill-feelings at the end of the day, as this is a discussion forum. Everyone will present his arguments in search of the truth.
You may disagree, or I may disagree but if one has read the first post, the book, which has been uploaded will know the reality of disagreements.

1. Are you looking for Dhahir al-Mana word from the Ulama ?
Then here is what Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 311)

ابن جرير الطبري (ت. 310هـ) :
قال بعد نقاشه مع فرقة من أهل البدع في صفتي النزول والمجيء: «فإن قال لنا منهم قائلٌ: فما أنت قائلٌ في معنى ذلك؟ قيل له: معنى ذلك ما دلّ عليه ظاهر الخبر، وليس عندنا للخبر إلا التسليم والإيمان به، فنقول: يجيء ربنا -جل جلاله- يوم القيامة و الملك صفاً صفاً، ويهبط إلى السماء الدنيا وينزل إليها في كل ليلةٍ ... وكالذي قلنا في هذه المعاني من القول: الصواب من القيل في كل ما ورد به الخبر في صفات الله عز وجل وأسمائه تعالى ذكره بنحو ما ذكرناه.»

or this one

أبو أحمد الكرجي القصاب (ت. 360 هـ) :
قال في كتاب "السنة" له: «كل صفة وصف الله بها نفسه أو وصف بها نبيه، فهي صفةٌ حقيقةً لا مجازًا»((27) "تذكرة الحفاظ" للذهبي (ج3 ص101)، و"العلو للعلي الغفار" (ص239)؛ و"درء تعارض العقل والنقل" لابن تيمية (ج3 ص229) طبعة دار الكنوز الأدبية – الرياض.).

Please look up here for more examples:

I think you missed this post on that website http://www.as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=110&lang=ar
الإيمان بنصوص الصفات على ظاهرها
إعداد: أم عبد الله الميساوي
لـ« موقع عقيدة السلف الصالح »

and http://www.as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=105&lang=ar
and http://as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=101&lang=ar
and http://as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=82&lang=ar


2. Can you please analyze the two statements of Ibn Hajar ?

The Mushabiha who take literal and real meanings ***** BUT WITHOUT TANZIH

فَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ حَمَلَهُ عَلَى ظَاهِرِهِ وَحَقِيقَتِهِ ، وَهُمُ الْمُشَبِّهَةُ ، تَعَالَى اللَّهُ عَنْ قَوْلِهِمْ .

so the way of mushabiha or anthropomorphists is that they take the apparent or literal meaning but with tashbeeh.... this is clear from the sayings of imam tirmidhi, hammads, and many other. the sunni view is take the DHAHIR -- just like KHATTABI / BAYHAQI said -- but without tashbeeh/tamtheel etc.

and the sunni view, take the words ala dhahir or ijra ala ma warad , or qiratuhu tafsiruh BUT WITH TANZIH

وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَجْرَاهُ عَلَى مَا وَرَدَ مُؤْمِنًا بِهِ عَلَى طَرِيقِ الْإِجْمَالِ مُنَزِّهًا اللَّهَ تَعَالَى عَنِ الْكَيْفِيَّةِ وَالتَّشْبِيهِ ، وَهُمْ جُمْهُورُ السَّلَفِ ، وَنَقَلَهُ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ وَغَيْرُهُ عَنِ الْأَئِمَّةِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ ، وَالسُّفْيَانَيْنِ ، وَالْحَمَّادَيْنِ ، وَالْأَوْزَاعِيِّ ، وَاللَّيْثِ ، وَغَيْرِهِمْ ،

You see the words of Subki is no different from words of Ibn Hajar Asqalani which is no different than the words of Bayhaqi quoting khattabi

ثمَّ أَقُول للأشاعرة قَولَانِ مشهوران فِي إِثْبَات الصِّفَات هَل تمر على ظَاهرهَا مَعَ اعْتِقَاد التَّنْزِيه أَو تؤول

هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ وَمَا أَشْبَهَهُ مِنَ الْأَحَادِيثِ فِي الصِّفَاتِ كَانَ مَذْهَبُ السَّلَفِ فِيهَا الْإِيمَانَ بِهَا، وَإِجْرَاءَهَا عَلَى ظَاهِرِهَا وَنَفْيَ الْكَيْفِيَّةِ عَنْهَا

If we don't know the meaning of the attributes or if we relegate the meaning of the words to Allah ( that is we don't know what it means) then why is there a need to do tanzih and qualify the sentence and put condition with the words without tashbeeh or with tanzeeh ?

this doesnt really tackle what i said, that: Pass them as they come doesn't mean take it's Dhaahir meaning according to Shaykh al-Islam Hafidh Ibn Hajr - because of the fact that he differentiated between them.

I have a question, is there any method or tariqa we select shaykh al-islam ibn hajar over Shaykh al-Islam wal Muslimeen Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi or shaykh al-islam Khateeb al-Baghdadi or shaykh al-Islam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali.

Because Shaykh al-Islam Khateeb al-Baghdadi said http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post582890

الكلام في الصفات فإن ما رُوِي منها في السنن الصحاح مذهب السلف رضوان الله عليهم إثباتها, وإجراؤها على ظواهرها , ونفي الكيفية والتشبيه عنها . وقد نفاها قوم فأبطلوا ما أثبته الله سبحانه , وحققها من المثبتين قوم فخرجوا في ذلك إلى ضرب من التشبيه والتكييف . و القصد إنما هو سلوك الطريقة المتوسطة بين الأمرين , ودين الله بين الغالي فيه, والمقصر عنه والأصل في هذا أن الكلام في الصفات فرع على الكلام في الذات, ويحتذي في ذلك حذوه ومثاله . فإذا كان معلوما أن إثبات رب العالمين عز وجل إنما هو إثبات وجود, لا إثبات كيفية , فكذلك إثبات صفاته, إنما هو إثبات وجود, لا إثبات تحديد وتكييف . فإذا قلنا : لله تعالى يد, وسمع , وبصر , فإنما هي صفات أثبتها الله تعالى لنفسه, ولا نقول : إن معنى اليد القدرة, ولا إن معنى السمع والبصر العلم , ولا نقول : إنها جوارح وأدوات الفعل , ولا نشبهها بالأيدي, والأسماع, والأبصار التي هي جوارح, وأدوات للفعل. ونقول : إنما وجب إثباتها لأن التوقيف ورد بها, ووجب نفي التشبيه عنها لقوله تبارك وتعالى:{ ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير } (الشورى: 11 ), وقوله عز وجل: { ولم يكن له كفوا أحد } (الإخلاص: 4 ). ولما تعلق أهل البدع على عيب أهل النقل برواياتهم هذه الأحاديث, ولبَسَّوُا على من ضَعُفَ علمه بأنهم يَرْوُونَ ما لا يليق بالتوحيد, ولا يصح في الدين, ورموهم بكفر أهل التشبيه, وغفلة أهل التعطيل, أجيبوا بأن في كتاب الله تعالى آيات محكمات, يفهم منها المراد بظاهرها, وآيات متشابهات لا يوقف على معناها إلا بردها إلى المحكم, ويجب تصديق الكل, والإيمان بالجميع فكذلك أخبار الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم جارية هذا المجرى , ومنزلة على هذا التنزيل, يرد المتشابه منها إلى المحكم, ويقبل الجميع .

:وتنقسم الأحاديث المروية في الصفات ثلاثة أقسام

منها أخبار ثابتة, أجمع أئمة النقل على صحتها, لاستفاضتها وعدالة ناقليها فيجب قبولها والإيمان بها, مع حفظ القلب أن يسبق إليه اعتقاد ما يقتضي تشبيها لله بخلقه, ووصفه بما لا يليق به من الجوارح والأدوات, والتغير والحركات .

القسم الثاني : أخبار ساقطة بأسانيد واهية, وألفاظ شنيعة , أجمع أهل العلم بالنقل على بطولها, فهذه لا يجوز الاشتغال بها, ولا التعريج عليها .

والقسم الثالث : أخبار اختلف أهل العلم في أحوال نقلتها, فقبلهم البعض دون الكل , فهذه يجب الاجتهاد والنظر فيها لتلحق بأهل القبول, أو تجعل في حيز الفساد والبطول.

وأما تعيين الأحاديث فإني لم أشتغل بها , ولا تقدم مني جمع لها, ولعل ذلك يكون في بعد إن شاء الله

Shaykh al-Islam Khateeb al-Baghdadi said: As for speech regarding the Attributes [of Allah]: Then whatever has been reported of such Attributes in the authentic compilations (sunan), the madhhab of the salaf -- may Allah be pleased with them -- [is to] affirm them, and to carry them upon their literal [meanings] and to negate the modality (kayfiyyah) and to negate resemblance (tashbih) for them.

A group has denied these [Attributes] and so they nullified what Allah -- the Glorified -- affirmed for Himself

and another group amongst those who affirmed them actualised them and thus fell into something of resemblance and defining their modality (takyif).

And the objective is treading upon the middle path between the two, and the religion of Allah lies between the excessive in it and the negligent of it.

The principle [to be followed] in this matter is: That speech about the Attributes is a branch of speaking about the Essence (dhat) and thus follows it likewise and takes its example.

When it is known that affirmation of the Lord of all the Worlds -- the Mighty and Majestic -- that it is an affirmation of existence, not an affirmation of the modality (kayfiyyah), likewise affirmation of His Attributes is affirmation of existence, not an affirmation of defining their modality and giving them a limitation. When we say: Allah -- the Exalted -- has a hand, hearing and seeing, then these are Attributes which Allah -- the Exalted -- has affirmed for Himself and we do not say: The meaning of hand is power (al-qudra) and nor [do we say:] the meaning of hearing and seeing is knowledge (al-ilm). Nor do we say: they are limbs (jawarih) or mechanisms of the actions. We do not liken them with the hands, hearing and sight which are organs and mechanisms of the actions. We say: It is obligatory to affirm them because they have been reported as Divinely ordained (tawqif) and it is obligatory to negate resemblance for them, according to the saying of the -- Blessed and Exalted--: { There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer } [Shura 42:11] and His saying -- the Mighty and Majestic --: { And there is none like Him } [Ikhlas 112:7]

And when the people of innovation (Ahl al-Bidah) remarked negatively about the people of narrations (Ahl al-Naql) for their reporting of such narrations (ahadith) and to enwrap those whose knowledge is weak, that they report what does not befit Oneness of Allah (tawhid) and which is not authentic in the religion. They accused them with the disbelief of the anthropomorphists (Ahl al-tashbih) and the ignorance of the nullifiers of the Attributes (Ahl al-Ta'teel) ;

[The people of the narrations] replied to them that: In the Book of Allah there are decisive verses (ayat muhkamaat), the intent behind them is understood by their apparent meanings and there are ambiguous verses (ayat mutashabihat) the meanings of which cannot be grasped except by referring them to the decisive [verses]. And it is obligatory to believe in all of them and to have faith in them all.

Similarly, the narrations of the Messenger --sallaallahu alayhi wa sallam -- are carried upon the same principle, they are revealed [just] as this Revelation - the ambiguous amongst them are referred to the decisive amongst them - but all of them are to be accepted.

The narrations reported about the Attributes are classified in three types:

Amongst them: The established reports about which the scholars of the narrations are agreed upon its authenticity due to their abundance and the integrity found in their transmission - therefore accepting them and having faith in them is obligatory along with protecting the heart from a belief that would overcome it and which would necessitate resembling Allah to His creation and describing Him with what does not befit Him such as organs, particles, changing and movements.

The second type: Disreputable reports with unfounded chains of narration and repulsive wordings. The people of the knowledge are agreed upon their falsity in transmission and it is not permissible to be occupied with such narrations and nor to stop over them.

The third type: Reports about which the people of knowledge are in disagreement regarding status of their transmission, so some of them, as opposed to all of them - accept them. In this situation, it is obligatory to strive and to inspect them - so that they are either associated with the people of acceptance (Ahl al-Qubool) - or that they are placed in the confines of falsehood and corruption.

And as for specifying such narrations, then I have not occupied myself with them and a collection of them has not proceeded from me - but perhaps that will occur afterwards - if Allah wills.

----------
وإجراؤها على ظواهرها , = take upon its apparent meaning
ها = HA = points to what ? definitely not color.

Shaykh al-Islam Khateeb al-Baghdadi was close to the period of Salaf where as Shaykh al-Islam Khattabi even close to the blessed period if not from the period itself. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar came way later.

----

Just want to point out that Shaykh al-Islam Khateeb al-Baghdadi is one of the giants of this ummah.
you can read what Dr. GF Haddad wrote here:
http://www.livingislam.org/o/khtb_e.html
and if you can read arabic then
http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/s....php?ids=14231


and what is more interesting is that Ibn Asakir says Khatib is an Ashari scholar if you check tabyin kadhib al-muftari. even asharis.com or salafi publications are promoting the creed of khatib al-baghdadi.

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

Abu Bakr al-Khatib said: "As for what pertains to the divine Attributes, whatever is narrated in the books of sound reports concerning them, the position of the Salaf consists in their affirmation and letting them pass according to their external wordings while negating from them modality (kayfiyya) and likeness to things created (tashbîh). [A certain people have contradicted the Attributes and nullified what Allah Most High had affirmed; while another people have declared them real then went beyond this to some kind of likening to creation and ascription of modality. The true objective is none other than to tread a middle path between the two matters. The Religion of Allah Most High lies between the extremist and the laxist.] fn6
The principle to be followed in this matter is that the discourse on the Attributes is a branch of the discourse on the Essence. The path to follow in the former is the same extreme caution as in the latter. When it is understood that the affirmation of the Lord of the Worlds [in His Essence] is only an affirmation of existence and not of modality, it will be similarly understood that the affirmation of His Attributes is only an affirmation of their existence, not an affirmation of definition (tahdîd) nor an ascription of modality.
So when we say: Allah Most High has a Hand, hearing, and sight, they are none other than Attributes Allah Most High has affirmed for Himself. We should not say that the meaning of 'hand' is power (al-qudra) nor that the meaning of 'hearing' and 'sight' is knowledge (`ilm), nor should we say that they are organs (lâ naqûlu innahâ jawârih)! Nor should we liken them to hands, hearings, and sights that are organs and implements of acts. We should say: All that is obligatory is
[1] to affirm them because they are stated according to divine prescription (tawqîf), and
[2] to negate from them any likeness to created things according to His saying {There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him} (42:11) {and there is none like Him} (112:4)." 7 Narrated by al-Dhahabi with his chain from Muhammad ibn Marzuq al-Za`farani in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' (13:598) and Tadhkira al-Huffaz (3:1142-1143) from al-Khatib's epistle al-Sifat >>

so according to Dr. GF Haddad dhahir means external wording and according to me it means apparent literal meaning wording. I don't see any difference between external = obvious = apparent = literal
like i said, some used Tanzih and some used without Tashbeeh or Tamtheel.


-----------------

Imam Dhahabi is also Shaykh al-Islam , we also accept what Hafiz Shaykh al-Islam Imam Shams al-Din Dhahabi said:

from the blog of um abdullah http://umabdullah.wordpress.com/2007...mean-2-things/

Hafidh adh-Dhahabi -rahimahu Allah- said in his book al Uluw:

المتأخرون من أهل النظر قالوا مقالة مولدة ما علمت أحدا سبقهم بها قالوا هذه الصفات تمر كما جاءت ولا تأول مع إعتقاد أن ظاهرها غير مراد فتفرع من هذا أن الظاهر يعني به أمران

أحدهما أنه لا تأويل لها غير دلالة الخطاب كما قال السلف الإستواء معلوم وكما قال سفيان وغيره قراءتها تفسيرها يعني أنها بينة واضحة في اللغة لا يبتغى بها مضائق التأويل والتحريفو هذا هو مذهب السلف مع إتفاقهم أيضا أنها لا تشبه صفات البشر بوجه إذ الباري لا مثل له لا في ذاته ولا في صفاته

الثاني أن ظاهرها هو الذي يتشكل في الخيال من الصفة كما يتشكل في الذهن من وصف البشر فهذا غير مرادفإن الله تعالى فرد صمد ليس له نظير وإن تعددت صفاته فإنها حق

“The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the apparent meaning is not intended. ’ This follows that the apparent meaning (dhahir) could mean two things: First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text, as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes. Second; that the apparent meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness”

——

He (Hafidh adh-Dhahabi) also said in his book “Siyar A’lam an Nubala’ “(19\449)

قلت: قد صار الظاهر اليوم ظاهرين: أحدهما حق، والثاني باطل، فالحق أن يقول: إنه سميع بصير، مريد متكلم، حي عليم، كل شئ هالك إلا وجهه، خلق آدم بيده، وكلم موسى تكليما، واتخذ إبراهيم خليلا، وأمثال ذلك، فنمره على ما جاء، ونفهم منه دلالة الخطاب كما يليق به تعالى، ولا نقول: له تأويل يخالف ذلك.والظاهر الآخر وهو الباطل، والضلال: أن تعتقد قياس الغائب على الشاهد، وتمثل البارئ بخلقه، تعالى الله عن ذلك، بل صفاته كذاته، فلا عدل له، ولا ضد له، ولا نظير له، ولا مثل له، ولا شبيه له، وليس كمثله شئ، لا في ذاته، ولا في صفاته، وهذا أمر يستوي فيه الفقيه والعامي، والله أعلم.

I said: Today, the dhahir meaning has become 2 dhahir (meanings):
One is haqq (Truth), and the other is batil (falsehood).
The haqq (truth) is for one to say: He (Allah) is all hearing, all seeing, wills, speaks, alive, all knowing, everything perishes except His wajh, created Adam with His two hands, and spoke to Musa, and took Ibrahim as a khalil, and similar to that. So we pass it on like it came, and we understand from it the meaning of the text that is befitting of Allah Ta’ala, and we do not say: it has an interpretation (ta’wil) that contradicts that.

And the other dhahir, which is falsehood and deviance: is to compare the abscent to the present, and to liken Allah (al Bare’) to His creation, exalted be Allah from that; but His attributes are like His essence, there is no equal, no opposite, no like, no similar to Him, and there is nothing like Him, not in His essence, and not in His attributes; and this matter, the faqih and the laymen are equal in, and Allah knows best.

http://www.****************/vb/showthread.php?t=94815 هل الذهبي مفوض؟؟


------------
in short conclusion:
So posting from their site what Shaykh al-islam Dhahabi had to say on Dhaahir is of use because this really does tackle what i said, that: Pass them as they come does mean take it's Dhaahir meaning according to Shaykh al-Islam Hafidh Shams al-Din Dhahabi

[abul_hussain]

Did Imam al Haramayn not repudiate his positions in Kitab al Irshad and his final stance is what is in his Risala al Nizamiyya. Besides that, where does he say that he personally believed that Allah has "Two eyes"? Same with Izz ibn Abdas Salam and al-Baqillani.. Explain where they personally affirmed it.

You seem to believe that Allah has aynayan, so please provide just one Sahih hadith that prooves this rather than quotes ascribed to men who can make mistakes in creed unlike Anbiyya.

1. If men can make mistake so can you. If you think Baqillani Qushayri and other numerous Asharis who said about TWO EYES and TWO HANDS ( i mean if you start searching for quotes Asharis will outnumber any other group regarding Two Hands or Two Eyes ) have made mistake, what is the guarantee that you have not made mistake in arriving to that conclusion ?

2. Please quote some Ashari scholars who said Baqilani or Qushayri or other Asharis were mistaken when they said about Two Eyes or Two Hands.

3. Please quote some Ashari scholars who said that this is anthropomorphism. No care is given to your personal opinions or my personal opinions or your beliefs or my beliefs.
Please quote original arabic text.

4. Please read Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari of ibn asakir on this issue and let us know who said Ibn Asakir and abul hasan al-Ashari were wrong on what is written in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari

5. Where does it say in the Hadith or Quran about the 7 affirmative attributes which Shaykh Faraz Rabbani and other Asharis keep talking about ? Any explicit verse or hadith, please post that here as well. oh, don't forget to post the classification of Sifat, like Dhatiyya, filiya etc... post explicit hadith or verse.

6. Waiting for your reply.

[al_Zayn]

Brother Abul Hussain. I think you have misunderstood me, my point of contention isn't whether al-Ma'ana al-Dhahir / Haqeeqi is wrong (yes i know the Salafis do it with Tanzih as opposed to the Mujassimah and Mushabbihah) and Tafweedh is right, to me both are right, and i am a nobody to conclude which is wrong.

My bone of contention is the Sister who got the quotes of the Salaf on: أمروها كما جاءت

and concluded: يتضح معنى قولهم «أمروها كما جاءت» بما ورد في هذه الآثار التي تُبيّن إثباتهم للمعنى الظاهر قولا واحدًا

which is a far cry - when it is clear from Ibn Hajr statement here:

قَوْلُهُ : ( يَنْزِلُ رَبُّنَا إِلَى السَّمَاءِ الدُّنْيَا " - اسْتَدَلَّ بِهِ مَنْ أَثْبَتَ الْجِهَةَ - " ) اسْتَدَلَّ بِهِ مَنْ أَثْبَتَ الْجِهَةَ ، وَقَالَ : هِيَ جِهَةُ الْعُلُوِّ ، وَأَنْكَرَ ذَلِكَ " - ص 37 -" الْجُمْهُورُ لِأَنَّ الْقَوْلَ بِذَلِكَ يُفْضِي إِلَى التَّحَيُّزِ ، تَعَالَى اللَّهُ عَنْ ذَلِكَ

. وَقَدِ اخْتُلِفَ فِي مَعْنَى النُّزُولِ عَلَى أَقْوَالٍ:

فَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ حَمَلَهُ عَلَى ظَاهِرِهِ وَحَقِيقَتِهِ ، وَهُمُ الْمُشَبِّهَةُ ، تَعَالَى اللَّهُ عَنْ قَوْلِهِمْ .

وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَنْكَرَ صِحَّةَ الْأَحَادِيثِ الْوَارِدَةِ فِي ذَلِكَ جُمْلَةً ، وَهُمُ الْخَوَارِجُ ، وَالْمُعْتَزِلَةُ ، وَهُوَ مُكَابَرَةٌ ، وَالْعَجَبُ أَنَّهُمْ أَوَّلُوا مَا فِي الْقُرْآنِ مِنْ نَحْوِ ذَلِكَ ، وَأَنْكَرُوا مَا فِي الْحَدِيثِ ، إِمَّا جَهْلًا ، وَإِمَّا عِنَادًا ،

وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَجْرَاهُ عَلَى مَا وَرَدَ مُؤْمِنًا بِهِ عَلَى طَرِيقِ الْإِجْمَالِ مُنَزِّهًا اللَّهَ تَعَالَى عَنِ الْكَيْفِيَّةِ وَالتَّشْبِيهِ ، وَهُمْ جُمْهُورُ السَّلَفِ ، وَنَقَلَهُ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ وَغَيْرُهُ عَنِ الْأَئِمَّةِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ ، وَالسُّفْيَانَيْنِ ، وَالْحَمَّادَيْنِ ، وَالْأَوْزَاعِيِّ ، وَاللَّيْثِ ، وَغَيْرِهِمْ ،

وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَوَّلَهُ عَلَى وَجْهٍ يَلِيقُ ، مُسْتَعْمَلٍ فِي كَلَامِ الْعَرَبِ ،

وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَفْرَطَ فِي التَّأْوِيلِ ، حَتَّى كَادَ أَنْ يَخْرُجَ إِلَى نَوْعٍ مِنَ التَّحْرِيفِ ،

وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ فَصَلَ بَيْنَ مَا يَكُونُ تَأْوِيلُهُ قَرِيبًا مُسْتَعْمَلًا فِي كَلَامِ الْعَرَبِ ، وَبَيْنَ مَا يَكُونُ بَعِيدًا مَهْجُورًا ، فَأَوَّلَ فِي بَعْضٍ ، وَفَوَّضَ فِي بَعْضٍ ، وَهُوَ مَنْقُولٌ عَنْ مَالِكٍ ، وَجَزَمَ بِهِ مِنَ الْمُتَأَخِّرِينَ ابْنُ دَقِيقِ الْعِيدِ ،

قَالَ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ : وَأَسْلَمُهَا الْإِيمَانُ بِلَا كَيْفٍ ، وَالسُّكُوتُ عَنِ الْمُرَادِ إِلَّا أَنْ يَرِدَ ذَلِكَ عَنِ الصَّادِقِ ، فَيُصَارُ إِلَيْهِ . مِنَ الدَّلِيلَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ اتِّفَاقُهُمْ عَلَى أَنَّ التَّأْوِيلَ الْمُعَيَّنَ غَيْرُ وَاجِبٍ ، فَحِينَئِذٍ التَّفْوِيضُ أَسْلَمُ

That Haqeeqah / Dhaahir isn't attributed to the Salaf, rather the أمروها كما جاءت is attributed to the Salaf.

Even though it is correct that the Mushabbihah didn't do Tanzeeh, Hafidh Ibn Hajr did not make another paragraph in his analysis saying there is also another people that took Dhaahir / Haqeeqah Meaning and did Tanzih - nor did he even say it for the Salaf in the paragraph i highlighted.

So it is obvious the conclusion made by the sister for those quotes she quoted from the Salaf was out of proportion.

Compare her statement:

يتضح معنى قولهم «أمروها كما جاءت» بما ورد في هذه الآثار التي تُبيّن إثباتهم للمعنى الظاهر قولا واحدًا

To Ibn Qudamah al-Hanbali al-Maqdisi:

وما أشكل من ذلك وجب إثباته لفظا وترك التعرض لمعناه ونرد علمه إلى قائله

Again, how can you pass over the meaning as they come? it doesn't make sense. The meaning doesnt come, the texts / alfaadh comes.

So it is understood as pass the text as they come, believe in it, without delving into it's meaning, as mentioned by Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi:

وترك التعرض لمعناه

So this is the belief of the Salaf (passing them over as they come) - pass the 'text' as they come on it's dhaahir, without delving into it's meaning - without changing it and without doing Ta'weel etc.

If you want to affirm the literal meaning (not lafz), then that would be delving into the meaning (as oppoosed to what Ibn Qudamah said in his Lum'ah), then it wouldn't it be 'passing it over as they comes' - it would be contradictory.

Even the as-Salaf website here quotes Imam al-Tirmidhi exactly quoting the same thing:

- قال أبو عيسى الترمذي (279 هـ)

: «وقد رُوي عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم روايات كثيرة مثل هذا ما يُذكر فيه أمرُ الرؤية أن الناس يرون ربهم وذِكرُ القَدَم وما أشبه هذه الأشياء. والمذهب في هذا عند أهل العلم من الأئمة مثل سفيان الثوري، ومالك بن أنس، وابن المبارك، وابن عيينة، ووكيع وغيرهم أنهم رَوَوا هذه الأشياء، ثمَّ قالوا: " تُرْوى هذه الأحاديث ونؤمن بها، ولا يُقالُ: كَيفَ ؟، وهذا الذي اخْتَاره أهل الحديث أن يَرْووا هذه الأشياء كما جاءت ويؤمن بها ولا تُفسر ولا تتوهَّمُ ولا يُقالُ: كيفَ، وهذا أمرُ أهل العلم الذي اختاروه وذهبوا إليه. ومعنى قوله في الحديث "فيعرفهم نفسه" يعني يتجلى لهم

- Abu Isa At-Tirmidhi (279 H.)

He said: «Many narrations have been narrated from the Prophet –sallallahu alayhi wa sallam- such as this, ones that mention ru’yah, the people seeing their Lord (in the Hereafter), and the mentioning of the Foot (of Allah), and other similar things. The way of the scholars such as Sufyan Al-Thawri, Malik ibn Anas, Ibn Al-Mubarak, Ibn `Uyaynah, Wakee`, and others regarding this is that they narrated these things, and then said: “These hadiths are to be narrated, we believe in them and it is not to be said: ‘How ?’.” And this is the position that Ahlul Hadeeth have chosen, to narrate these things as they have come, believe in them without explaining them, nor thinking about them, and it is not to be said: ‘How?’ This is the path that the scholars have chosen. And the meaning of the statement in the hadith ”He will make Himself known to them“ (yu`arrifuhum nafsahu) is that He will appear unto them.”

I think i have made my point on this - that Passing them over as they come doesn't mean take the literal / apparent meaning.

1. Are you looking for Dhahir al-Mana word from the Ulama ?
Then here is what Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 311)

ابن جرير الطبري (ت. 310هـ) :
قال بعد نقاشه مع فرقة من أهل البدع في صفتي النزول والمجيء: «فإن قال لنا منهم قائلٌ: فما أنت قائلٌ في معنى ذلك؟ قيل له: معنى ذلك ما دلّ عليه ظاهر الخبر، وليس عندنا للخبر إلا التسليم والإيمان به، فنقول: يجيء ربنا -جل جلاله- يوم القيامة و الملك صفاً صفاً، ويهبط إلى السماء الدنيا وينزل إليها في كل ليلةٍ ... وكالذي قلنا في هذه المعاني من القول: الصواب من القيل في كل ما ورد به الخبر في صفات الله عز وجل وأسمائه تعالى ذكره بنحو ما ذكرناه.»

or this one

أبو أحمد الكرجي القصاب (ت. 360 هـ) :
قال في كتاب "السنة" له: «كل صفة وصف الله بها نفسه أو وصف بها نبيه، فهي صفةٌ حقيقةً لا مجازًا»((27) "تذكرة الحفاظ" للذهبي (ج3 ص101)، و"العلو للعلي الغفار" (ص239)؛ و"درء تعارض العقل والنقل" لابن تيمية (ج3 ص229) طبعة دار الكنوز الأدبية – الرياض.).

Please look up here for more examples:

I think you missed this post on that website http://www.as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=110&lang=ar
الإيمان بنصوص الصفات على ظاهرها
إعداد: أم عبد الله الميساوي
لـ« موقع عقيدة السلف الصالح »

and http://www.as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=105&lang=ar
and http://as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=101&lang=ar
and http://as-salaf.com/article.php?aid=82&lang=ar

Brother, i am sure you can quote Scholars whom, have said Dhaahir al-Ma'ana from the website, but again that was not my bone of contention - please read above.

2. Can you please analyze the two statements of Ibn Hajar ?

The Mushabiha who take literal and real meanings ***** BUT WITHOUT TANZIH

فَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ حَمَلَهُ عَلَى ظَاهِرِهِ وَحَقِيقَتِهِ ، وَهُمُ الْمُشَبِّهَةُ ، تَعَالَى اللَّهُ عَنْ قَوْلِهِمْ .

so the way of mushabiha or anthropomorphists is that they take the apparent or literal meaning but with tashbeeh.... this is clear from the sayings of imam tirmidhi, hammads, and many other. the sunni view is take the DHAHIR -- just like KHATTABI / BAYHAQI said -- but without tashbeeh/tamtheel etc.

Your first statement is correct, and your latter statement is also correct but if you add 'meaning' after Dhahir and not 'words / texts' (the latter clearly opted by Ibn Qudamah al-Hanbali) then that would be incorrect because, that would contradict the principle 'pass them as they come' (as mentioned by the Salaf) and 'not thinking about them' (as al-Tirmidhi quoted the position of Ahl al-Hadith) - because you have given it the Dhaahir meaning as opposed to not thinking about and passing them over as they come - then it become self contradictory.

and the sunni view, take the words ala dhahir or ijra ala ma warad , or qiratuhu tafsiruh BUT WITH TANZIH

وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ أَجْرَاهُ عَلَى مَا وَرَدَ مُؤْمِنًا بِهِ عَلَى طَرِيقِ الْإِجْمَالِ مُنَزِّهًا اللَّهَ تَعَالَى عَنِ الْكَيْفِيَّةِ وَالتَّشْبِيهِ ، وَهُمْ جُمْهُورُ السَّلَفِ ، وَنَقَلَهُ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ وَغَيْرُهُ عَنِ الْأَئِمَّةِ الْأَرْبَعَةِ ، وَالسُّفْيَانَيْنِ ، وَالْحَمَّادَيْنِ ، وَالْأَوْزَاعِيِّ ، وَاللَّيْثِ ، وَغَيْرِهِمْ ،

You see the words of Subki is no different from words of Ibn Hajar Asqalani which is no different than the words of Bayhaqi quoting khattabi

Ibn Hajr al-'Asqalani says those who do Tanzih are those who pass it them as they come - nothing to do with literal / apparent meaning.

ثمَّ أَقُول للأشاعرة قَولَانِ مشهوران فِي إِثْبَات الصِّفَات هَل تمر على ظَاهرهَا مَعَ اعْتِقَاد التَّنْزِيه أَو تؤول

هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ وَمَا أَشْبَهَهُ مِنَ الْأَحَادِيثِ فِي الصِّفَاتِ كَانَ مَذْهَبُ السَّلَفِ فِيهَا الْإِيمَانَ بِهَا، وَإِجْرَاءَهَا عَلَى ظَاهِرِهَا وَنَفْيَ الْكَيْفِيَّةِ عَنْهَا

If we don't know the meaning of the attributes or if we relegate the meaning of the words to Allah ( that is we don't know what it means) then why is there a need to do tanzih and qualify the sentence and put condition with the words without tashbeeh or with tanzeeh ?

I did not say pass them as they come is Tafweedh, pass them as they come is not Dhaahir and Not Tafweedh.

Ibn Hajr clearly differentiated between the lot.

Tafweedh doesn't mean relegate, im sure you know better.

When you say in Dua (or when you read the Qur'an): 'Ana Ufawwidhu Amree Ila-Allah', do you mean to say: 'I relegate my affairs to Allah'?

I hope you do know what relegate means as opposed to consign - world of a difference.

Also Khattabi's statements doesn't contradict, it could mean pass them over upon there literal text (not meaning) - because that wouldn't contradict with pass them over as they come (Salaf) without thinking about it (Ahlul Hadith - al-Tirmidhi) and without delving in the meaning (mentioned by Ibn Qudamah).

Why we need to do Tanzeeh is that people would know that we trascend Allah from the creation and the created things. you want to close all avenues that lead to Anthropomorphism - if we didn't do that then Mujassimahs and the Mushabbihahs would be still here today.

We transcend Allah not because we take the literal meaning, rather we transcend Allah from the created things our mind only knows - not to delve into the meaning - not to think about it -etc as mentioned by the Scholars whom i have quoted.

I have a question, is there any method or tariqa we select shaykh al-islam ibn hajar over Shaykh al-Islam wal Muslimeen Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi or shaykh al-islam Khateeb al-Baghdadi or shaykh al-Islam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali.

I believe one should try and bring their opinions in the right light - i think they are in confirmity.

Because Shaykh al-Islam Khateeb al-Baghdadi said http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post582890

الكلام في الصفات فإن ما رُوِي منها في السنن الصحاح مذهب السلف رضوان الله عليهم إثباتها, وإجراؤها على ظواهرها , ونفي الكيفية والتشبيه عنها . وقد نفاها قوم فأبطلوا ما أثبته الله سبحانه , وحققها من المثبتين قوم فخرجوا في ذلك إلى ضرب من التشبيه والتكييف . و القصد إنما هو سلوك الطريقة المتوسطة بين الأمرين , ودين الله بين الغالي فيه, والمقصر عنه والأصل في هذا أن الكلام في الصفات فرع على الكلام في الذات, ويحتذي في ذلك حذوه ومثاله . فإذا كان معلوما أن إثبات رب العالمين عز وجل إنما هو إثبات وجود, لا إثبات كيفية , فكذلك إثبات صفاته, إنما هو إثبات وجود, لا إثبات تحديد وتكييف . فإذا قلنا : لله تعالى يد, وسمع , وبصر , فإنما هي صفات أثبتها الله تعالى لنفسه, ولا نقول : إن معنى اليد القدرة, ولا إن معنى السمع والبصر العلم , ولا نقول : إنها جوارح وأدوات الفعل , ولا نشبهها بالأيدي, والأسماع, والأبصار التي هي جوارح, وأدوات للفعل. ونقول : إنما وجب إثباتها لأن التوقيف ورد بها, ووجب نفي التشبيه عنها لقوله تبارك وتعالى:{ ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير } (الشورى: 11 ), وقوله عز وجل: { ولم يكن له كفوا أحد } (الإخلاص: 4 ). ولما تعلق أهل البدع على عيب أهل النقل برواياتهم هذه الأحاديث, ولبَسَّوُا على من ضَعُفَ علمه بأنهم يَرْوُونَ ما لا يليق بالتوحيد, ولا يصح في الدين, ورموهم بكفر أهل التشبيه, وغفلة أهل التعطيل, أجيبوا بأن في كتاب الله تعالى آيات محكمات, يفهم منها المراد بظاهرها, وآيات متشابهات لا يوقف على معناها إلا بردها إلى المحكم, ويجب تصديق الكل, والإيمان بالجميع فكذلك أخبار الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم جارية هذا المجرى , ومنزلة على هذا التنزيل, يرد المتشابه منها إلى المحكم, ويقبل الجميع .

:وتنقسم الأحاديث المروية في الصفات ثلاثة أقسام

منها أخبار ثابتة, أجمع أئمة النقل على صحتها, لاستفاضتها وعدالة ناقليها فيجب قبولها والإيمان بها, مع حفظ القلب أن يسبق إليه اعتقاد ما يقتضي تشبيها لله بخلقه, ووصفه بما لا يليق به من الجوارح والأدوات, والتغير والحركات .

القسم الثاني : أخبار ساقطة بأسانيد واهية, وألفاظ شنيعة , أجمع أهل العلم بالنقل على بطولها, فهذه لا يجوز الاشتغال بها, ولا التعريج عليها .

والقسم الثالث : أخبار اختلف أهل العلم في أحوال نقلتها, فقبلهم البعض دون الكل , فهذه يجب الاجتهاد والنظر فيها لتلحق بأهل القبول, أو تجعل في حيز الفساد والبطول.

وأما تعيين الأحاديث فإني لم أشتغل بها , ولا تقدم مني جمع لها, ولعل ذلك يكون في بعد إن شاء الله

Shaykh al-Islam Khateeb al-Baghdadi said: As for speech regarding the Attributes [of Allah]: Then whatever has been reported of such Attributes in the authentic compilations (sunan), the madhhab of the salaf -- may Allah be pleased with them -- [is to] affirm them, and to carry them upon their literal [meanings] and to negate the modality (kayfiyyah) and to negate resemblance (tashbih) for them.

A group has denied these [Attributes] and so they nullified what Allah -- the Glorified -- affirmed for Himself

and another group amongst those who affirmed them actualised them and thus fell into something of resemblance and defining their modality (takyif).

And the objective is treading upon the middle path between the two, and the religion of Allah lies between the excessive in it and the negligent of it.

The principle [to be followed] in this matter is: That speech about the Attributes is a branch of speaking about the Essence (dhat) and thus follows it likewise and takes its example.

When it is known that affirmation of the Lord of all the Worlds -- the Mighty and Majestic -- that it is an affirmation of existence, not an affirmation of the modality (kayfiyyah), likewise affirmation of His Attributes is affirmation of existence, not an affirmation of defining their modality and giving them a limitation. When we say: Allah -- the Exalted -- has a hand, hearing and seeing, then these are Attributes which Allah -- the Exalted -- has affirmed for Himself and we do not say: The meaning of hand is power (al-qudra) and nor [do we say:] the meaning of hearing and seeing is knowledge (al-ilm). Nor do we say: they are limbs (jawarih) or mechanisms of the actions. We do not liken them with the hands, hearing and sight which are organs and mechanisms of the actions. We say: It is obligatory to affirm them because they have been reported as Divinely ordained (tawqif) and it is obligatory to negate resemblance for them, according to the saying of the -- Blessed and Exalted--: { There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer } [Shura 42:11] and His saying -- the Mighty and Majestic --: { And there is none like Him } [Ikhlas 112:7]

And when the people of innovation (Ahl al-Bidah) remarked negatively about the people of narrations (Ahl al-Naql) for their reporting of such narrations (ahadith) and to enwrap those whose knowledge is weak, that they report what does not befit Oneness of Allah (tawhid) and which is not authentic in the religion. They accused them with the disbelief of the anthropomorphists (Ahl al-tashbih) and the ignorance of the nullifiers of the Attributes (Ahl al-Ta'teel) ;

[The people of the narrations] replied to them that: In the Book of Allah there are decisive verses (ayat muhkamaat), the intent behind them is understood by their apparent meanings and there are ambiguous verses (ayat mutashabihat) the meanings of which cannot be grasped except by referring them to the decisive [verses]. And it is obligatory to believe in all of them and to have faith in them all.

Similarly, the narrations of the Messenger --sallaallahu alayhi wa sallam -- are carried upon the same principle, they are revealed [just] as this Revelation - the ambiguous amongst them are referred to the decisive amongst them - but all of them are to be accepted.

The narrations reported about the Attributes are classified in three types:

Amongst them: The established reports about which the scholars of the narrations are agreed upon its authenticity due to their abundance and the integrity found in their transmission - therefore accepting them and having faith in them is obligatory along with protecting the heart from a belief that would overcome it and which would necessitate resembling Allah to His creation and describing Him with what does not befit Him such as organs, particles, changing and movements.

The second type: Disreputable reports with unfounded chains of narration and repulsive wordings. The people of the knowledge are agreed upon their falsity in transmission and it is not permissible to be occupied with such narrations and nor to stop over them.

The third type: Reports about which the people of knowledge are in disagreement regarding status of their transmission, so some of them, as opposed to all of them - accept them. In this situation, it is obligatory to strive and to inspect them - so that they are either associated with the people of acceptance (Ahl al-Qubool) - or that they are placed in the confines of falsehood and corruption.

And as for specifying such narrations, then I have not occupied myself with them and a collection of them has not proceeded from me - but perhaps that will occur afterwards - if Allah wills.

----------
وإجراؤها على ظواهرها , = take upon its apparent meaning
ها = HA = points to what ? definitely not color.

LOL. Obviously it isn't referring to colour, as i said it would refer to Alfaaz (words), because that way they will be in confirmity with: Affirm the words, Believe that Allah and His Rasool said it, without Tafseer, without thinking about, without delving into the meaning of the word etc - this is not affirming the literal / apparent meaning.

Shaykh al-Islam Khateeb al-Baghdadi was close to the period of Salaf where as Shaykh al-Islam Khattabi even close to the blessed period if not from the period itself. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar came way later.

You may get the notion that i think they contradict each other, that isn't so Akh.

and what is more interesting is that Ibn Asakir says Khatib is an Ashari scholar if you check tabyin kadhib al-muftari. even asharis.com or salafi publications are promoting the creed of khatib al-baghdadi.

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

Abu Bakr al-Khatib said: "As for what pertains to the divine Attributes, whatever is narrated in the books of sound reports concerning them, the position of the Salaf consists in their affirmation and letting them pass according to their external wordings while negating from them modality (kayfiyya) and likeness to things created (tashbîh). [A certain people have contradicted the Attributes and nullified what Allah Most High had affirmed; while another people have declared them real then went beyond this to some kind of likening to creation and ascription of modality. The true objective is none other than to tread a middle path between the two matters. The Religion of Allah Most High lies between the extremist and the laxist.] fn6
The principle to be followed in this matter is that the discourse on the Attributes is a branch of the discourse on the Essence. The path to follow in the former is the same extreme caution as in the latter. When it is understood that the affirmation of the Lord of the Worlds [in His Essence] is only an affirmation of existence and not of modality, it will be similarly understood that the affirmation of His Attributes is only an affirmation of their existence, not an affirmation of definition (tahdîd) nor an ascription of modality.
So when we say: Allah Most High has a Hand, hearing, and sight, they are none other than Attributes Allah Most High has affirmed for Himself. We should not say that the meaning of 'hand' is power (al-qudra) nor that the meaning of 'hearing' and 'sight' is knowledge (`ilm), nor should we say that they are organs (lâ naqûlu innahâ jawârih)! Nor should we liken them to hands, hearings, and sights that are organs and implements of acts. We should say: All that is obligatory is
[1] to affirm them because they are stated according to divine prescription (tawqîf), and
[2] to negate from them any likeness to created things according to His saying {There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him} (42:11) {and there is none like Him} (112:4)." 7 Narrated by al-Dhahabi with his chain from Muhammad ibn Marzuq al-Za`farani in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' (13:598) and Tadhkira al-Huffaz (3:1142-1143) from al-Khatib's epistle al-Sifat >>

As you quoted al-Khatib saying:

letting them pass according to their external wordings

This is precisely what i have said, passing them over on the lafz believing in them etc etc - back to sqaure one.

so according to Dr. GF Haddad dhahir means external wording and according to me it means apparent literal meaning wording. I don't see any difference between external = obvious = apparent = literal
like i said, some used Tanzih and some used without Tashbeeh or Tamtheel.

Yes, though i agree with you - i would like to mention that - pass them as they come - al Ma'ana al Dhahir - Tafweedh are all different..
-----------------

Imam Dhahabi is also Shaykh al-Islam , we also accept what Hafiz Shaykh al-Islam Imam Shams al-Din Dhahabi said:

from the blog of um abdullah http://umabdullah.wordpress.com/2007...mean-2-things/

Hafidh adh-Dhahabi -rahimahu Allah- said in his book al Uluw:

المتأخرون من أهل النظر قالوا مقالة مولدة ما علمت أحدا سبقهم بها قالوا هذه الصفات تمر كما جاءت ولا تأول مع إعتقاد أن ظاهرها غير مراد فتفرع من هذا أن الظاهر يعني به أمران

أحدهما أنه لا تأويل لها غير دلالة الخطاب كما قال السلف الإستواء معلوم وكما قال سفيان وغيره قراءتها تفسيرها يعني أنها بينة واضحة في اللغة لا يبتغى بها مضائق التأويل والتحريفو هذا هو مذهب السلف مع إتفاقهم أيضا أنها لا تشبه صفات البشر بوجه إذ الباري لا مثل له لا في ذاته ولا في صفاته

الثاني أن ظاهرها هو الذي يتشكل في الخيال من الصفة كما يتشكل في الذهن من وصف البشر فهذا غير مرادفإن الله تعالى فرد صمد ليس له نظير وإن تعددت صفاته فإنها حق

“The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the apparent meaning is not intended. ’ This follows that the apparent meaning (dhahir) could mean two things: First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text, as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes. Second; that the apparent meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness”

——

He (Hafidh adh-Dhahabi) also said in his book “Siyar A’lam an Nubala’ “(19\449)

قلت: قد صار الظاهر اليوم ظاهرين: أحدهما حق، والثاني باطل، فالحق أن يقول: إنه سميع بصير، مريد متكلم، حي عليم، كل شئ هالك إلا وجهه، خلق آدم بيده، وكلم موسى تكليما، واتخذ إبراهيم خليلا، وأمثال ذلك، فنمره على ما جاء، ونفهم منه دلالة الخطاب كما يليق به تعالى، ولا نقول: له تأويل يخالف ذلك.والظاهر الآخر وهو الباطل، والضلال: أن تعتقد قياس الغائب على الشاهد، وتمثل البارئ بخلقه، تعالى الله عن ذلك، بل صفاته كذاته، فلا عدل له، ولا ضد له، ولا نظير له، ولا مثل له، ولا شبيه له، وليس كمثله شئ، لا في ذاته، ولا في صفاته، وهذا أمر يستوي فيه الفقيه والعامي، والله أعلم.

I said: Today, the dhahir meaning has become 2 dhahir (meanings):
One is haqq (Truth), and the other is batil (falsehood).
The haqq (truth) is for one to say: He (Allah) is all hearing, all seeing, wills, speaks, alive, all knowing, everything perishes except His wajh, created Adam with His two hands, and spoke to Musa, and took Ibrahim as a khalil, and similar to that. So we pass it on like it came, and we understand from it the meaning of the text that is befitting of Allah Ta’ala, and we do not say: it has an interpretation (ta’wil) that contradicts that.

And the other dhahir, which is falsehood and deviance: is to compare the abscent to the present, and to liken Allah (al Bare’) to His creation, exalted be Allah from that; but His attributes are like His essence, there is no equal, no opposite, no like, no similar to Him, and there is nothing like Him, not in His essence, and not in His attributes; and this matter, the faqih and the laymen are equal in, and Allah knows best.

http://www.****************/vb/showthread.php?t=94815 هل الذهبي مفوض؟؟

As i said - Dhaahiruha doesn't mean it's literal / apparent meaning - it would mean text, because this would contradict pass them as they come, as infact Imam Dhahhabi clearly states later in you quote from his Siyar:

فنمره على ما جاء، ونفهم منه دلالة الخطاب كما يليق به تعالى

Imam al-Dhahabi also says:

فقولنا في ذلك وبابه: الإقرار، والإمرار، وتفويض معناه إلى قائله الصادق المعصوم

"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…"

Exactly in confirmity with what i said.

[abul_hussain]

Mullah Ali Qari al-Hanafi al-Maturidi on Dhahir in Mirqat
Shamela edition 2778/7 & 2779/7
download http://shamela.ws/index.php/author/421
الكتاب: مرقاة المفاتيح شرح مشكاة المصابيح
المؤلف: علي بن (سلطان) محمد، أبو الحسن نور الدين الملا الهروي القاري (المتوفى: 1014هـ)
الناشر: دار الفكر، بيروت - لبنان
الطبعة: الأولى، 1422هـ - 2002م
عدد الأجزاء: 9
[ترقيم الكتاب موافق للمطبوع]

أَقُولُ: صَانَهُمَا اللَّهُ عَنْ هَذِهِ السِّمَةِ الشَّنِيعَةِ وَالنِّسْبَةِ الْفَظِيعَةِ، وَمَنْ طَالَعَ شَرْحَ مَنَازِلِ السَّائِرِينَ لِنَدِيمٍ الْبَارِيِّ الشَّيْخُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ الْحَنْبَلِيُّ - قَدَّسَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى سِرَّهُ الْجَلِيَّ - وَهُوَ شَيْخُ الْإِسْلَامِ عِنْدَ الصُّوفِيَّةِ حَالَ الْإِطْلَاقِ بِالِاتِّفَاقِ، تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ أَنَّهُمَا كَانَا مِنْ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ وَالْجَمَاعَةِ، بَلْ وَمِنْ أَوْلِيَاءِ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ، وَمِمَّا ذُكِرَ فِي الشَّرْحِ الْمَذْكُورِ مَا نَصُّهُ عَلَى وَفْقِ الْمَسْطُورِ هُوَ قَوْلُهُ عَلَى بَعْضِ صُبَاةِ الْمَنَازِلِ، وَهَذَا الْكَلَامُ مِنْ شَيْخِ الْإِسْلَامِ يُبَيِّنُ مَرْتَبَتَهُ مِنَ السُّنَّةِ، وَمِقْدَارَهُ فِي الْعِلْمِ، وَأَنَّهُ بَرِيءٌ مِمَّا رَمَاهُ أَعْدَاؤُهُ الْجَهْمِيَّةُ مِنَ التَّشْبِيهِ وَالتَّمْثِيلِ عَلَى عَادَاتِهِمْ فِي رَمْيِ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ وَالسُّنَّةِ بِذَلِكَ، كَرَمْيِ الرَّافِضَةِ لَهُمْ بِأَنَّهُمْ نَوَاصِبُ، وَالنَّوَاصِبِ بِأَنَّهُمْ رَوَافِضُ، وَالْمُعْتَزِلَةِ بِأَنَّهُمْ نَوَائِبُ حَشْوِيَّةٌ، وَذَلِكَ مِيرَاثٌ مِنْ أَعْدَاءِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - فِي رَمْيِهِ وَرَمْيِ أَصْحَابِهِ، بِأَنَّهُمْ صُرَاةٌ قَدِ ابْتَدَعُوا دِينًا مُحْدَثًا، وَهَذَا مِيرَاثٌ لِأَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ وَالْمَيْمَنَةِ مِنْ نَبِيِّهِمْ بِتَلْقِيبِ أَهْلِ الْبَاطِلِ لَهُمْ بِالْأَلْقَابِ الْمَذْمُومَةِ، وَقَدَّسَ اللَّهُ رُوحَ الشَّافِعِيِّ حَيْثُ يَقُولُ، وَقَدْ نُسِبَ إِلَيْهِ الرَّفْضُ:
إِنْ كَانَ رَفْضًا حُبُّ آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ ... فَلْيَشْهَدِ الثَّقَلَانِ أَنِّي رَافِضِيٌّ
وَرَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْ شَيْخِنَا أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ تَيْمِيَةَ حَيْثُ يَقُولُ:
إِنْ كَانَ نَصْبًا حُبُّ صَحْبِ مُحَمَّدٍ ... فَلْيَشْهَدِ الثِّقْلَانِ أَنِّي نَاصِبِيُّ

وَعَفَا اللَّهُ عَنِ الثَّالِثِ حَيْثُ يَقُولُ:
فَإِنْ كَانَ تَجْسِيمًا ثُبُوتُ صِفَاتِهِ ... وَتَنْزِيهُهَا عَنْ كُلِّ تَأْوِيلٍ مُفْتَرٍ
فَإِنِّي بِحَمْدِ اللَّهِ رَبِّي مُجَسِّمٌ ... هَلُمُّوا شُهُودًا وَامْلَئُوا كُلَّ مَحْضَرِ

ثُمَّ بُيِّنَ فِي الشَّرْحِ الْمَذْكُورِ مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى بَرَاءَتِهِ مِنَ التَّشْنِيعِ الْمَسْطُورِ، وَالتَّقْبِيحِ الْمَزْبُورِ، وَهُوَ مَا نَصُّهُ: إِنَّ حِفْظَهُ حُرْمَةُ نُصُوصِ الْأَسْمَاءِ وَالصِّفَاتِ بِإِجْرَاءِ أَخْبَارِهَا عَلَى ظَوَاهِرِهَا، وَهُوَ اعْتَقِادُ مَفْهُومِهَا الْمُتَبَادِرِ إِلَى أَفْهَامِ الْعَامَّةِ، وَلَا نَعْنِي بِالْعَامَّةِ الْجُهَّالَ، بَلْ عَامَّةَ الْأُمَّةِ، كَمَا قَالَ مَالِكٌ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ، وَقَدْ سُئِلَ عَنْ قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: {الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى} [طه: 5] كَيْفَ اسْتَوَى؟ ، فَأَطْرَقَ مَالِكٌ رَأْسَهُ حَتَّى عَلَاهُ الرَّحَضَاءُ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: الِاسْتِوَاءُ مَعْلُومٌ، وَالْكَيْفُ غَيْرُ مَعْقُولٍ، وَالْإِيمَانُ بِهِ وَاجِبٌ، وَالسُّؤَالُ عَنْهُ بِدْعَةٌ.

فَرْقٌ بَيْنَ الْمَعْنَى الْمَعْلُومِ مِنْ هَذِهِ اللَّفْظَةِ، وَبَيْنَ الْكَيْفِ الَّذِي لَا يَعْقِلُهُ الْبَشَرُ، وَهَذَا الْجَوَابُ مِنْ مَالِكٍ - رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ -

شَافٍ عَامٍّ فِي جَمِيعِ مَسَائِلِ الصِّفَاتِ مِنَ السَّمْعِ وَالْبَصَرِ وَالْعِلْمِ وَالْحَيَاةِ وَالْقُدْرَةِ وَالْإِرَادَةِ وَالنُّزُولِ وَالْغَضَبِ وَالرَّحْمَةِ وَالضَّحِكِ، فَمَعَانِيهَا كُلُّهَا مَعْلُومَةٌ، وَأَمَّا كَيْفِيَّتُهَا فَغَيْرُ مَعْقُولَةٍ، إِذْ تَعَقُّلُ الْكَيْفِ فَرْعُ الْعِلْمِ بِكَيْفِيَّةِ الذَّاتِ وَكُنْهِهَا، فَإِذَا كَانَ ذَلِكَ غَيْرَ مَعْلُومٍ، فَكَيْفَ يُعْقَلُ لَهُمْ كَيْفِيَّةُ الصِّفَاتِ؟ وَالْعِصْمَةُ النَّافِعَةُ مِنْ هَذَا الْبَابِ أَنْ يَصِفَ اللَّهَ - بِمَا وَصَفَ بِهِ نَفْسَهُ: وَوَصَفَ بِهِ رَسُولَهُ مِنْ غَيْرِ تَحْرِيرٍ وَلَا تَعْطِيلٍ، وَمِنْ غَيْرِ تَكْيِيفٍ وَلَا تَمْثِيلٍ، بَلْ يُثْبِتُ لَهُ الْأَسْمَاءَ وَالصِّفَاتِ، وَيَنْفِي عَنْهُ مُشَابَهَةَ الْمَخْلُوقَاتِ، فَيَكُونُ إِثْبَاتُكُ مُنَزَّهًا عَنِ التَّشْبِيهِ، وَنَفْيُكَ مُنَزَّهًا عَنِ التَّعْطِيلِ، فَمَنْ نَفَى حَقِيقَةَ الِاسْتِوَاءِ فَهُوَ مُعَطِّلٌ، وَمَنْ شَبَّهَهُ بِاسْتِوَاءِ الْمَخْلُوقَاتِ عَلَى الْمَخْلُوقِ فَهُوَ مُشَبِّهٌ، وَمَنْ قَالَ: هُوَ اسْتِوَاءٌ لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ فَهُوَ الْمُوَحِّدُ الْمُنَزِّهُ اهـ كَلَامَهُ. وَتَبَيَّنَ مَرَامُهُ، وَظَهَرَ أَنَّ مُعْتَقَدَهُ مُوَافِقٌ لِأَهْلِ الْحَقِّ مِنَ السَّلَفِ وَجُمْهُورِ الْخَلَفِ، فَالطَّعْنُ الشَّنِيعُ وَالتَّقْبِيحُ الْفَظِيعُ غَيْرُ مُوَجَّهٍ عَلَيْهِ وَلَا مُتَوَجِّهٍ إِلَيْهِ، فَإِنَّ كَلَامَهُ بِعَيْنِهِ مُطَابِقٌ لِمَا قَالَهُ الْإِمَامُ الْأَعْظَمُ، وَالْمُجْتَهِدُ الْأَقْدَمُ فِي فِقْهِهِ الْأَكْبَرِ مَا نَصُّهُ: " وَلَهُ تَعَالَى يَدٌ وَوَجْهٌ وَنَفْسٌ، فَمَا ذَكَرَ اللَّهُ فِي الْقُرْآنِ مِنْ ذِكْرِ الْوَجْهِ وَالْيَدِ وَالنَّفْسِ فَهُوَ لَهُ صِفَاتٌ بِلَا كَيْفٍ، وَلَا يُقَالُ إِنَّ يَدَهُ قُدْرَتُهُ أَوْ نِعْمَتُهُ ; لِأَنَّ فِيهِ إِبْطَالَ الصِّفَةِ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَهْلِ الْقَدَرِ وَالِاعْتِزَالِ، وَلَكِنَّ يَدَهُ صِفَتُهُ بِلَا كَيْفٍ، وَغَضَبُهُ وَرِضَاهُ صِفَتَانِ مِنْ صِفَاتِهِ بِلَا كَيْفٍ اهـ.
وَحَيْثُ انْتَفَى عَنْهُ اعْتِقَادُ التَّجْسِيمِ، بِالْمَعْنَى الَّذِي ذَكَرَهُ فِي الْحَدِيثِ الْكَرِيمِ لَهُ وَجْهٌ وَجِيهٌ ظَاهِرٌ، وَتَوْجِيهٌ لِأَهْلِ - التَّنْبِيهِ بَاهِرٌ، سَوَاءٌ رَأَى النَّبِيُّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - رَبَّهُ فِي الْمَنَامِ، أَوْ تَجَلَّى اللَّهُ - سُبْحَانَهُ - عَلَيْهِ بِالتَّجَلِّي الصُّورِيِّ الْمَعْرُوفِ عِنْدَ أَرْبَابِ الْحَالِ وَالْمَقَامِ، وَهُوَ أَنْ يَكُونَ مُذَكِّرًا بِهَيْئَتِهِ، وَمُفَكِّرًا بِرُؤْيَتِهِ الْحَاصِلَةِ مِنْ كَمَالِ تَجْلِيَتِهِ، وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِأَحْوَالِ أَنْبِيَائِهِ أَوْ أَصْفِيَائِهِ الَّذِينَ رَبَّاهُمْ بِحُسْنِ تَرْبِيَتِهِ، وَجَلَّى مَرَائِيَ قُلُوبِهُمْ بِحُسْنِ تَجْلِيَتِهِ، حَتَّى شَهِدُوا مَقَامَ الْحُضُورِ وَالْبَقَاءِ، وَتَخَلَّصُوا عَنْ صِدَاءِ الْحُظُورِ وَالْفَنَاءِ، رَزَقَنَا اللَّهُ أَشْوَاقَهُمْ، وَأَذَاقَنَا أَحْوَالَهُمْ وَأَخْلَاقَهُمْ، وَأَحْيَانًا عَلَى طَرِيقَتِهِمْ، وَأَمَاتَنَا عَلَى مَحَبَّتِهِمْ، وَحَشَرَنَا فِي زُمْرَتِهِمْ.

[al_Zayn]

I dont want to argue which is right and which is wrong, that is not what i wanted to point out.

My point only being is that: Dhaahiruha / It's literal cannot mean 'meaning' unless it clearly categorically states in the text: al-Ma'ana al-Dhahir, rather on it's own it would mean 'text', because this wouldn't contradict what the Salaf categorically stated: Pass them as they come (The Salaf), without Tafseer, without Thinknig about it (Ahlul Hadith quoted by al-Tirmidhi), without delving into the meaning (Ibn Qudamah), without changing it, without doing Ta'weel; Infact some of them clearly stated pass them on their external wordings (al-Khatib) and affirm the words (Ibn Qudamah) - nothing about saying affirm the meaning - infact we are told to abstain from delving into the meaning (Ibn Qudamah).

Like i said it would be contradictory to say pass them over and affirm the literal meaning, because you wouldn't be passing them over - you would be giving it a meaning. Otherwise the Salaf would have said affirm the literal / apparent meaning in clear text.

Moreover Ibn Hajr has clearly differentiated between the lot.

Mullah 'Ali al-Qari's quote has nothing to do with what is being discussed Brother.

What is being discussed is:

[1] whether, pass them as they come means take the literal meaning - which is not the case.

[2] Or, whether, Dhahiruha means apparent meaning or apparent text (though it clear that Dhaahir means what is apparent - which is the Lafdh / text itself and not the meaning).

So you can bring as many text saying Dhahiruha, but i would say it could refer to the Alfaadh (the words itself), unless you bring a text saying: al-Ma'ana al-Dhahir.

Though at the same time - im not against it - if the person does do Tanzih and abstains from Tashbeeh - but to categroically state that this is the belief of the Salaf is a claim without proof.

[Abu Jahid]

This is because Sifaatuhu al-Dhaatiyyah is something that is classed as Esseential Attribute, part of the Essence of Allah - you cannot seperate them from Allah.

The 'uloow of ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى (i.e. ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى being above the heavens and above everything) is also a very important sifa of ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى... so why no one mentions this important sifa?

The Creation needs ear drums to hear, but Allah doesn't, the creation needs retina / pupils etc to see but Allah doesn't So Allah does hears and Sees without a how.

Brother, this is a very important point that you mentioned! Now we all agree that ALLAHسبحانه وتعالى hears and seas, but do we not also hear and see?!? Now all of the creation is in need of organs in order to hear and see and all of the creation is need of a nervous system in order to process the detected data. Without that seeing and hearing is impossible for the creation! Now can we say that ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى can't hear and see, because this would mean that he has organs (hashalillah!!)? NO! Why? Because ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى is the creator and NOT the creation, his sifat are compeltly different from that of the creation!! So ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى hears and sees, but his seeing and hearing is not like that of the creation... ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى doesn't need organs or a nervous system... so ALLAH sees and hears in a manner befitting him and not like the creation, because "laysa kamithlihi shayun"!

Now until here we both agree, but why is it that when someone says ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى has hands (yadain), some people start saying "no Allah has no limbs, ya mujassim!"! Now I ask: where did anyone mention a limb?!? When one answers that ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى is above having limbs, the person will answer "what is a hand other than a limb??". Now here exactly is the problem! A hand is bodily limb when it comes to the creation, but are we talking about the creation? No! We are talkiing about the one who has no beginning and no end, about the one who is free of need of anyone or anyting, about the one upon whom the whole creation is dependant, about AL-AHAD, AL-HAYY, AL-QAYYUM ... subhanahu 'an ma yasifoon! ALLAHs سبحانه وتعالى‎‎ lofty sifat are in no way like that of the creation!! Yes, when it comes to creation hand is bodily limb, but not when is comes to the creator... subhanallah!! Only because the sifa has the same name as a sifa of the creation it does not mean that they're the same!

Now if anyone wants to ask "okay then please define hand regarding to Allah"... now here comes another problem! Why? Because not a single person can answer this question, because this is already going into the kayfiyyah... and it's not allowed to ask the kayfiyyah of the sifat of ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى‎ (i.e. Imam Maliks rahimahullah statement "wal kayfu majhoolun wa sualu 'anhu bid'atun"), because the kayf is majhool (unknown) and ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى‎ is above our power of imagination and we can't grasp ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى‎ with our knowledge!! Subhanallah, are we talking about the creation so that people ask such question??? These kind of questions are batil and it is NOT allowed to ask such questions!!

But what I can't understand why some people have no problem with the sifa of sam' and basar (and they accept the dhahir meaning) and are able to understand that these two sifat are in manner that suits the creator, but when it comes to yadd they start accuse others of being mujassmah!

The people start accusing the atharis of tajseem without even understanding the statements of the Athari/Hanbali/Salafi 'Ulama!! And if anyone wants to tell me "no, we're not attacking the athari aqeedah, we just attack the salafi aqeedah!", then I say this is not true and the threads in the last time have clearly shown that! For example: Someone qouted Imam Ibn Rajab rahimahullah, and then some people started speaking about "neo-salafis"... I ask them: Is Imam Ibn Rajab rahimahullah a "neo-salafi"?? Or the thread with Imam Dhahabis rahimahullah statement... in that thread people also started attacking salafis... now I ask: was Imam Dhahabi rahimahullah a salafi??

The matter is really easy: When ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى‎ says something about his sifat, we believe it as ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى‎ said it and we believe that all his sifat are in a manner befitting him and we believe in "laysa kamithlihi shayun"! So when ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى‎ says that he created Adam 'aleyhi salam with his hands we believe in that... we don't start making all kinds of tawils (in order to make ta'teel of the sifa), because the Sahaba didn't make tawil!

I find it ironic that some people will say the statement "Allah exists without a place" (and it's a correct statement and I also believe in that) 1000 times a day, but not once will they say that ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى‎ is "fi sama" ("above the heavens"), even though the first statement (even though it's a correct statement) is not mentioned once in the Quran al karim while the statement "fi sama" is mentioned several times in the Qruan al karim! If one says to these people that ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى is above the heavens, they start saying things like "ya mujassim, Allah doesn need a place! You're saying that Allah needs a place! OMG!!" I ask: Who spoke aboute place? No one!
ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى‎ said " a amintum man fi sama" ("do you feel save from him who is above the heaven")!
There are several ahadhith, where our Prophet ('alyhi afdhal assalati wa salam) mentioned "man fi sama", for example this saying (which is very well known in the arabic world): "Irham man fi-l-ardh yarhamuka man fi sama" ("Be merciful to those upon earth, then the one who is above the heaven will be merciful to you"). And some Sahaba (like Ibn Abbas radhiallahu 'anhu) have used the following wording: "min fawq sab' samawat" ("from above seven heavens").
And Sahabis like Abdullah ibn Mas'ud radhiallahu 'anhu have explicitly stated that ALLAHسبحانه وتعالى is above the heavens (the hadith is mentioned by Imam Bukhari rahimahullah in his "khalq af'aal al 'ibaad" and it's sahih and no one can deny it).

So I ask: So should we accept the statements of the bashar (humans) and reject the statements of the lord of the worlds and the statements of Said al mursaleen sallalahu 'alayhi salam and the statements of the Sahaba?? Or should we only mention the words of humans, but never ever mention the word of ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى regarding this matter?? ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى is fi sama and this is the belief of the Sahaba!!

Interestingly this is what the muftisays website says:

Q: Assalamu Alaikum,
Please clarify where is Allah.I hear many different answers.Some scholars say Allah is above seven heavens while other say that He is everywhere.What is the correct opinion?.Also please see below a reply from a scholar who says that Allah is above seven heavens, above the Throne.

A: It is the belief of ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama'a to which the Ahnaf and all the rightly guided Muslims belong that Allah سبحانه و تعالي is in fact above the skies and not everywhere. However, in what manner Allah Ta'ala is present there is unknown.

It is not the premise of the lay man or woman to indulge in matters regarding the nature of Allah سبحانه و تعالي and engage in discussions and debates. Such matters should be left to specialist qualified ulamaa.

--------------------------------------
Mufti Saifur Rahman Sahib
London, UK[/CODE]

Source: http://www.muftisays.com/qa/question...-is-allah.html

In the end the athari aqeedah is very very easy! These statements of Shaykh Riyadh ul Haq are exactly what the atharis believe:

However I have listened to the recordings of shaykh riyadh ul haq's commentary on aqidatul tahawiya and his approach seems to differ with what i had previously learnt at sunnipath. from listening to the recordings the shaykh confirms istiwa, the hand of allah, laughter e.t.c as attributes of Allah in a manner that is most befitting of Allah

(aqidatul tahawiya part 3 19:37) he states "Allah laughs but not in the manner of a human being. Allah see's but not like seeing of a human being" he then goes on to state the same regarding the hand of Allah "no one can say that the hand of Allah is like that of a human being. just because of that similarity (i.e in the name) we do not deny it (i.e the hand). we accept it in a manner most befitting to him"

(part 4 attributes 50:40) the shaykh states "Allah laughs but not like that of a human, Allah descends but not like that of a human" we do not know how it is but in a matter befitting to him he then goes on to say that these attributes do not resemble the creation in anyway.

hence i can conclude that the shaykh seems to make no distinction between attributes such as seeing, hearing and attributes such as laughing, descending, hand e.t.c. "we accept them all as attributes in a manner that is befitting of Allah". the above talks are available from the alkawthar academy website.

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post587001

Ohh and brother al_Zayn you mentioned Imam Ibn Qudamahs rahimahullah statement, but have you also read other statements by him? Ibn Qudamah rahimahullah was surely not a mufawwidh and his statements are proof enough for that! As for the qoute you cited: He means the reality of the meaning by saying "ma'na"!

Imam Ibn Qudamah rahimahullah says the following in his work "dham at-tawil" (nice name ):

ومذهب السلف رحمة الله عليهم : الإيمان بصفات الله تعالى وأسمائه التي وصف بها نفسه في آياته وتنزيله أو على لسان رسوله ، من غير زيادة عليها ، ولا نقص منها ، ولا تجاوز لها ، ولا تفسير ، ولا تأويل لها بما يخالف ظاهرها ، ولا تشبيه بصفات المخلوقين ، ولا سمات المحدثين ، بل أمروها كما جاءت ، وردوا علمها إلى قائلها ، ومعناها إلى المتكلم بها

And one sentence after this qoute he says:

وعلموا أن المتكلم بها صادق لا شك في صدقه فصدقوه ، ولم يعلموا حقيقة معناها فسكتوا عما لم يعلموه

(The work "dham at-tawil" can be found here: http://www.tawhed.ws/pr?i=468)

Imam Ibn Qudamah rahimahullah is the last person I would call a mufawwidh!

[abul_hussain]

We affirm the lafz because Allah and His Raool said it. this doesn't mean take the literal meaning.

brother al_Zayn, are you saying that those words which came in Quran and Hadith numerous times has no meaning to it and you only affirm the lafz because it Allah and his Rasool said. Can you please post any references to this statement.



My only simple question is that,

Why didn't Malik, Awzaee and other Salaf us Salih said that
1. We don't know the meaning
2. Only Allah knows the meaning

rather, Malik said, Istawa is known
All three Asharis Qurtubi, Ibn al-Arabi, Qadi Iyad they said Istawa is known in language
This view is also supported by Mullah Ali Qari al-Hanafi al-Maturidi

Examine the statements of Asharis (the later ones and the early ones like Baqilani, Ibn Furak, Qushayri will be posted later on attributes of Allah )

Al-Qurtubi in his tafsir

وَلَمْ يُنْكِر أَحَد مِنْ السَّلَف الصَّالِح أَنَّهُ اِسْتَوَى عَلَى عَرْشه حَقِيقَة . وَخُصَّ الْعَرْش بِذَلِكَ لِأَنَّهُ أَعْظَم مَخْلُوقَاته , وَإِنَّمَا جَهِلُوا كَيْفِيَّة الِاسْتِوَاء فَإِنَّهُ لَا تُعْلَم حَقِيقَته . قَالَ مَالِك رَحِمَهُ اللَّه : الِاسْتِوَاء مَعْلُوم - يَعْنِي فِي اللُّغَة - وَالْكَيْفَ مَجْهُول , وَالسُّؤَال عَنْ هَذَا بِدْعَة . وَكَذَا قَالَتْ أُمّ سَلَمَة رَضِيَ اللَّه عَنْهَا.

You can clearly see what Qurtubi said: And not a single one of the Righteous Predecessors (as-Salaf us-Salih) denied that He ascended over His Throne, in reality (haqeeqatan). And the Throne has been specified (with al-Istiwaa) because it is the greatest of His creations. And they (the Salaf) [stated their] ignorance of the how (kayfiyyah) of al-istiwaa, for there is no one who knows its reality. Imaam Malik said, may Allaah have mercy upon him, "Al-Istiwaa is known..." - meaning, in the language - "...and how (it is) is unknown, and asking about it is an innovation". And Umm Salamah, may Allaah be pleased with her, said the same. And this much is sufficient (on this issue) and whoever wishes more then he can refer to the relevant places in the books of the Scholars. translation of asharis.com

You can clearly see that Qurtubi is saying that Salaf took Istawa as real (haqeeqa) which is what Khattabi and others said, take Dhahir ( apparent literal meaning ) and negate the tashbeeh and tamtheel.

If Qurtubi were to follow the method which you mentioned, Qurtubi would have said,
1- Only Allah knows the meaning of Istawa. The word is istawa we don't take it haqeeqi or Dhahir
2- The word istawa is a word with no meaning

But this is not the case with Asharis, they have did this with other 7 affirmative attributes.

Also, interesting is to note what Qurtubi said

وقال القرطبي في كتابه الأسنى شرح
" وأظهر هذه الأقوال -وإن كنت لا أقول به ولا أختاره- (!!!!) ما تظاهرت به الآي والأخبار إن الله سبحانه على عرشه كما أخبر في كتابه وعلى لسان نبيه بلا كيف بائن من جميع خلقه هذا جملة مذهب السلف الصالح فيما نقل عنهم الثقات حسب ماتقدم " ا.هـ

ونقله عنه العلامة مرعي الحنبلي وتعجب من اعترافه وعدم أخذه به

وقال القرطبي :
" ثم قال (فلما تجلى ربه للجبل جعله دكا وخر موسى صعقا) وتجلى معناه ظاهر، من قولك: جلوت العروس أي أبرزتها.
وجلوت السيف أبرزته من الصدإ، جلاء فيهما.
وتجلى الشي انكشف.
وقيل: تجلى أمره وقدرته، قاله قطرب وغيره " ا.هـ

فانظر إلى إثباته صفة التجلي وهي صفة خبرية ولا يثبتها بمعناها الحقيقي عامة الأشاعرة وممن نص على تأويلها الباقلاني ويزعمون أنه يلزم منها التجسيم
فهنا القرطبي أثبتها بالصريح " وتجلى معناه ظاهر، من قولك: جلوت العروس أي أبرزتها ، وجلوت السيف أبرزته من الصدإ، جلاء فيهما ، وتجلى الشي انكشف "
هل هذا تفويض ؟!!

وفي تفسير القرطبي :
" وقال جمهور المفسرين : الحنان الشفقة والرحمة والمحبة، وهو فعل من أفعال النفس "

2. Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi -- another Ashari Maliki

قال الإمام أبوبكر بن العربي المالكي الأشعري معترفا كما في شرحه على الترمذي المسمى بعارضة الأحوذي :
" وذهب مالك رحمه الله أن كل حديث منها ـ [ أي أحاديث الصفات] ـ معلوم المعنى ولذلك قال للذي سأله : الاستواء معلوم والكيفية مجهولة " ا.هـ
عارضة الأحوذي (3/166)

Ibn Arabi didn't follow the way of tafwid al-mana and he is Ashari rather he followed the way tafweed al-kayfiyya because he said.
Abu Bakr Ibn Al-Arabi Al-Maliki said, when speaking about Hadeeths on Allah's Attributes: «And the madhhab of Malik -Rahimahullah- is that each one of them [the hadiths of Attributes] its meaning is known, that is why he said to the one who asked him: "Al-Istiwa' is known, and the kayfiyyah [its reality, how it is] is unknown."
1- Only Allah knows the meaning of Istawa. The word is istawa we don't take it haqeeqi or Dhahir
2- The word istawa is a word with no meaning

3. Qadi Iyad al-Ashari al-Maliki

قال أبو طالب المكي :
كان مالك -رحمه الله- أبعدَ الناس من مذاهب المتكلِّمين، وأشدَّهم بُغضاً للعراقيين، وألزَمَهم لسنة السالفين من الصحابة والتابعين .
قال سفيان بن عيينة : سأل رجلٌ مالكاً فقال: ? الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى العَرْشِ اسْتَوَى ? كيف استوى يا أبا عبد الله؟، فسكت مالكٌ مليًّا حتى علاه الرحضاء، وما رأينا مالكاً وجد من شيء وجده من مقالته، وجعل الناس ينظرون ما يأمر به، ثمَّ سُريَّ عنه فقال :
" الاستواء منه معلوم، والكيف منه غير معقول، والسؤال عن هذا بدعة، والإيمان به واجب، وإني لأظنُّك ضالاًّ، أخرجوه "

Al-Qurtubi gives 14 meanings for Istawa but al-Qurtubi clearly says the opinion of the salaf is take Istawa on it's reality (haqiqi) and not Istawa is word and don't know the meaning.

Same is said by Mullah Ali Qari in my other post and here also a saying of Mullah Ali Qari al-Hanafi al-Maturidi

وقال الملاَّ علىُّ القاري بعد ذكره قول الإمام مالك:
"الاستواء معلوم والكيف مجهول…" قال :
" اختاره إمامنا الأعظم - أي أبو حنيفة - وكذا كل ما ورد من الآيات والأحاديث المتشابهات من ذكر اليد والعين والوجه ونحوها من الصفات. فمعاني الصفات كلها معلومة وأما كيفيتها فغير معقولة؛ إذْ تَعقُّل الكيف فرع العلم لكيفية الذات وكنهها. فإذا كان ذلك غير معلوم؛ فكيف يعقل لهم كيفية الصفات " ا.هـ

تأمل أخي الكريم كلامه : المعاني معلومة وأما كيفيتها فغير معقولة

1. Issue of Ibn Qudama,
I am aware of http://khadimululema.wordpress.com/2...li-a-mufawwid/ where brother zubair tries to give his explanation.

[QUOTE=al_Zayn;586965]
In Lum'ah al-I'tiqad by Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi, he states:

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 ‏.‏

your translation:
"Whatever of [these reports that we find] difficult [to comprehend] it is required to affirm its wordingand to forsake delving into its meaning. We [rather] entrust knowledge of its reality to He who has spoken it"

This has been tackled by Salafis and I find it that Ibn Qudama meant is Kayfiyya because in the very same book he says Dhahir

وقوله‏:‏ ‏"‏يضحك الله الى رجلين قتل أحدهما الآخر ثم يدخلان الجنة‏.‏‏"‏
فهذا وما أشبهه مما صح سنده وعدلت رواته نؤمن به ولا نرده ولا نجحده ولا نتأوله بتأويل يخالف ظاهره ولا نشبهه بصفات المخلوقين ولا بسمات المحدثين ونعلم أن الله سبحانه وتعالى لا شبيه له ولا نظير ‏(‏ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير‏)‏ الشورى 11 وكل ما تخيل في الذهن أو خطر بالبال فإن الله تعالى بخلافه‏.‏

The response by salafis

Asalamu alaykum

I would like to thank brother Abu Zubayr who has located the quotes whihc clearly show that Imam Ibn Qudamah was not a muffawid ie he did not practise tafweedh-al mana at all.

1) Ibn Qudama says in Lum’at al-I’tiqad: ‘From the verses that have come in relation to Allah’s attributes is the saying of Allah, ‘the Face of your Lord…’, and His saying, ‘Rather His two Hands are outstretched’. He then mentions a number of verses affirming a self for Allah, His Coming, His Pleasure, His Love, His Anger and Dislike. He then mentions the Hadeeth about Allah’s descent every night, His Amazement, and His Laugh, and considering it all from His Attributes. He then says:

فهذا وما أشبهه مما صح سنده وعدلت رواته نؤمن به ولا نرده ولا نجحده ولا نتأوله بتأويل يخالف ظاهره

‘These texts and the like, the chain of which has been authenticated, and the narrators of which are upright, we believe in them, and do not reject them nor deny them, nor do we give them a ta’wil which opposes their dhahir.'

From this we deduce, a) If he had negated the dhahir of the texts, he would not have affirmed the Face and Hands of Allah as His Attributes, and B) his objection to any ta’wil which opposes the dhahir of the texts clearly shows that he does not negate the dhahir, rather he affirms it, and therefore, he is not a mufawwidh.

2) He then quotes various textual proofs from the Quran and the Sunnah about Allah being above the heavens and clearly makes ithbat of the dhahir implications of such texts and believes that Allah is literally above the heavens. If he was a mufawwidh, he would have sufficed at simply narrating the texts as they are, without affirming the dhahir, which he did. In fact, he wrote a whole book called al-'Uluw, dedicated to affirming the dhahir of the texts pertaining to Allah’s literal highness over the creation, and thus he says in its introduction:

اما بعد فإن الله تعالى وصف نفسه بالعلو في السماء ووصفه بذلك رسوله محمد خاتم الانبياء واجمع على ذلك جميع العلماء من الصحابه الاتقياء والأئمة من الفقهاء وتواترت الأخبار بذلك على وجه حصل به اليقين وجمع الله تعالى عليه قلوب المسلمين وجعله مغروزا في طباع الخلق اجمعين فتراهم عند نزول الكرب بهم يلحظون السماء باعينهم ويرفعون نحوها للدعاء ايديهم وينتظرون مجئ الفرج من ربهم وينطقون بذلك بألسنتهم لا ينكر ذلك الا مبتدع غال في بدعته

‘As for what follows, then surely Allah Ta’ala has described Himself with being Elevated in the Heavens, and similarly He has be described by His Messenger Muhammad, the last of the prophets; something upon which all of the scholars from the pious companions held a consensus, as did the Imams from the jurists. The reports concerning that became so numerous, that a level of certainty was achieved. Allah Ta’ala united the hearts of the Muslims on this issue, and made it a part of the natural instincts of Allah the creation, and therefore, you notice them when some calamity befalls them that they look with their eyes to the sky, and raise their hands towards it, waiting for alleviation of calamity from their Lord, while their utter [this belief] with their tongue. No one denies this except a heretic, fanatic in his heresy…’

This clearly shows that Ibn Qudama certainly affirmed the dhahir of the texts pertaining to Allah’s elevation over His creation, and therefore, he was not a mufawwidh.

3) He says about Allah’s speech and affirms that Allah speaks with a sound, a further proof that he affirmed the dhahir of the texts, which confirm that Allah Speaks with a sound. In fact, in his violent rebuttal of Ash’aris in his time, he calls them heretics for saying Allah speaks without sound and letters.

4) He then has a whole section about the Quran being the Speech of Allah, consisting of letters, words, ayat, surahs, in the Arabic language, a belief that a mufawwidh would never hold.

5) In his work Dham al-Ta’wil (Censure of Ta’wil), Ibn Qudama states:

ومذهب السلف رحمة الله عليهم الإيمان بصفات الله تعالى وأسمائه التي وصف بها نفسه في آياته وتنزيله أو على لسان رسوله من غير زيادة عليها ولا نقص منها ولا تجاوز لها ولا تفسير ولا تأويل لها بما يخالف ظاهرها

‘The Madhab of the Salaf is to have Iman in the Attributes of Allah Ta’ala and His Names, with which He described Himself… without giving explanation, or a ta’wil that opposes its dhahir.’

It clearly implies that Ibn Qudama affirms the dhahir, due to which he opposes any ta’wil that contradicts the dhahir. For if he was a mufawwidh, he would have negated any type of ta’wil, irrespective of whether or not it opposes the dhahir.

6) Ibn Qudama then explains exactly what the Salaf meant when they negated the ‘meaning’:

وعلموا أن المتكلم بها صادق لا شك في صدقه فصدقوه ولم يعلموا حقيقة معناها فسكتوا عما لم يعلموه

‘[The Salaf] knew that the one who conveyed to us [the information about Allah’s Attributes] is truthful, with no doubt in his truthfulness. Hence, they believed him, without knowing the reality of the meaning, and remained silent over that which they did not know.’

Hence, Ibn Qudama declares that the Salaf made tafwidh of the reality of the meaning, and not the dhahir itself, and therefore, he was not a mufawwidh.

7) In the same book he quotes the statement al-Hafidh Abu Bakr al-Tayyib in his support, without showing any discontent or disagreement:

أما الكلام في الصفات فإن ما روي منها في السنن الصحاح مذهب السلف رضي الله عنهم إثباتها وإجراؤها على ظاهرها

‘As for the subject of Allah’s Attributes, then whatever has been narrated in the authentic collections of Sunan, the Madhab of the Salaf is to affirm them and accept the dhahir of it.’

This further proves that Ibn Qudama affirmed the dhahir, and therefore, was not a mufawwidh.

8) He also comments on Imam Malik’s statement on Istiwa, that ‘Istiwa is not unknown’, saying:

وقولهم الاستواء غير مجهول أي غير مجهول الوجود لأن الله تعالى أخبر به وخبره صدق يقينا لا يجوز الشك فيه ولا الإرتياب فيه فكان غير مجهول لحصول العلم به وقد روي في بعض الألفاظ الاستواء معلوم

Their statement: ‘al-Istiwa is not unknown’, meaning, its existence is not unknown, because Allah Ta’ala informed about it, and His information is certainly the truth, and it is not permissible to doubt it, nor to waver therein, and hence, it [the rising] was not unknown, for the knowledge thereof has been achieved. It has also been narrated in some of the wordings: ‘The Rising is known’.

The mufawwidha explain this statement of Malik saying: the fact that al-Istiwa is mentioned in the verse is known, but what it actually means is not. While Ibn Qudama affirms more than the wording, for he affirms that The Rising actually took place, and therefore he was not a mufawwidh.

9) Ibn Qudama says in Dham al-Ta’wil:

فإن قيل فقد تأولتم آيات وأخبارا فقلتم في قوله تعالى ( وهو معكم أين ما كنتم ) أي بالعلم ونحو هذا من الآيات والأخبار فيلزمكم ما لزمنا
قلنا نحن لم نتأول شيئا وحمل هذه اللفظات على هذه المعاني ليس بتأويل لأن التأويل صرف اللفظ عن ظاهره وهذه المعاني هي الظاهر من هذه الألفاظ بدليل أنه المتبادر إلى الأفهام منها وظاهر اللفظ هو ما يسبق إلى الفهم منه حقيقة كان أو مجازا

‘If it is said: ‘You made ta’wil of verses and reports, for instance, you said with respect to Allah’s statement: ‘He is with you wherever you are’, meaning: with His knowledge, and the like of these verses and reports, and therefore, your arguments are as much applicable to you as us.We say: We did not make ta’wil of anything, for to hold such texts in these meanings is not at all ta’wil, because ta’wil is to change the meaning of a word from its dhahir, and what we say here is the dhahir of the wording, that is, what comes first to the mind from that text, irrespective of whether it is haqiqa or majaz.’

Hence, Ibn Qudama explicitly states that he believes in the dhahir of these texts, and therefore he is not a mufawwidh.

10) He says in his rebuttal of Ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali, Tahrim al-Nadhar fi Kutub al-Kalam:

‘There is no need for us to have knowledge of what Allah meant with His Attributes. For no action is required of us based on that [the meaning of His Attributes], nor is there any legal responsibility (taklif) attached to it, except to have Iman therein. It is possible to have Iman therein, without knowing the meaning, for Iman in that which is unknown is correct. For Allah Ta’ala ordered us to believe in His angels, His books, His messengers, and what He revealed to them, even if we do not know of the aforementioned except names.’

Therefore, Ibn Qudama likens our belief in the verses about Attributes of Allah, like our belief in Angels, Books etc. Hence, just as we affirm the existence of Angels, literally, by accepting the dhahir of the texts, we also accept the verses and narrations about Allah’s Attributes, literally, acknowledging the dhahir of the text. This also proves beyond doubt that Ibn Qudama was not a mufawwidh.

11) In the same book, Ibn Qudama presents his argument against Ta’wil saying:

‘The muta’awwil combines between (two errors, a) describing Allah with an Attribute, Allah did not describe Himself with, nor attributed to Himself, (and B) denying the Attribute He attributed to Himself. So if one says: The meaning of Istawa (rose over) is Istawla (took control), then he has described Allah Ta’ala with istila (taking control), while Allah has not described Himself with that; as He has also negated the Attribute of Istiwa (rising over), even though Allah Tabarak wa Ta’ala mentioned it in the Quran in seven different instances.’

If Ibn Qudama negated the dhahir meaning of the text, he would not have condemned the muta’awwila for negating the Attribute Allah which He attributed to Himself, which is the dhahir of the text. For the mufawwidha negate the dhahir, and therefore, do not affirm any Attribute for Allah, whereas Ibn Qudama believes in the dhahir, and therefore, affirms the attribute.

12) In the same book Ibn Qudama says:
I heard some of our (Hanbali) colleagues say: A people said to us: ‘The Hanbalis say, ‘The Most Merciful Rose over the Throne!’ So I said to them: Dear people! For Allah’s sake! You are attributing to the Hanbalis something they are not worthy of! This is the statement of Allah, and you attributed it to the Hanbalis and elevated their status!’

If Ibn Qudama didn’t believe in the dhahir of these texts, he would have said in reply: In fact, we do not believe that Allah Rose over the Throne, we simply affirm the wording. But Ibn Qudama showed no qualms about affirming the dhahir, and that is: Allah literally Rose over the Throne.

13) In the same book Ibn Qudama says about Ibn ‘Aqil:
‘He clarified that if one asks us about the meaning of these words (with respect to sifat), We would say: We do not add more to the wording anything that will give a meaning. Rather, its recitation is in fact its meaning (tafsir), without any particular meaning or tafsir.’

Therefore, Ibn Qudama clearly believes that the texts about sifat have a tafsir, and that is the dhahir of the wording.

14) Ibn Qudama then says: ‘But we do know that these texts generally do have a meaning, known by the one who spoke these texts, and we believe in those meanings. Hence, if one took such stance, how can he be asked about the meaning, when he says: I do not know? How can he be asked of the kayfiyya, when he regards the question to be an innovation’. He then makes a reference to Malik’s statement about Istiwa.

This clearly shows that by the terms, ‘meaning’ and ‘tafsir’, he is referring to the ‘kayfiyya’, and not the tafsir/ma’na which is the recitation itself, i.e. the dhahir.

15) He then speaks about the Speech of Allah, and that He Speaks with a sound; then mentions the Quranic verse about Musa: ‘He was called out (nudiya): Indeed, I am your Lord’, to prove that Allah speaks with a Sound, and further says: ‘The Sound has been explicitly mentioned in the narrations’.

If he was a mufawwidh, he would have affirmed the wording ‘nudiya’ (he was called), without using that to affirm a sound for Allah. However, because he affirms the wording and the dhahir, he deduces from the word nida’, that Allah Speaks with a sound.

If he was a mufawwidh, he would have said that only the wording of ‘sound’ has been mentioned, although we negate the dhahir thereof, and simply do not know what it means. Nor would he have made a big deal out of Ibn ‘Aqil denying that Allah speaks with a Sound. However, Ibn Qudama is a muthbit, and not a mufawwidh, and hence, his fierce attack on Ibn ‘Aqil.

16) As for his book: Hikayat al-Munadhara fil-Qur’an Ma’a Ba’dh Ahl al-Bid’a, his rebuttal of the Ash’aris in the issue of Sound and Letters, then the book in its entirety proves that he is a muthbit and not a mufawwidh.

In light of the above quotes and references, it becomes more than clear that when Ibn Qudama affirms the wording, he affirms the dhahir of it as well, because ‘its recitation is in fact its tafsir’.

An important point to note is that one would only perform tafwidh, in the Ash’ari sense of the word, if he finds the dhahir problematic and contradictory to his kalami principles. For example, the Ash’aris negate any movement from Allah, because movement is an accident that comes into being from nothingness, and any object that allows movement to subsist in itself, then that object must also have a beginning.

If Ibn Qudama subscribed to this view, then it would make sense for him to negate the dhahir. But if he doesn’t subscribe to this view, which clearly is the case because he is not a mutakallim, why then would he find problematic affirming the dhahir of the texts that Allah Rose over the Throne, or that He descends to the lowest heaven, or that He will come on the Day of Judgement?

Another equally important point to note is that when the Salaf said: ‘transmit these narrations as they have been narrated’, they did not at all mean negating the dhahir of those traditions. Rather, ‘transmitting them as they have come’, while negating the dhahir, was a relatively new phenomenon, at least according to al-Dhahabi who says in his book al-‘Uluw: ‘The latter ones from Ahl al-Nadhar (people of Kalam), came up with a newly invented belief. I do not know of anyone who preceded them in that. They said: These Attributes are to be accepted as they are, and not made ta’wil of, while believing that dhahir is not the intent.’

This shows that the Salaf never negated the dhahir of these texts, and that to negate that was something newly introduced. Ibn Qudama, as shown above, was no different to the Salaf in his approach, and to him, the recitation was itself the tafsir, meaning the dhahir.

see here: http://z3.invisionfree.com/sunnipres...?showtopic=324


------------------

[abul_hussain]

I dont want to argue which is right and which is wrong, that is not what i wanted to point out.

My point only being is that: Dhaahiruha / It's literal cannot mean 'meaning' unless it clearly categorically states in the text: al-Ma'ana al-Dhahir, rather on it's own it would mean 'text', because this wouldn't contradict what the Salaf categorically stated: Pass them as they come (The Salaf), without Tafseer, without Thinknig about it (Ahlul Hadith quoted by al-Tirmidhi), without delving into the meaning (Ibn Qudamah), without changing it, without doing Ta'weel; Infact some of them clearly stated pass them on their external wordings (al-Khatib) and affirm the words (Ibn Qudamah) - nothing about saying affirm the meaning - infact we are told to abstain from delving into the meaning (Ibn Qudamah).

I think you are missing the point here because Asharis and many others from Maturidis and Salafis said the meaning of the attributes are known as has been posted already http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post587210
Qurtubi -- Ibn Arabi -- Mullah Ali Qari -- Bayhaqi -- Khattabi -- Ishaq ibn Rahawaih -- and many others have said meaning of the attributes is known but howness (kayfiyyah) is not known.

I like the way you chose the GF Haddad's translation external wording of Dhahir but if you look at GF Haddad's translation of Dhahir when it comes to ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim suddenly that Dhahir turns into Literal and Apparent. This is one of the many injustices just as Mullah Ali Qari said in the quote which i presented against shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. If Khatib al-Baghdadi says "ala Dhahiraha" it becomes external wording but if Ibn Taymiyyah says the same thing it becomes "its literal meaning" (laysa `alâ z.âhirihi) http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/itay_e.html and twist given to the arabic word haqiqat is also literal.

This clear shows the flaws and bias.

I think the quotes of Ibn Qudama and Tirmidhi have been addressed already. in the links i have provided which are in arabic. May be you should address them one by one. Because it doesn't make any sense that the scholars like Dhahabi or Ibn Qudama saying Only Allah know the meaning and at the same in their book saying we know the meaning but only Allah knows the meaning of Kayfiyya.

Like i said it would be contradictory to say pass them over and affirm the literal meaning, because you wouldn't be passing them over - you would be giving it a meaning. Otherwise the Salaf would have said affirm the literal / apparent meaning in clear text.

Brother, contradictory to you ?? Could you post one statement of salaf with sahih isnad that Istawa or any attributes doesn't have any meaning and only Allah knows the meaning ?

ثمَّ أَقُول للأشاعرة قَولَانِ مشهوران فِي إِثْبَات الصِّفَات هَل تمر على ظَاهرهَا مَعَ اعْتِقَاد التَّنْزِيه أَو تؤول

Subki gives the two creeds of Asharis: one which is pass upon it's apparent [meaning of attributes]
تمر = pass
على = upon
ظَاهرهَا = Apparent / literal meanings of attributes

Moreover Ibn Hajr has clearly differentiated between the lot.

he said about mushabiha anthropomorphists, so no one is disputing that.

Mullah 'Ali al-Qari's quote has nothing to do with what is being discussed Brother.

I agree Mullah Ali Qari was defending Ibn Taymiyyah & Ibn Qayyim and saying how Jahmis attributed lies to them etc. etc. this didn't have anything with our discussion but then the discussion of Mullah Ali Qari regarding attributes of Allah. Sorry brother, I didn't translate that into english, i thought you understand and comprehend arabic.

إِنَّ حِفْظَهُ حُرْمَةُ نُصُوصِ الْأَسْمَاءِ وَالصِّفَاتِ بِإِجْرَاءِ أَخْبَارِهَا عَلَى ظَوَاهِرِهَا، وَهُوَ اعْتَقِادُ مَفْهُومِهَا الْمُتَبَادِرِ إِلَى أَفْهَامِ الْعَامَّةِ، وَلَا نَعْنِي بِالْعَامَّةِ الْجُهَّالَ، بَلْ عَامَّةَ الْأُمَّةِ، كَمَا قَالَ مَالِكٌ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ، وَقَدْ سُئِلَ عَنْ قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: {الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى} [طه: 5] كَيْفَ اسْتَوَى؟ ، فَأَطْرَقَ مَالِكٌ رَأْسَهُ حَتَّى عَلَاهُ الرَّحَضَاءُ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: الِاسْتِوَاءُ مَعْلُومٌ، وَالْكَيْفُ غَيْرُ مَعْقُولٍ، وَالْإِيمَانُ بِهِ وَاجِبٌ، وَالسُّؤَالُ عَنْهُ بِدْعَةٌ.

So you can Mullah Ali Qari clearly and using the statement of Imam Malik on Istawa is known.
If Istawa is anything different than what we are discussing on attributes of Allah, then please let us know.
If Istawa is also not what the salaf said "pass as they came" then please let us know.
if Istawa is also not from the mutashabihaat then please let us know.

What is being discussed is:

[1] whether, pass them as they come means take the literal meaning - which is not the case.

which is the case, if you look at the sayings of Asharis like Qurtubi , Ibn arabi, Qadi Iyad and Mullah Ali Qari ..... example of Istawa
Then we have the saying of Khattabi as well and many others...which were posted in the arabic links, sorry i don't have the necessary skills to translate all of them. requires lots of time.

[2] Or, whether, Dhahiruha means apparent meaning or apparent text (though it clear that Dhaahir means what is apparent - which is the Lafdh / text itself and not the meaning).

So it is a word without meaning ? this is something new, i am hearing for the first time. It is similar to the saying of Dhahabi who said “The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the apparent meaning is not intended. ’ This follows that the apparent meaning (dhahir) could mean two things: First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text, as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes. Second; that the apparent meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness”

So you can bring as many text saying Dhahiruha, but i would say it could refer to the Alfaadh (the words itself), unless you bring a text saying: al-Ma'ana al-Dhahir.
Though at the same time - im not against it - if the person does do Tanzih and abstains from Tashbeeh - but to categroically state that this is the belief of the Salaf is a claim without proof.

already did that in case of Khattabi and others but you could say whatever you like, but did any of the scholars like Qurtubi, ibn arabi, dhahabi, abdul ghani maqdisi agree with your concept ?

[abul_hussain]

The 'uloow of ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى (i.e. ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى being above the heavens and above everything) is also a very important sifa of ALLAH سبحانه وتعالى... so why no one mentions this important sifa?

I take that question:
No one mentioned that because some brothers say they don't Know the meaning of what ISTAWA or ULUWW or the 7 affirmative attributes *mean* contradictory to what the Asharis or Imam Malik said about Istawa or Baqillani and others have said. They said, we know the meaning of Istawa but How we don't know. If they know the meaning of Istawa, then it means the word ISTAWA has a meaning. It is a word with MEANING. This is the Salaf us Salih madhhab. This is not my saying but the unanimous agreement of scholars from Asharis Maturidis and Salafis. Many quotes have been provided in arabic and you can check.

What I understand that they are saying that whenever you come across ISTAWA then it is a word with no meaning and only Allah knows the meaning of this word. It is not just Istawa but all the other attributes which Tirmidhi and others said to pass it as it came. and Ibn al-Subki said pass it upon apparent/literal meaning.

So this is something new that there is a group which says that Quran has so many words that no one knows what it means except for Allah ?

then what is the point of having those words in Quran ?

But the madhhab of Salaf is clear just like Imam Malik said Istawa is known and just like Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi said,
[Hafidh Bayhaqi says] Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (d. 386 AH) said: “As for this hadith and whatever resembles it from the hadith of Allah’s attributes, the madhab of the Salaf in regards to them was to believe in them, and pass them on their Literal meaning (DhahirHA) and negate the kayfiyyah (howness) from it.” and he mentioned that story. --- mentioned by Bayhaqi in his book Asma wa Sifat



why is there any need for Kayfiyya in Khattabi's statement it is only external word without any meaning or only if Allah knows the meaning ?

لكلام في الصفات فإن ما رُوِي منها في السنن الصحاح مذهب السلف رضوان الله عليهم إثباتها, وإجراؤها على ظواهرها , ونفي الكيفية والتشبيه عنها

Khateeb says: nd to carry them upon their literal [meanings] and to negate the modality (kayfiyyah) and to negate resemblance (tashbih) for them.

Why do you need to negate the modality or resemblance if
- no one knows the meaning
- external word without any meaning
- if only Allah knows the meaning


Obviously we don't know the meaning of the word, so there should be no reason to put a condition like NEGATE Tashbeeh or resemblance unless you are carrying upon the apparent meaning !

Is it really that hard to understand ?

كُلُّ مَا وَصَفَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى بِهِ نَفْسَهُ فِي كِتَابِهِ، فَتَفْسِيرُهُ قِرَاءَتُهُ سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ:
قال الذهبي (ت. 748 هـ) : (وكما قال سفيان وغيره "قراءتها تفسيرها"، يعني أنها بينة واضحة في اللغة، لا يبتغى بها مضائق التأويل والتحريف. وهذا هو مذهب السلف مع إتفاقهم أيضا أنها لا تُشْبِه صفات البشر بوجه إذ الباري لا مثل له لا في ذاته ولا في صفاته.)

al-Dhahabi said: “And as Sufyan (Ibn `Uyaynah) and others have said “Its recitation is its interpretation”, meaning that it is clear in the language, one is not try to seek for a tawil (i.e. a non-apparent meaning) or a distorted meaning. This is the madhab of the Salaf along with their consensus that the attributes of Allah don’t resemble those of humans, for The Creator has no like in His Self, nor His attributes.”

Again, why does al-Dhahabi say << no resemblance to those of humans >> if it is not apparent / obvious meaning.

It is the apparent/obvious meanings which leads to Tashbeeh/tamtheel , isn't that the reason why the scholars of salaf negating
1- tashbeeh
2- tamtheel
3- bila kayf = without modality
4- pass it as they came without kayf
5- pass it as they came without tashbeeh
6- it's recitation is its interpretation but without tashbeeh

If only Allah knew the meaning of those words, the question of Tashbeeh/tamtheel would have never raised while passing them as they came, since it is a useless word to humans, word with no meaning to humans.

Like Istawa ( which is considered a Divine Act related to Allah's attributes as per Dr. GF Haddad ) would have no meaning. How could you consider something without meaning or something only Allah knows a DIVINE ACT ? Who gave the meaning of Divine Act ? none other than the Asharis just like you have seens the quotes by Qurtubi, Qadi Iyad, Ibn al-Arabi and many others who said they KNOW what ISTAWA MEANS.

So are Asharis the mushabiha now ? because of what Ibn Hajar Asqalani said the Mushabiha who take literal and real meanings ?
yes, Dr. GF Haddad takes the meaning of Istawa to be establishment http://www.livingislam.org/istiwa_e.html !! according to al-Qurtubi Istawa has 14 or more meanings so why did GF Haddad opt for establishment instead of Power or Istiala or other meanings which are preferred by Mutazila or Jahmis ? If GF Haddad were to follow your methodology he would have not known the meaning of Istawa and relegated the meaning of it Allah and he would have said this is what Salaf meant when they said about attributes of Allah : Pass as they come rather we see not only GF Haddad but numerous Asharis and Maturidis have opted for the apparent obvious meaning.



Ibn al-Subki reports the wasiyya of Shaykh al-Islam Abu Uthman al-Sabuni al-Sufi

واستوائه على عَرْشه وكأخبار نُزُوله كل لَيْلَة إِلَى سَمَاء الدُّنْيَا والضحك والنجوى وَوضع الكنف على من يناجيه يَوْم الْقِيَامَة وَغَيرهَا مَسْلَك السّلف الصَّالح وأئمة الدّين من قبُولهَا وروايتها على وَجههَا بعد صِحَة سندها وإيرادها على ظَاهرهَا والتصديق بهَا وَالتَّسْلِيم لَهَا واتقاء اعْتِقَاد التكييف والتشبيه فِيهَا وَاجْتنَاب مَا يُؤَدِّي إِلَى القَوْل بردهَا وَترك قبُولهَا أَو تحريفها بِتَأْوِيل يستنكر وَلم ينزل الله بِهِ سُلْطَانا وَلم يجر بِهِ للصحابة وَالتَّابِعِينَ وَالسَّلَف الصَّالِحين لِسَان
وَينْهى فِي الْجُمْلَة عَن الْخَوْض فِي الْكَلَام والتعمق فِيهِ وَفِي الِاشْتِغَال بِمَا كره السّلف رَحِمهم الله الِاشْتِغَال بِهِ ونهوا وزجروا عَنهُ فَإِن الْجِدَال فِيهِ والتعمق فِي دقائقه والتخبط فِي ظلماته كل ذَلِك يفْسد الْقلب وَيسْقط مِنْهُ هَيْبَة الرب جلّ جَلَاله ويوقع الشّبَه الْكَبِيرَة فِيهِ ويسلب الْبركَة فِي الْحَال وَيهْدِي إِلَى الْبَاطِل والمحال وَالْخُصُومَة فِي الدّين والجدال وَكَثْرَة القيل والقال فِي الرب ذِي الْجلَال الْكَبِير المتعال سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى عَمَّا يَقُول الظَّالِمُونَ علوا كَبِيرا وَالْحَمْد لله على مَا هدَانَا من دينه وَسنة نبيه صلوَات الله وَسَلَامه عَلَيْهِ حمدا كثيرا



وإيرادِها على ظاهرها

is an explicit statement by Abu Uthman Sabuni with the tacit approval of Ibn al-Subki.

Like i said it would be contradictory to say pass them over and affirm the literal meaning, because you wouldn't be passing them over - you would be giving it a meaning. Otherwise the Salaf would have said affirm the literal / apparent meaning in clear text.

Everyone knows who Ibn al-Subki was. The Ashari Imam who is known for defending the Ashari Creed.
Ibn al-Subki :
تمر = pass
على = upon
ظَاهرهَا = Apparent / literal meanings of attributes

ثمَّ أَقُول للأشاعرة قَولَانِ مشهوران فِي إِثْبَات الصِّفَات هَل تمر على ظَاهرهَا مَعَ اعْتِقَاد التَّنْزِيه أَو تؤول
Then I [Ibn al-Subki] say: As for Asharites, then there are two famous sayings [opinions on creed] in affirmation of attributes [of Allah] : is it to passed upon apparent [meaning] of the attributes of Allah while believing transcendence or [.... the other opinion of taweel / negation of attributes by doing figurative interpretation ]


So, can al_Zayn say that Ibn al-Subki is "contradictory to say pass them over and affirm the literal meaning, because you wouldn't be passing them over - you would be giving it a meaning. Otherwise the Salaf would have said affirm the literal / apparent meaning in clear text."

I wonder why ibn al-Subki used the word الظاهر = obvious / literal / apparent and then put the condition of tanzeeh, if ibn al-Subki believed that no one knows the meaning of attributes of Allah except Allah only, he would have said,
* pass them as they came with consigning the meaning to Allah
* pass them as they came with no meaning only Allah knows
* pass them as they came and the words have no meanings, they are just words with no meanings and only Allah knows


sorry last time, I didn't do the translation for what Imam al-Kashmiri said that is the reason for lack of understanding because speaking on Sifat of Allah is all same, same methodology, so when Salaf us Salih said pass as it came they didn't mean pass the pancakes or tulips but pass the ahadith/verses on attributes of Allah as they came but without Kayf/Tashbeeh/tamtheel ( i understand they put the condition otherwise it is considered tashbeeh if you just pass it as it came ! )

قال في شرحه لسنن الترمذي: «واعلم أن المشابهات مثل نزول الله إلى السماء الدنيا، واستواءه على العرش، فراي السلف فيها الإيمان على ظاهره ما ورد إمهاله على ظاهره بلا تأويل ولا تكييف، ويفوض أمر الكيفية إلى الله تعالى » ثم ذكر كلاما طويلا في أقوال الفرق والمذاهب إلى أن قال: «فحاصل الباب أن نؤمن بالمتشابهات كما وردت بظاهرها ونفوض التفاصيل إلى الله»

If you have any doubts show it to a real scholar who is an expert like Shaykh Riyad al-Haq

Muhadith Anwar Shah Kashmiri explicitly says << Know that ambiguous (mutashabahaat) like Allah's Descend to the skies, Ascending over the throne (istawa) then the opinion of the Salaf in it, believe in it's obvious/apparent/dhahiriH [meaning] and relegate the knowledge of howness/modality to Allah tala.........{after mentioning sayings of various sects , imam anwar shah kashmiri again says}...... we believe in the mutashabihaat as they have been reported with it's apparent/obvious/dhahirHA [meaning] and relegate the details to Allah >> is an explicit tafwid al-kayfiyya.


Dr. GF Haddad on the creed of Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani

Hanbali `Aqida of Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir

Was Abdul Qadir Jilani (rahmatullahi alayhi) of the belief that Allah the exalted was literally in the sky? If so, was this a corrupt belief i.e., in contradistinction of Ahl Sunna wa Jama''? If so, could he have been a ''true'' wali?

As-Salamu `alaykum:

It is a poorly phrased question that ends with such a conditional sentence: "If so, could he have been a 'true' wali." If he were not, then who! Therefore, from the firm assumption that Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani was one of the great major Friends of Allah we can safely deduce that:

[1] either the text in which he is related to say that Allah Most High is "above" (fawq) the heaven and the Throne "with his Essence" (bi-dhatihi) is a corrupt text;

or:

[2] our own understanding of what he actually meant is corrupt.

The latter is probably more correct, since it is related that Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir said "bi-dhatihi" in more than one text and this is the literalist Hanbali stance he inherited from his School.

Hence, we must categorically affirm that he meant it in an orthodox sense far away from anthropomorphism; namely, that Allah Most High is indeed "high above" with his Essence, not in the sense of altitude and location or direction, but in the sense of being exalted high above and beyond the characteristics of creatures.

This is nothing new. It is the correct belief over which no two Muslims would have differed, except that shaytan fanned the flames of misunderstanding and dissension by focussing people on wordings and labels rather than meanings, splitting the ranks of the Muslims and then proceeding further to split the ranks of Ahl al-Sunna.

Hence it is best, as our pious predecessors always cautioned, to stay away from hair-splitting discussions on points of doctrine and what they called "kalam" - theological discourse.

Was-Salam,

gibril
[2006-05-30]


----
what made Dr. GF Haddad say that ? from suddenly external wordings to now apparent/literal meaning or just is it like what he did with Ibn Taymiyya when he said ala Dhahir - GF Haddad would translate it upon literal meaning and if the same is said by Khateeb al-Baghdadi ala Dhahir he would translate it as external wording ?
The reality is that Ibn Taymiyya or Khattabi or those from Salaf who said ala Dhahir , used the same words but Ibn Taymiyya Darimi Ibn Qayyim Ibn Abi Shaybah Talmanki Ibn Abdul Barr are many others are accused of anthropormorphism but when their own Ashari imams like Baqillani says Two EYES and Two hands or Qushayri says that , or Ibn Asakir reports that, then there is no answer.


Really that was a good one, external wording for Khateeb and apparent/literal meaning for Ibn Taymiyya for same arabic word ala Dhahir. I like the way you chose the GF Haddad's translation external wording of Dhahir but if you look at GF Haddad's translation of Dhahir when it comes to ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim suddenly that Dhahir turns into Literal and Apparent. This is one of the many injustices just as Mullah Ali Qari said in the quote which i presented against shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. If Khatib al-Baghdadi says "ala Dhahiraha" it becomes external wording but if Ibn Taymiyyah says the same thing it becomes "its literal meaning" (laysa `alâ z.âhirihi) http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/itay_e.html and twist given to the arabic word haqiqat is also literal.

This clear shows the flaws and bias.

Apparently there is no difference between the creed of Ibn Taymiyya and the Salaf us Salih. If Ibn Taymiyya used the word ala DhahirHa الظاهرها it is rendered as upon the literal ( apparent ) meaning but if Khateeb al-Baghdadi uses the same word it is rendered as external words. This is an attempt to show that the creed of Ibn Taymiyya is different than the creed of Salaf us Salih while Mullah Ali Qari, Badr al-Din Ayni, Mari Karmi, Ibn Hajar Asqalani in the endorsement of radd al-wafir don't seem to agree with such claims. This enmity against Ibn Taymiyyah is nothing but as Muhammad bin Abdul Barr as-Subki said, "by Allah no one hates ibn Taymiyyah except for an ignoramus or the possessor of desires which have diverted him from the truth after he has come to know it."

الْعَلامَة الامام قَاضِي قُضَاة الاسلام بهاء الدّين ابو الْبَقَاء مُحَمَّد بن عبد الْبر بن يحيى السُّبْكِيّ الشَّافِعِي رَحمَه الله حَيْثُ يَقُول لبَعض من ذكر لَهُ الْكَلَام فِي ابْن تَيْمِية فَقَالَ وَالله يَا فلَان مَا يبغض ابْن تَيْمِية إِلَّا جَاهِل أَو صَاحب هوى فالجاهل لَا يدْرِي مَا يَقُول وَصَاحب الْهوى يصده هَوَاهُ عَن الْحق بعد مَعْرفَته بِهِ انْتهى

and the Hadith master of Hanafis Badr al-Din Ayni said "whosoever says ibn Taymiyyah is a kaafir the he is in reality himself a kaafir, and the one who accuses him of heresy is himself a heretic. How is this possible when his works are widely available and there is no hint of deviation or dissension contained therein." in the endorsement of the book radd al-waafir

فمن قال إنه كافر فهو كافر حقيق ومن نسبه إلى الزندقة فهو زنديق وكيف ذاك وقد سارت تصانيفه في الآفاق وليس فيها شيء مما يدل على الزيغ والشقاق ولم يكن بحثه فيما صدر عنه في مسألة الزيارة والطلاق إلا عن اجتهاد سائغ بالاتفاق والمجتهد في الحالتين مأجور ومثاب وليس فيه شيء مما يلام ويعاب لكن حملهم على ذلك حسدهم الظاهر وكيدهم الباهر وكفى للحاسد ذما آخر سورة الفلق في احتراقه بالقلق

The book Radd al-waafir by ibn Nasir al-Din could be downloaded http://shamela.ws/index.php/book/6660 and the taqriz from here http://shamela.ws/index.php/book/6662

It is great burden to carry on the day of judgement if one lies and slanders and twists the words and meaning of scholar to promote his own madhhab. May Allah protect us from tassub and bigotry.

So, what Dr. GF Haddad says that only Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani inherited from the hanbali madhhab the literalist approach is not true. For Ibn Abdul Barr was no Hanbali.

Ibn Abdul Barr (d. 463 AH) -- the great Maliki Hadith Master -- who was called the Bukhari of the west needs no introduction. Ibn al-Subki says that Ibn Abdul Barr was Ashari. So, let us read the creed of Ibn Abd al-Barr who said: "Ahlus-Sunnah are agreed in affirming all the Sifaat (Attributes) which are related in the Qur‘aan and the Sunnah, having eemaan (faith) in them and understanding them ’alal-haqeeqah (in a real sense), not ’alal-majaaz (metaphorically). How they are is not to be asked. However, the Jahmiyyah, the Mu’tazilah and the Khawaarij all deny them and do not carry them ’alal-haqeeqah; claiming that whosoever affirms them has made tashbeeh (resemblance) and they claim that whosoever recites them (as they are) is a mushabbih (a person doing tashbeeh)."

: "فلا يصفه ذوو العقول إلا بخبر، ولا خبر في صفات الله إلا ما وصف نفسه به في كتابه أو على لسان رسوله -صلى الله عليه وسلم-؛ فلا نتعدى ذلك إلى تشبيه أو قياس أو تمثيل أو تنظير؛ فإنه ليس كمثله شيء وهو السميع البصير، وأهل السنة مجمعون على الإقرار بالصفات الواردة كلها في القرآن والسنة والإيمان بها، وحملها على الحقيقة لا على المجاز، إلا أنهم لا يُكيفون شيئًا من ذلك ولا يحدون فيه صفة محصورة، وأما أهل البدع والجهمية والمعتزلة كلها والخوارج فكلهم ينكرها ولا يحمل شيئًا منها على الحقيقة، ويزعمون أن من أقرّ بها مُشبه، وهم عند مَن أثبتها نافون للمعبود، والحق فيما قاله القائلون بما نطق به كتاب الله وسنة رسوله، وهم أئمة الجماعة. والحمد لله" التمهيد (7/145).

Ibn Abdul Barr al-Maliki said:
«As for what he said to the slave girl in the hadith: ”where is Allah?“, then upon this is the jama`ah of Ahl as-Sunnah, who are ahl al-Hadeeth, and its narrators, who have a very high understanding of it, and the rest of its transmitters, they all say what Allah, exalted is He, said in His book {The Most Beneficent istawâ over the Throne} [20:5], and that Allah, 'aza wa jal, is above the heavens, and that His Knowledge is everywhere; this is what is apparent (dhahir) from the Quran in Allah's saying {Do you feel secure that He, who is over the heaven, will not cause the earth to sink with you, and then it should quake} [67:16] and His saying -'azz wa jal- {To Him ascend (all) the goodly words and the righteous deeds exalt it} [35:10], And His saying {The angels and the Ruh ascend to him} [70:4].» ( “Al-Istidhkar” by Ibn Abdul-Barr (7/337)

قال ابن عبد البر المالكي (463 هـ) : (وأما قوله في هذا الحديث للجارية: ”أين الله؟“ فعلى ذلك جماعة أهل السنة وهم أهل الحديث ورواته المتفقهون فيه وسائر نقلته كلهم يقول ما قال الله تعالى في كتابه: {الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَى} [طه : 5] وأن الله عز وجل في السماء وعلمه في كل مكان وهو ظاهر القرآن في قوله عز وجل: {أَأَمِنْتُمْ مَنْ فِي السَّمَاءِ أَنْ يَخْسِفَ بِكُمُ الْأَرْضَ فَإِذَا هِيَ تَمُورُ} [الملك : 16] وبقوله عز وجل: {إِلَيْهِ يَصْعَدُ الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ وَالْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ يَرْفَعُهُ} [فاطر : 10] وقوله: {تَعْرُجُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّوحُ إِلَيْهِ} [المعارج : 4] (32) وانظر أقوالاً غيرها لهذا الإمام في الجزء الثاني من المقال.

More on Ibn Abdul Barr http://www.mltzm.com/vb/showthread.php?t=27397

Has anyone from the Ahl al-Hadeeth ( not from ahl al kalaam ) criticized Ibn Abdul Barr -- any of his contemporaries or the scholars right after him against all the lavish praises by the scholars of sunnah.

[abul_hussain]

Using the doctrine to Mushabihha to apply to Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah,

I am still surprised how brother al_zayn and Suleimanibnsalim using the saying of Ibn Hajar Asqalani where ibn Hajar says

فَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ حَمَلَهُ عَلَى ظَاهِرِهِ وَحَقِيقَتِهِ ، وَهُمُ الْمُشَبِّهَةُ ، تَعَالَى اللَّهُ عَنْ قَوْلِهِمْ .

"Amongst them who took the external words (ظَاهِرِهِ as per gf haddad's translation of khateeb epistle) and it's reality and they are the Mushabihha."

Please note that ibn hajar didn't put the condition like without Tashbeeh or Tamtheel or Bila Kayf. If Ibn Hajar would have said that that madhhab of mushabiha is to take the literal or apparent meanings and negate the tashbeeh , then you would have made a case but it is no case here

same with suleimanibnsalim who translated the saying of Ibn al-Subki on mushabiha and tried to apply on sunnis.

"إنما المصيبة الكبرى والداهية الدهياء الإمرار على الظاهر والاعتقاد أنه المراد وأنه لا يستحيل على الباري فذلك قول المجسمة عباد الوثن الذين في قلوبهم زيغ يحملهم الزيغ على اتباع المتشابه ابتغاء الفتنة عليهم لعائن الله تترى واحدة بعد أخرى ما أجرأهم على الكذب وأقل فهمهم للحقائق"

"Indeed, the greatest calamity and disaster is passing it on upon it's dhahir while beliving that this is meaning and that this is not impossible for al-Bari. This is the position of the mujassimah, the worshipers of idols . . ."

So, how come ibn al-Subki reports the wasiyya of shaykh al-Islam abu uthman sabuni which is if applied what is said by Ibn Hajar Asqalani or Ibn al-Subki would make Abu Uthman Sabuni one of the anthropomorphists. Or if applied on Ibn Abdul Barr would render him mushabiha with dozen more scholars....... We say the quote of Ibn Hajar or Ibn al-Subki is about Mushabiha who take the apparent literal meanings without tashbeeh/tamtheel.. Where as Ahl sunnah wal Jamaah take the apparent meanings while negating the tashbeeh/tamtheel and quotes were provided to you.

So, we say, do we apply the same standard like those who deny Istawa or do taweel of Istawa should they be declared Mutazila and Jahmis ?

The Mutazili Position on Istawa
The Imam of Mutazili Abdul Jabbar says about Istawa that it means "isteela (conquering), qahr (dominance), and ghalaba (victory)." Sharh Usul al-Khamsa pg.226 of Abdul Jabbar

Now,
Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi (d.429 AH) states ,

"The majority go the way of saying that the meaning of "Istawaa" is establishing dominance (al-qahr) and victory (al ghalaba), that is, the Merciful vanquished the Throne (al-rahmanu ghalaba al-‘arsh) and overcame it (wa qaharahu). " You may look up at this article http://www.islaam.net/main/display_a...iew.php?id=258 and verify the quotes.

this is from Ashari Habashi AICP Site:

قال الحافظ البيهقي ( ت 458هـ ) في كتابه (( الأسماء والصفات )) ما نصه : (( وفيما كتب إلي الأستاذ أبو منصور بن أبي أيوب أن كثيرا من متأخري أصحابنا ذهبوا إلى أن الاستواء هو القهر والغلبة )) اهـ.

But it wasn't him alone, there were many Asharis who said the same like Mutazila such as Izz ibn Abdul Salam, Juwayni, etc etc. You may search the internet for GF Haddad articles on this to confirm.

For refutation see http://umabdullah.wordpress.com/2008...-or-take-over/

As for Ibn Hajar Asqalani did he follow the madhhab which Dhahabi said: “The latter ones from the speculative theologians (ahl al-nadhar) invented a new belief, I do not know of anyone preceding them in that. They said: ‘These attributes are passed on as they have come and not interpreted (la tu’awwal), while believing that the apparent meaning is not intended. ’ This follows that the apparent meaning (dhahir) could mean two things: First; that it has no interpretation (ta’wil) except the meaning of the text, as the Salaf said: ‘The rising (al-Istiwa) is known’, or as Sufyan and others said: ‘Its recitation is in fact its interpretation (tafseer)’ – meaning, it is obvious and clear in the language, such that one should not opt for interpretation (ta’wil) or distortion (tahrif). This is the Madhab of the Salaf, while they all agree that they do not resemble the attributes of human beings in any way. For the Bari has no likeness, neither in His essence, nor in His attributes. Second; that the apparent meaning (dhahir) is what comes to imagination from the attribute, just like an image that is formed in one’s mind of a human attribute. This is certainly not intended, for Allah is single and self-sufficient who has no likeness. Even if He has multiple attributes, they all are true, however, they have no resemblance or likeness”

or was Ibn Hajar Asqalani followed the madhhab of Salaf us Salih of Tafwid al-Kayf ?

This article will explain:
http://umabdullah.wordpress.com/2007...-mana-meaning/
alHafidh Ibn Hajar al Asqalani rahimahu Allah (d. 852 H.) said in his book “Fath al Bari sharh Sahih al Bukhari”:

وَقَالَ غَيْره قَوْل مَنْ قَالَ طَرِيقَة السَّلَف أَسْلَمَ وَطَرِيقَة الْخَلَف أَحْكَم لَيْسَ بِمُسْتَقِيمٍ ؛ لِأَنَّهُ ظَنَّ أَنَّ طَرِيقَة السَّلَف مُجَرَّد الْإِيمَان بِأَلْفَاظِ الْقُرْآن وَالْحَدِيث مِنْ غَيْر فِقْه فِي ذَلِكَ ، وَأَنَّ طَرِيقَة الْخَلَف هِيَ اِسْتِخْرَاج مَعَانِي النُّصُوص الْمَصْرُوفَة عَنْ حَقَائِقهَا بِأَنْوَاعِ الْمَجَازَات ، فَجَمَعَ هَذَا الْقَائِل بَيْن الْجَهْل بِطَرِيقَةِ السَّلَف وَالدَّعْوَى فِي طَرِيقَة الْخَلَف ، وَلَيْسَ الْأَمْر كَمَا ظَنَّ ، بَلْ السَّلَف فِي غَايَة الْمَعْرِفَة بِمَا يَلِيق بِاَللَّهِ تَعَالَى ، وَفِي غَايَة التَّعْظِيم لَهُ وَالْخُضُوع لِأَمْرِهِ وَالتَّسْلِيم لِمُرَادِهِ ، وَلَيْسَ مَنْ سَلَكَ طَرِيق الْخَلَف وَاثِقًا بِأَنَّ الَّذِي يَتَأَوَّلهُ هُوَ الْمُرَاد وَلَا يُمْكِنهُ الْقَطْع بِصِحَّةِ تَأْوِيله،

rough translation:
“..the saying of who said: the way of the Salaf is safer and the way of the Khalaf is wiser is not correct, because he thought that the way of the Salaf is only the belief in the Lafz (words\letters) of the Quran and Hadith without having understanding of it , (and) the way of the Khalaf is to derive the meanings of the texts that are turned away from their haqiqa with different types of majaz (figurative meaning); so the one who said this combined between the ignorance of the way of the Salaf and the claiming of the way of the Khalaf, and it is not like he thought/assumed. The Salaf had utmost knowledge of what befits Allah, and had the utmost glorification, obedience to His commands and submission to what He intended\willed, and the one who took the path of the Khalaf is not sure that his ta’wil is what is intended, and he can’t be positive of the correctness of his tawil.”

(Fath al Bari, Book of Tawhid, 1st chapter, 2nd hadith – in its explanation)